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

, a German writer on philosophical subjects, was born in 1718, at Ammendorff, near Halie in Saxony. He appeared first as an author in 1745, when he published, in German, 1. His “Representation of a Critic,” being his delineation of the character of a perfect critic. In the same year he produced, 2. “Instructions how any one may become a Modern Philosopher,” 8vo. We have a translation in this country, called “The Merry Philosopher, or Thoughts on Jesting,” published in 1764, from the German of Meier, but whether a translation of the last- mentioned work, we know not. It is a very dull performance. Whatever merit might belong to his works on philosophical and critical subjects, they were peculiarly his own, for he was not master of the learned languages. Yet his work on the elements of all the polite arts, was received by his countrymen with no inconsiderable approbation. It is entitled, 3. “Introduction to the elegant arts and sciences;” and was printed at Halle, in 8vo, 1748—1750; and republished, in three parts, in 1754—1759. J. Matthew Gesner, however, in his “Isagoge,” is frequently severe against this, author, and particularly derides his form of Æsthetics, which had been much applauded. Meier died in 1777.

, an ancient Latin writer, was born in the province of Boctica in Spain, and flourished in the first century, in the reign of the emperor Claudius. His three books of “Cosmography, or De situ Orbis,” are written in a concise, perspicuous, and elegant manner; and have been thought worthy of the attention and labours of the ablest critics. Isaac Vossius gave an edition of them in 1658, 4to, with very large and copious notes, in which he takes frequent occasion to criticize “Salmasius’s Commentaries upon Solinus.” James Gronovius published “Mela,” in 1658, 12mo, with shorter notes; in which, however, as if he resented Vossius’s treatment of Sahnasius, he censures his animadversions with some degree of severity. To this edition of Mela, is added, “Julii Honorii oratoris excerptum cosmographioe,” first published from the manuscript; and “Æthici Cosmographia.” Vossius answered the castigations of Gronovius, in an “Appendix to his Annotations,” 1686, 4to; but, dying the same year, left his manes to be insulted by Gronovius, in another edition of Mela immediately published, with illustrations by medals. In this last edition by Gronovius, are added five books, “De geographia,” written by some later author; by Jornandes, as Fabricius conjectures. Perhaps one of the best editions of Pomponius Mela, is that by Reynolds, printed at Exeter in 1711, 4to, illustrated with 27 maps, and which was reprinted at London, 1719 and 1739, and at Eton, 1761 and 1775, 4to. The last edition, collated with many Mss. is that by C. H. Tzschuckius, printed at Leipsic, 1807, 7 vols. 8vo.

There was a Cynic of Gadara, of the name of Meleager, whom some confound with this poet, and others distinguish; it seems very unlikely that this elegant writer was a Cynic. Meleager formed two collections of Greek verses, under the name of Anthologia - t one, it is melancholy to say, was entirely dedicated to that odious passion of the Greeks, which among us it is a shame even to mention. To this infamous collection was prefixed a poem, still extant, in which the youths whose beauty was celebrated, are described as flowers. A poet named Strato, increased this collection, and prefixed to it his own name: but Agathias and Planudes, to their honour, rejected this part altogether, and formed their collections from the second Anthologia of Meleager, which consisted of compositions entirely miscellaneous. On this the present collections of Greek epigrams are founded. The poems of Meleager in Brunck’s edition, amount to 129, the greater part of which are epigrams. They display great elegance of genius, and do as much honour to the collection, as most of those which it contains. Lord Chesterfield’s indiscriminate censure of the Greek epigrams, must be the result of mere ignorance, since many of them are of the highest elegance. He had seen, probably, a few of the worst, and knew nothing of the rest. Of the epigrams of Meleager, many are truly elegant, but those numbered, in Brunck’s Analecta, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 109, 111, 112, and several others, have beauty enough to rescue the whole collection from the unjust censure of the witty, but not learned earl.

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

, son of the above, by his second wife, was born in 1710. Of his early history little is known. He probably received a liberal education, although we do not find that he studied at either university. He was bred to the law, as appears by his being appointed a commissioner of bankrupts in 1756, by sir John Eardley Wilmot, at that time one of the commissioners of the great seal, and an excellent discerner and rewarder of merit. The greater part of Mr. Melmoth’s life, however, was spent in retirement from public business, partly at Shrewsbury, and partly at Bath, where he was no less distinguished for integrity of conduct, than for polite manners and elegant taste. He first appeared as a writer about 1742, in a volume of “Letters” under the name of Fitzosborne, which have been much admired for the elegance of their language, and their just and liberal remarks on various topics, moral and literary. In 174-7 he published “A Translation of the Letters of Pliny,” in 2 vols. 8vo, which was regarded as one of the best versions of a Latin author that had appeared in our language. In 1753, he gave a translation of the “Letters of Cicero to several of his Friends, with Remarks,” in 3 vols. He had previously to this, write ten an answer to Mr. Bryant’s attack, in his Treatise on the Truth of the Christian Religion, on his remarks on Trajan’s Persecution of the Christians in Bithynia, which made a note to his translation of Pliny’s Letters. He was the translator likewise of Cicero’s treatises “De Amicitia” and “De Senectute,” which were published in 1773 and 1777. These he enriched with remarks, literary and philosophical, which added much to their value. In the former he refuted lord Shaftesbury, who had imputed it as a defect to Christianity, that it gave no precepts in favour of friendship, and Soame Jenyns, who had represented that very omission as a proof of its divine origin. The concluding work of Mr. Melmoth was a tribute of filial affection, in the Memoirs of his father, which we have already noticed. After a long life passed in literary pursuits, and the practice of private virtue, Mr. Melmoth died at Bath, March 15, 1799, at the age of eighty-nine. He had been twice married first to the daughter of the celebrated Dr. King, principal of St. Mary’s- hall, Oxford, and secondly to Mrs. Ogle. The author of “The Pursuits of Literature” says, “Mr. Melmoth is a happy example of the mild influence of learning on a cultivated mind; I mean that learning which is declared to be the aliment of youth, and the delight and consolation of declining years. Who would not envy this fortunate old man, his most finished translation and comment on Tully’s Cato? Or rather, who would not rejoice in the refined and mellowed pleasure of so accomplished a gentleman, and so liberal a scholar” Dr. Warton, in a note on Pope’s works, mentions his translation of Pliny as “one of the few that are better than the original.” Birch, in his Life of Tillotson, had made nearly the satae remark, which was the more liberal in Birch, as Melmoth had taken' great liberties with the style of Tillotson. To Mr. Melmoth’s other works we may add a few poetical efforts, one in Dodsley’s Poems (vol. I. p. 216, edit. 1782), entitled “Of active and retired life;” and three in Pearch’s poems (vol. II.) “The Transformation of Lycou and Euphormius;” a Tale,“in p. 149; and Epistle to Sappho.”

, called Melozzo of Foiii, flourished about 1471, and was probably the scholar of Ansovino da Forli, a pupil of Squarcione. The memory of Melozzo is venerated by artists as the inventor of perspective representation and true foreshortening on arched roofs and ceilings, of what the Italians style “di Sotto in Sti;” the most difficult and most rigorous branch of execution. A tolerable progress had been made in perspective after Paolo Uccelio, by means of Piero della Francesca, an eminent geometrician, and some Lombards; but the praise of painting roofs with that charming illusion which we witness, belongs to Melozzo. Scannelli and Orlandi relate, that, to learn the art, he studied the best antiques; and, though“born to affluence, let himself as servant and colour-grinder to the masters of his time. Some make him a scholar of Piero della Francesco: it is at least not improbable that Melozzo knew him and Agostino di Bramantino, when they painted in Rome for Nicolas V. towards 1455. Whatever be the fact, Melozzo painted on the vault of the largest chapel in Ss. Apostoli, an Ascension, in which, says Vasari, the figure of Christ is so well foreshortened, that it seems to pierce the roof. That picture was painted for cardinal Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV. about 1472 and at the rebuilding of that chapel, was cut out and placed in the palace of the Quirinal, 1711, where it is still seen with this epigraphe” Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.“Some heads of the apostles were likewise sawed out and placed in the Vatican. His taste on the whole resembles that of Mantegna and the Padouati schools more than any other. The heads are well formed, well coloured, well turned, and almost always foreshortened; the lights duly toned and opportunely relieved by shadows which give ambience and almost motion to his figures on that space; there is grandeur and dignity in the principal figure, and the lightsome drapery that surrounds him; with finish of pencil, diligence, and grace in every part. It is to be lamented, that so uncommon a genius has not met with an exact historian, of whom we might have learned his travels and labours previous to this great work painted for Riario. At Forli, they shew, as his work, the front of an apothecary’s shop, painted in arabesque, of exquisite style, with a half-length figure over the door pounding drugs, very well executed. We are informed by Vasari, that Francesco di Mirozzo da Forli painted before Dosso, in the villa of the dukes of Urbino, called L'lmperiale; we ought probably to read Melozzo, and to correct the word in the text, as one of that writer’s usual negligences, of which Vasari gives another instance in Marco Palmegiani, of Forli, whom he transforms to Parmegiano; a good and almost unknown artist, though many of his works survive, and he himself seems to have taken every precaution not to be forgotten by posterit3 T inscribing most of his altar-pieces and oil-pictures with Marcus pictor Foroliviensis, or, Marcus Palmasanus P. Foroliviensis pinsebat. Seldom he adds the year, as in two belonging to prince Ercolani, 1513 and 1537. In those, and in his works at Forli, we recognise two styles. The first differs little from the common one of Quattrocentist’s, in the extreme simplicity of attitude, in the gilding, in minute attention, and even in anatomy, which extended its researches at that time seldom beyond a S. Sebastian, or a S. Jerome. Of his second style the groups are more artificial, the outline larger, the proportions grander, but the heads perhaps less varied and more mannered. He used to admit into his principal subject others that do not belong to it thus in the crucifix at St. Agostino, in Forli, he placed two or three groups in different spots in one of which is S. Paul visited by S. Anthony in another, S. Augustine convinced, by an angel, of the absurdity of his attempt to fathom the mystery of the Trinity; and in those small figures he is finished and graceful beyond belief. Nor is his landscape or his architecture destitute of charms. His works abound in Romsagna, and are met with even in Venetian galleries: at Vicenza there is, in the palace Vicentini, a Christ of his between Nicodemus and Joseph; an exquisite performance, in which, to speak with Dante,” il morto par morto e vivi i vivi.

His “Memoirs” were accidentally found in the castle of Edinburgh, in 1660, somewhat imperfect, and injured by time and civil confusion. They passed thence into the hands of sir James Melvil of Halhill, the author’s grandson, from whom the editor George Scott received them, and published them in 1683, in folio, under this title, “The Memoirs of sir James Melvil, of Halhill, containing an impartial account of most of the remarkable affairs of state, during the last age, not mentioned by other historians: more particularly relating to the kingdoms of England and Scotland, under the reigns of queen Elizabeth, Mary queen of Scots, and king James: in all which transactions the author was personally and publicly concerned. Now published from the original manuscript.” There is an epistle to the reader, prefixed by the editor, from which we have" made this extract. It is remarkable, that nobody knew how these memoirs came to be deposited in the castle of Edinburgh, or when they were so: and also, that they were preserved almost entire, in a place which could not secure the public records of the kingdom from the rude incursions of civil discord. Notwithstanding some mistakes, owing to the advanced age of the writer^ they are much esteemed, and have been reprinted both in French and English.

We have many testimonies to the admiration in which he was held during his life-time. Pliny informs us that the kings of Egypt and Macedon gave a noble testimony to his fiierit, by sending ambassadors to invite him to their courts, and even fleets to convey him; but that Menander preferred the free enjoyment of his studies to the promised favours of the great. Yet the envy and corruption of his countrymen sometimes denied his merit the justice athome, which it found abroad; for he is said to have won but eight prices, though he wrote at least fourscore, if not, according to some accounts, above an hundred plays. Philemon, aeontemporary and much inferior dramatic poet, by the partiality the judges, often disappointed him of the prize; which made Menander once say to him, “Tell me fairly, Philemon, if you do not blush when the victory is decreed to you against me” The ancient critics have bestowed the highest praises on Menander, as the true pattern of every beauty and every grace of public speaking. Quintilian declares that a careful imitation of Menander only will enable a writer to comply with all the rules in his Institutions. It is in Menander, that he would have his orator search for copiousness of invention, an elegance of expression, and especially for that universal genius, which is able to accommodate itself to persons, things, and affections. Menander’s wonderful talent at expressing nature in every condition, and under every accident of life, gave occasion to that extraordinary question of Aristophanes the grammarian: “O Menander and Nature, which of you copied your pieces from the other’s work” And Ovid has made choice of the same excellency to support the immortality he has given him:

, a writer on the history of the saints, was born at Paris in 1587, and became a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, among whom he was one of the first who applied severely to study. He died Jan. 21, 1644, at the age of fifty-seven. We have by him, 1. “Marty rologium San m ordinis S. Benedicti,” 1629. 2. “Concordia Regularum,” a comparison of the life of St. Benedict, with the rules of his order. 3. “Sacramentarium Sancti Gregorii Magni,” 1642, 4to. 4. “Diatriba deunico Dionysio,” 1643, 8vo. All these works display a taste for research, and a talent for sound criticism. He found the epistle of St. Barnabas, in an ancient-Aanuscript, in the abbey of Corbie.

, in Latin Menckenius, a learned German writer, was born of a good family at Oldenburg, in Westphalia, in 1644. He cultivated his first studies in his native place; and at seventeen went to Bremen, where he applied himself to philosophy. He stayed there one year, and removed to Leipsic, where he was admitted master of arts in 1664; and afterwards visited the other universities, Jena, Wittemberg, Groningen, Franeker, Utrecht, Leyden, and Kiel. Upon his return to Leipsic, he applied himself for some time to divinity and civil law. In 1668 he was chosen professor of morality in that university; and, in 1671, took the degree of licentiate in divinity. He discharged the duties of his professorship with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1707. He was five times rector of the university of Leipsic, and seven times dean of the faculty of philosophy. He published several works; many of his own, and some of other people. The edition of sir John Marsham’s “Canon Chronicus,” at Leipsic, in 4to, and a new edition of “Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth,” were procured by him. But his most considerable work, and what alone is sufficient to perpetuate his name, is the “Acta eruditorum” of Leipsic, of which he was the first author, and in which he was engaged till his death. When he had formed that design, he began a correspondence with the learned men of all nations, in order to inform himself of what passed in the republic of letters. For the same purpose he took a journey to Holland, and thence to England. He afterwards formed a society of several persons of eminent abilities, to assist him in the work, and took all proper measures to render it lasting. The elector of Saxony contributed, by his generosity, to the success of the design. The first volume was published at Leipsic, in 1682, in 4to. Our author continued to publish, with the assistance of colleagues, every year a volume while he lived, with supplements from time to time, and an index once in ten years. His share ends with the thirtieth volume.

, a Jewish philosophical writer, was born at Dessau, in Anhalt, in 1729. After being educated under his father, who was a schoolmaster, he devoted every hour he could spare to literature, and obtained as a scholar a distinguished reputation; but his father ber ing unable to maintain him, he was obliged, in search of labour, or bread, to go on foot, at the age of fourteen, to Berlin, where he lived for some years in indigence, and frequently in want of necessaries. At length he got employment from a rabbi as a transcriber of Mss, who, at the same time that he afforded him the means of subsistence, liberally initiated him into the mysteries of the theology, the jurisprudence, and scholastic philosophy of the Jews. The study of philosophy and general literature became from this time his favourite pursuit, but the fervours of application to learning were by degrees alleviated and animated by the consolations of literary friendship. He formed a strict intimacy with Israel Moses, a Polish Jew, who, without any advantages of education, had become an able, though self-taught, mathematician and naturalist. Hg very readily undertook the office of instructor of Mendelsohn, in subjects of which he was before ignorant; and taught him the Elements of Euclid from his own Hebrew version. The intercourse between these young men was not of long duration, owing to the calumnies propagated against Israel Moses, which occasioned his expulsion from the communion of the orthodox; in consequence of this he became the victim of a gloomy melancholy and despondence, which terminated in a premature death. His loss, which was a grievous affliction to Mendelsohn, was in some measure supplied by Dr. Kisch, a Jewish physician, by whose assistance he was enabled to attain a competent knowledge of the Latin language. In 1748 he became acquainted with another literary Jew, viz. Dr. Solomon Gumperts, by whose encouragement and assistance he attained a general knowledge of the living and modern languages, and particularly the English, by which he was enabled to read the great work of our immortal Locke in his own idiom, which he had before studied through the medium of the Latin language. About the same period he enrolled the celebrated Lessing among his friends, to whom he was likewise indebted for assistance in his literary pursuits. The scholar amply repaid the efforts of his intructor, and soon became his rival and his associate, and after his death the defender of his reputation against Jacobi, a German writer, who had accused Lessing of atheism. Mendelsohn died Jan. 4, 1785, at the age of fifty-seven, highly respected and beloved by a numerous acquaintance, and by persons of very different opinions. When his remains were consigned to the grave, he received those honours from his nation which are commonly paid to their chief rabbies. As an author, the first piece was published in 1755, entitled “Jerusalem,” in which he maintains that the Jews have a revealed law, but not a revealed religion, but that the religion of the Jewish nation is that of nature. His work entitled “Phaedon, a dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul,” in the manner of Plato, gained him much honour: in this hepresents the reader with all the arguments of modern philosophy, stated with great force and perspicuity, and recommended by the charms of elegant writing. From the reputation which he obtained by this masterly performance, he was entitled by various periodical writers the “Jewish Socrates.” It was translated into French in 1773, and into the English, by Charles Cullen, esq. in 1789. Among his other works, which are all creditable to his talents, he wrote “Philosophical Pieces;” “A Commentary on Part of the Old Testament;” “Letters on the Sensation of the Beautiful.”

We are told, by his biographer Fabroni, that being not a little in awe of the satirical talents of that writer, he had cultivated his kindness with no little anxiety; and thus, it may be supposed, obtained this compliment. He was now appointed by the pope, canon of St. Angelo in Piscina; and continued to publish several works, in Latin as well as in Italian as, “Orationes de morum, philosophise, humanarumque literarum studiis, et de Leonis X. P. M. laudtbus.” But his Latin compositions did not so well satisfy the learned as those he produced in his own language; and their criticisms led him to write and publish a tract, “De poesis innocentia, et de literatorum hominum invidia.” This, however, was prior to the present period, as it bears date in 1675. He published now a poetical version of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in Italian, which was so much approved by pope Clement XI. that he ordered it to be distributed to the cardinals in passion-week. Menzini was admitted a member *of the society of Arcadi, under the name of Euganius, under which we have seen him mentioned by the satirist: and being also admitted of the academy Delia Crusca, he was very anxious to have his verses cited in their dictionary, as authority. In this he could not prevail, except after a time for his satires, in which he had revived some classical Italian expressions then growing obsolete. In 1731, however, long after his death, and in the fourth edition of that vocabulary, all his Italian works were admitted, as affording classical citations. Towards the end of life he became dropsical, and died at the age of fifty-eight, in 1704. He left the fortune of a poet, his works only, which he bequeathed to a friend and they were in 1730 1734, published collectively, in 4 vols. 8vo, the contents of which are recited by Fabroni. An edition of his “Art of Poetry” has lately been published by Mr. Mathias, perhaps the most accomplished Italian scholar and critic in this kingdom. His satires were published with Salvini’s notes, in 1759, 8vo, and with those of Rinaldo Maria Bracci, at Naples in 1763, 4to.

, a learned bibliographer and miscellaneous writer, familiarly known in France by the title of the abbe de St. Leger, was born at Lyons, April 1, 1734. He entered when young, into the congregation of St. Genevieve, of which he became librarian, at the time that the learned Pingre, his predecessor in that office, went to observe the transit of Venus. In 1764, when Louis XV. visited this library, he was so much pleased with Mercier’s intelligent manner of displaying its treasures, that he appointed him abbe of St. Leger at Soisson, a preferment which then happened to be vacant Mercier often travelled to Holland and the Netherlands to visit the libraries and learned men of those countries, and was industriously following his various 'literary pursuits, when the revolution interrupted his tranquillity, and reduced him to a state of indigence. This he could have borne; but the many miseries he witnessed around him, and particularly the sight of his friend the abbe Poyer dragged to the scaffold, proved too much for his constitution. He continued to linger on, however, until May 13, 1799, when death relieved him. He was a man of great learning and research, as his works evidently shew, and in his private character, social, communicative, and amiable. His works are, 1. “Lettre sur la Bibliographic de Debure,” 1763, 8vo. 2. “Lettre a M. Capperonier,” on the same subject, which was followed by a third, printed in the “Journal de Trevoux.” 3. “Lettre sur le veritable auteur du Testament Politique du cardinal de Richelieu,” Paris, 1765, 8vo. 4. “Supplement a l‘Histoire de l’imprimerie de Prosper Marchand,” 1765, 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. 1771. 5. “Lettre sur la Pucelle D'Orleans,” 1775. 6. “Dissertation sur Pauteur du livre de PImitation de Jesus-Christ.” 7. “Notice du livre rare, intitule* Pedis Admirandte, par J. d'Artis.” 8. “Notice de la Platopodologie d'Antoine Fiance, medecin de Besangon,” a curious satire by Fiance. 9. “Lettre a un ami, sur la suppression de la Charge de Bibliothecaire du roi en France,” (Paris), 1737, 8vo. 10. “Notice sur les tornbeaux des dues de Bourgogne.” 11. '“Lettres sur differentes editions rares du 15 siecle,” Paris, 1785, 8vo, particularly valuable for Italian books. 12. “Observations surPEssai d'un projet de Catalogue de Bibliotheque.” 13. “Description* d'une giraffe vue a Fano.” 14. “Notice raisonnée des ouvrages de Gaspard Schott, Jesuite,” 1785, 8vo. 15. “Bibliotheque de Romans traduits du Grec.” 1796, 12 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lettre sur le projet de decret concernant les religieux, proposee a PAssemblee Nationale par M. Treilhard,” 1789, 8vo. 17. “Lettre sur un nouveau Dictionnaire Historique portatif en 4 vols. 8vo.” This, wbich appeared in the *' Journal de Trevoux," contains a sharp critique upon the first volumes of Cbaudon’s Dictionary. Mercier bestowed great pains in correcting and improving his copy of this work, which fell in the hands of thcs editors of the last edition of the Diet. Hist. Mercier was frequently employed in the public libraries; and those of Soubise and La Valliere owe much of their treasures to his discoveries of curious books. He was also a frequent writer in the Journal de Trevoux, the Journal des S9avans, the Magazin Encyclopedique, and the Annee Litteraire. He left some curious manuscripts, and manuscript notes and illustrations of many of his books.

Mercuriali was a voluminous writer, as the following catalogue of his works will evince. He was a learned commentator on Hippocrates, and edited a classified collection of his works. Like the learned of his age, however, he was bigotted to the doctrines of the ancients, and fond of hypothetical reasoning, to the disparagement of sound observation; and he strongly imbued his pupils with the same erroneous principles. His first publication was a tract entitled “Nomothesaurus, seu Ratio lactandi Infantes.” His second, the work “De Arte Gymnastica,” before-mentioned. 3. “Variarum Lectionum in Medicinse Scriptoribus et aliis, Libri iv.” Venice, 1571. 4. “De Morbis Cutaneis, et omnibus corporis humani Excrementis,” ib. 1572. 5. “Tractatus de Maculis pestiferis et Hydrophobia,” Basle, 1577. 6. “De Pestilentia in universum, proesertim vero de Veneta et Patavina,” Venice 1577. 7. “Hippocratis Opera Grsece et Latine,” ibid. 1578. 8. “De Morbis Muliebribus Praelectiones,” Basle, 1582. 9. “De Morbis puerorum Tractatus locupletissimi,” Venice, 1583. 10. “De Venenis et Morbis venenosis,” ibid. 1584. 11. “De Decoratione liber,” ib. 1585. 12. “Consultationes et Responsa Medicinalia.” Four volumes were successively published in 1587, 1590, and 1597; and were republished together after his death. 13. “Tractatus de Compositione Medicamentorum, De Morbis oculorum et auriura,” ibid. 1590. 14. “De Hominis Generatione,” 1597. 15. “Commentarii in Hippoc. Coi Prognostica, Prorrhetica,” &c. ibid. 1597. 16. “Medicina Practica, seu, de cognoscendis, discernendis, et curandis omnibus humani corporis affectibus,” Francfort, 1602, folio. All these works have been several times reprinted, and some of them were selected after his death, and printed together, under the title of “Opuscula aurea et selectiora,” Venice, 1644, folio.

, a British writer, who flourished towards the latter end of the fifth century, but of whom little memorial remains, except such as is wholly disfigured by fiction, was reputed to be both an enchanter and a prophet, and to have been begotten by an incubus. For want of more authentic materials, we may be allowed to give the account of Spenser, in his Faery Queen, b. iii. canto 3. where, after speaking of his supposed magical powers, he thus tells his progeny:

He was early an author. In 1734, while he was yet at school, he published “Messiah, a Divine Essay,” printed at Reading; and in April 1739, before he was twenty years of age, he was engaged in a correspondence with the learned Reimarus. The imprimatur from the vice-chancellor, prefixed to his translation of “Tryphiodorus,” is dated Oct. 26, 1739, before he had taken his bachelor’s degree. In Alberti’s last volume of Hesychius, published by Ruhnkenius, are many references to Mr. Merrick’s notes on Tryphiodorus, which are all ingenious, and serve to illustrate the Greek writer by historical and critical explanations; many of them have a reference to the New Testament, and show how early the author had turned his thoughts to sacred criticism. The translation itself is correct and truly poetical. It is indeed, for his years, a very

, a learned French writer, was born at Oyse, in the province of Maine, Sept. 8, 1588. He cultivated the belles lettres at the college of la Flche; and afterwards went to Paris, and studied divinity at the Sorbonne. Upon his leaving the schools of the Sorbonne, he entered himself among the Minims, and received the habit of that order, July 17, 1611. In 1612 he went to reside in the convent of Paris, where he was ordained priest. He then applied himself to the Hebrew language, which he learned of father John Bruno, a Scotch Minim. From 1615 to 1619, he taught philosophy and theology in the convent of Nevers; and then returned to Paris, where he spent the remainder of his life. Study and conversatioa were afterwards his whole employment. He held a correspondence with most of the principal men of his time; being as it were the very centre of communication between literary men of all countries, by the mutual correspondence which he managed between them; and was in France what Mr. Collins was in England. He omitted no opportunity to engage them to publish their works; and the world is obliged to him for several excellent discoveries, which would probably have been lost, but for his encouragement; and on all accounts he had the reputation of being one of the best men, as well as philosophers, of his time. He was the chief friend and literary agent of Des Cartes, in particular, with whom he had contracted a friendship while he studied at la Flche, which continued to his death. He was that philosopher’s chief agent at Paris. Thus, when Mersenne gave out in that city, that Des Cartes was erecting a new system of physics upon the foundation of a vacuum, and found the public very indifferent to it on that very account, it was said, that he immediately sent intelligence to Des Cartes, that a vacuum was not then the fashion at Paris; which made that philosopher change his system, and adopt the old doctrine of a plenum. In the mean time, Mersenne’s residence at Paris did not hinder him from making several journies into foreign countries; for he went to Holland in 1629, and stayed a year there; and he was in Italy four times; in 1639, 1641, 1644, and 1646. He fell sick, in 1648, of an abscess in the right side, which the physicians took to be a bastard pleurisy and bled him several times to no purpose. At last it was thought proper to open the side but he expired in the midst of the operation, when he was almost sixty years of age. He ordered the physicians at his death to open his body, which they did, and found an abscess two inches above the place where they had opened his side; so that, if the incision had been made at the proper place, his life might possibly have been saved.

Thus lived Metastasio. Always employed in writing, sometimes by imperial, sometimes by regal command: always anxious about the merit of his productions, and always composing such as ought to have removed all anxiety. He died, after a short illness, on the 12th of April, 1782, being just eighty-four. Farinelli, aletterto whom, from mademoiselle Martinetz, gives the most exact account of his death, lived only to September of the same year. Metastasio was interred in the parish church of St. Michael, in Vienna. His funeral rites were performed with splendor by signior Joseph Martinetz, whom he had made his heir. The inheritance he left, “consisted in a well furnished habitation, a coach, horses, a great quantity of princely presents, a very ample and select collection of books, with a capital of 130,000 florins; from, which, however, were to be deducted twenty thousand for each of Metastasio’s sisters, and three thousand for each of his younger brothers.” The circumstances of his life are chiefly preserved by means of his letters, a large collection of which has been published; and they are used by his English biographer for amplifying the narrative. His correspondents are among the most extraordinary men of his time, and, in all points of view, his character was respectable, and indeed amiable. His life has frequently been written, and his works appear united in editions published in several parts of Europe. He was an enemy to that pompous, verbose, and obscure style which prevailed in his country a few years ago; and he was persuaded that the first duty of a writer, in prose or verse, is to be understood. “The style of Metastasio,” says an Italian critic, “never fails to please those who give way to their own feelings, more than persons of profound meditation; and I would rather be accused of partiality to him whom I venerate and love, than ranked with cold philosophers and deep thinkers, whom I may respect but cannot love.” He regarded “Atilio Regolo,” as his best opera; “Betnlia liberata,” as his best oratorio; and “Artaserse,” as the most fortunate of his dramas; for, however set or sung, it was always successful. To give a list of his works, as they are always found collectively, would be superfluous. Dr. Burney has given one that is very ample, and arranged in chronological order, with the character and peculiarities of each. Hence it appears, that he produced twenty- six operas, eight oratorios, or sacred dramas, besides occasional pieces, such as we should call masques, in great numbers; with cantatas, canzonets, sonnets, and every kind of miscellaneous poetry. He wrote also, some translations from classics; an excellent analysis of Aristotle’s poetics, entitled “Estrato delP Arte Poetica d'Aristotile, et consideration! sur la medesima;” with short accounts of all the Greek dramas, tragic and comic, and his own critical remarks. Few authors have been more prolific, and none, perhaps, so completely successful in every effort of the mind. It is a pleasing reflection that Metastasio was always as much beloved for his amiable qualities, as admired for those by which he was constituted a poer, and one of the most enchanting of all poets. Perfectly master of the resources of his art, he reduced the opera to rules. He banished from it machines, and other improbabilities, which amuse the eye without affecting the heart; substitnting natural situations of interesting personages, which often produce the full effect of tragedy. His actions are great, his characters well conceived and supported, and his plots conducted with address. There are scenes of Metastasio’s, says Voltaire, worthy of Corneille when he avoids declamation, or of Racine when he is not languid. Never, therefore, was patronage better bestowed than that of Gravina; and though such talents could not have been hidden, their early maturity and final perfection must be in a great part attributed to the culture and attentions of that able master.

, or Meetkercke, or Mekerchus (Adolphus), a learned writer, was born at Bruges in 1528, and passed the greater part of his life in the service of the revolted states of the Low Countries, as counsellor of state, and envoy to the foreign potentates. He was employed on an embassy to queen Elizabeth in the latter part of his life, an office which was probably very agreeable to him, as he was a protestant, and had resided here for the quiet enjoyment of his religion for some time before he was appointed on the embassy. He appears to have been an ornament and delight of the age in which he lived, second to none in literary accomplishments, and was a man also of great benevolence and amiable temper. Grief for the loss of his son is said to have hastened his death, which took place at London in 1591, in his sixty-fourth year. He was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, under a monument which, when that church was rebuilt, was conveyed to Julians, near Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the seat of his descendants who settled in this country, and where some of them are still living. The present owner of the estate is in possession, among others, of a folio ms. of Greek and Latin poetry by his ancestor, the subject of this article, with additions by his son Adolphus, who died without issue, and by his son Edward, D. D. of Christchurch, Oxford, professor of Hebrew in that university, and prebendary of Winchester. He became professor in 1621, and died in 1660. Foppen asserts that sir Adolphus, as the ambassador was called, declared in writing, on his death-bed, that there was no true religion out of the catholic church, and that his daughter was so struck with this as to return to Bruges, and to the Roman catholic religion. As far as respects the daughter, this may be true, but her father certainly died in the protestant faith, as appears by the inscription on his monument, which Foppen is obliged to confess, is written “stylo acatholico.” Sir AdoU phus published in 1565, not a translation of some pieces of Bion and Moschus, as it has been erroneously called, but the first edition of “Bion and Moschus,” printed at Bruges in 1565, 4to, Gr. and Lat. It has a double Latin version with the Variorum scholia, the elegies of Phanoclis, and some fragments of Propertius. It is a very rare and curious edition. Retranslated into Latin verse “Theocriti Epigrammata,” and published a treatise “De veteri et recta pronuntiatione linguae Graecas Commentarius,” Bruges, 1565, and Antwerp, 1576, 8vo. He contributed also to editions of the “Fasti Consulares,” “Vitae Caesarum,” “Magna Grsecia,” &c. and in his political character published “A Collection of the Proceedings at the Peace of Cologne, in 1579.”

In Oct. 1717, when George the First visited the university of Cambridge, Middleton was created, with several others, a doctor of divinity by mandate; and was the person who gave the first cause of that famous proceeding against Dr. Bentley, which so much occupied the attention of the nation. Although we have given an ample account of this in the life of Bentley, some repetition seems here necessary to explain the part Dr. Middleton was pleased to take in the prosecution of that celebrated scholar. Bentley, whose office it was to perform the ceremony called Creation, made a new and extraordinary demand of four guineas from each of the doctors, on pretence of a fee due to him as divinity-professor, over and above a broad piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion. After a warm dispute, many of the doctors, and Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon condition that the money should be restored if it were not afterwards determined to be his right. But although the decision was against Bentley, he kept the money, and Middleton commenced an action against him for the recovery of his share of it. Bentley behaving with contumacy, and with contempt to the authority of the university, was at. first suspended from his degrees, and then degraded. He then petitioned the king for relief from that sentence: which induced Middleton, by the advice of friends, to publish, in the course of the year 1719, the four following pieces: 1. “A full and impartial Account of all the late Proceedings in the University of Cambridge, against Dr. Bentley.” 2. “A Second Part of the full and impartial Account, &c.” 3. “Some Remarks upon a Pamphlet, entitled The Case of Dr. Bentley farther stated and vindicated, &c.” The author of the piece here remarked, was the well-known Dr. Sykes, whom Dr. Middleton treats here with great contempt, but afterwards changed his opinion of him, and in his “Vindication of the Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers,” published after his death, he appeals to Dr. Sykes’s authority, and calls him “a very learned and judicious writer.” The last tract is entitled, 4. “A true Account of the present State of Trinity-college in Cambridge, under the oppressive Government of their Master Richard Bentley, late D. D.” This, which relates only to the quarrel betwixt him and his college, is employed in exposing his misdemeanors in the administration of college affairs, in order to take off a suspicion which many then had, that the proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley did not flow so much from any real demerit in the man, as from a certain spirit of resentment and opposition, to the court, the great promoter and manager of whose interest he was thought to be there: for, it must be remembered that, in that part of his life, Dr. Middleton was a strong tory; though like other of his contemporaries in the university, he afterwards became a very zealous whig.

He returned through Paris towards the end of 1725, and arrived at Cambridge before Christmas. He had not been long employed in his study, before he incurred the displeasure of the whole medical faculty, by the publication of a tract, entitled, 8. “De medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentiiuu coiulitione dissertatio qua, contra viros celeberrimos Jacobutn Sponimn &, Richardum Meadium, servilem atque ignobilem earn fuisse ostenditur,” Cant. 1726. Mead had just before published an Harveian Oration, in which he had defended the dignity of his profession: so that this seeming attempt of Middleton to degrade it, was considered by the faculty as an open attack upon their order. Much resentment was shewn, and some pamphlets were published: one particularly with the title of “Responsio,” of which the late professor Ward of Gresham-college was the author. Ward was supposed to be chosen by Mead himself for this task: for his book was published under Mead’s inspection, and at his expence. Middleton defended his dissertation in a new publication entitled, 9. “Dissertations, &e. contra anonymos quosdam notarum brevium, responsionis, atque animadversionis auctores, defensio, Pars prima, 1727.” The purpose of this tract seems to have been, not to pursue the controversy, for he enters little into it, but to extricate himself from it with as good a grace as he could: for nothing more was published about it, and the two doctors, Mead and Middleton, without troubling themselves to decide the question, became afterwards very good friends. A “Pars secunda,” however, was actually written, and printed for private circulation, after his death, by Dr. Heberden, in 1761, 4to. In 1729 Middleton published, 10. “A Letter from Rome, shewing an exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: or, the Religion of the present Romans derived from that of their Heathen Ancestors.” This letter, though written with great politeness, good sense, and learning, yet drew upon the author the displeasure of some even of our own church; because he attacked in it the Popish miracles with that general spirit of incredulity and levity, which seemed, in their opinion, to condemn all miracles. In his second edition he endeavoured to obviate this objection, by an -express declaration in favour of the Jewish and Christian miracles, to which perhaps more credit was given now than afterwards. A fourth edition came out in 1741, 8vo, to which were added, 1. “A prefatory Discourse, containing an Answer to the Writer of a Popish book, entitled, The Catholic Christian instructed, &c. with many new facts and testimonies, in farther confirmation of the general Argument of the Letter:” and, 2. “A Postscript, in which Mr. Warburton’s opinion concerning the Paganism of Rome is particularly considered.” Hitherto certainly the opinion of the world was generally in his favour, and many thought that he had done great service to Protestantism, by exposing the absurdities and impostures of Popery. He had also several personal qualities, which recommended him; he was an excellent scholar, an elegant writer, a very polite man, and a general favourite with the public, as well as with the community in which he lived; but an affair now happened, which ruined all his hopes, proved fatal to his views of preferment, and disgraced him with his countrymen as long as he lived.

Before Middleton thought proper to take notice of any of his antagonists, he surprised the public with, 24. “An Examination of the lord bishop of London’s Discourses concerning the use and intent of Prophecy: with some cursory animadversions on his late Appendix, or additional dissertation, containing a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall, 1750.” He tells his reader in the beginning of this “Examination,” that though these discourses of Dr. Sherlock had been “published many years, and since corrected and enlarged by him in several successive editions, yet he had in truth never read them till very lately; or otherwise these animadversions might have made their appearance probably much earlier.” To this assertion, from a man so devoted to study, it is not easy to give credit; especially when it is remembered also that Midclleton and Sherlock had been formerly in habits of intimacy and friendship; were ofthe same university, and nearly of the same standing and that, however severely and maliciously Middleton treated his antagonist in the present Examination, there certainly was a time when he triumphed in him as “the principal champion and ornament of church and university.” Different principles and different interests separated them afterwards: but it is not easy to conceive that Middleton, who published his Examination in 1750, should never have read these very famous discourses, which were published in 1725*. There is too great reason, therefore, to suppose, that this publication was drawn from him by spleen and personal enmity, which he now entertained against every writer who appeared in defence of the belief and doctrines of the church. What other provocation he might have is unknown. Whether the bishop preferred, had not been sufficiently mindful of the doctor unpreferred, or whether the bishop had been an abettor and encourager of those who opposed the doctor’s principles, cannot be ascertained; some think that both causes concurred in creating an enmity between the doctor and the bishop f. This “Examination” was refuted by Dr. Rutherforth, divinity professor at Cambridge: but Middleton, having gratified his animosity against Sherlock, pursued the argument no further. He was, however, meditating a general answer to all the objections made against the “Free Inquiry;” when being seized with illness, and imagining he might not be able to go through it, he singledout Church and Dodwell, as the two most considerable of his adversaries, and employed himself in preparing a particular answer to them. This, however, he did not live to finish, but died of a slow hectic fever and disorder in his liver, on the 28th of July, 175O, in his sixty-seventh 1 year, at Hildersham. He was buried in the parish of St.

With respect to his talents as a writer, he tells his patron, lord Hervey, in his dedication of “The Life of Cicero,” that “it was Cicero who instructed him to write your lordship,” he goes on, “who rewards me for writing for next to that little reputation with which the public has been pleased to favour me, the benefit of this subscription is the chief fruit that I have ever reaped from my studies.” Of this he often speaks, sometimes in terms of complaint, and sometimes, as in the following passage, in a strain of triumph: “I never was trained,” says he, “to pace in the trammels of the church, nor tempted by the sweets of its preferments, to sacrifice the philosophic freedom of a studious, to the servile restraints of an ambitious life: and from this very circumstance, as often as I reflect upon it, I feel that comfort in my own breast, which no external honours can bestow. I persuade myself, that the life and faculties of man, at the best but short and limited, cannot be employed more rationally or laudably, than in th$ search of knowledge, and especially of that sort which relates to our duty, and conduces to our happiness, &c.” This, however, was the philosophy of a disappointed man. It is true, indeed, that he felt the free spirit he describes, which was manifest in all his writings, yet from many of them it is no less clear that he felt anger and disappointment also, at not being preferred, according t;o his own internal consciousness of merit. So inconsistent are even the most able men. He made his preferment impossible, and then repined at not obtaining it. Some of his late biographers have endeavoured to prove what a “good Christian” he was; he had the same opinion of himself, but it is not easy to discover what, in his view, entered into the character of a good Christian. That he was an apostate, as some of his antagonists have asserted, may be doubtful, r perhaps easily contradicted. From all we have seen of his confidential correspondence, he does not appear to have, ever had much to apostatize from. As far back as 1733, he says, in one of his letters to lord Hervey, “It is my misfortune to have had so early a taste of Pagan sense, as to make me very squeamish in my Christian studies.” In the following year he speaks of one of the most common observances of religion in a manner that cannot be misunderstood: “Sunday is my only day of rest, but not of liberty; for I am bound to a double attendance at church, to wipe off the stain of infidelity. When I have recovered my credit, in which I make daily progress, I may use more freedom.” With such contempt for church and churchmen, it can be no wonder that Dr. Middleton failed both of preferment and respect.

, a poetical writer of no very honourable reputation, was the son of a nonconformist minister, of both his names, a native of Loughborough in Leicestershire, who was ejected from the living of Wroxhal in Warwickshire. He died in 1667. Of his son, little seems to be known unless that he was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken his master’s degree, but we do not find him in the list of graduates of either university. Mr. Malone thinks he was beneficed at Yarmouth, from whence he dates his correspondence about 1690. We are more certain that he was instituted to the living of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate, London, in 1704, and long before that, in 1688, was chosen lecturer of Shoreditch. Dryden, whom he was weak enough to think he rivalled, says in the preface to his “Fables,” that Milbourne was turned out of his benefice for writing libels on his parishioners. This must have been his Yarmouth benefice, if he had one, for he retained the rectory of St. Ethelburga, and the lectureship of Shoreditch, to his death, which happened April 15, 1720. As an author he was known by a “Poetical Translation of Psalms,” 1698, of a volume called “Notes on Dryden’s Virgil,” 1698 of “Tom of Bedlam’s Answer to Hoadly,” &c. He is frequently coupled with Blackmore, by Dryden, in his poems, and by Pope in “The Art of Criticism;” and is mentioned in “The Dunciad.” He published thirtyone single “Sermons,” between 1692 and 1720; a book against the Socinians, 1692, 12mo; and “A Vindication of the Church of England,” 1726, 2 vols. 8vo. A whimsical copy of Latin verses, by Luke Milbourne, B, A. is in the “Lacrymse Cantabrigienses, 1670,” on the death of Henrietta duchess of Orleans. Dr. Johnson, in the Life of Dryden, speaking of that poet’s translation of Virgil, says, “Milbourne, indeed, a clergyman, attacked it (Dryden’s Virgil), but his outrages seem to be the ebullitions of a mind agitated by stronger resentment than bad poetry can excite, and previously resolved not to be pleased. His criticism extends only to the preface, pasturals, and georgtcks; and, as he professes to give this antagonist an opportunity of reprisal, he has added his own version of the first and fourth pastorals, and the first georgic.” Malone conjectures that Melbourne’s enmity to Dryden originally arose from Dryden’s having taken his work out of his hands as he once projected a translation of Virgil, and published a version of the first Æneid. As he had Dryden and his friends, and Pope and his friends against him, we cannot expect a very favourable account either of his talents or morals. Once only we find him respectfully mentioned, by Dr. Walker, who thanks him for several valuable communications relative to the sequestered divines.

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

, a political and dramatic writer, the son of a clergyman who possessed two livings of considerable value in Dorsetshire, was born in 1703, and received his education at Wadham college, in Oxford. His natural genius and turn for satire led him, by way of relaxation from his more serious studies, to apply some portion of his time to the Muses; and, during his residence at the university, he composed great part of a comedy, called the “Humours of Oxford;” some of the characters in which being either designed for, or bearing a strong resemblance to, persons resident in Oxford, gave considerable umbrage, created the author many enemies, and probably laid the foundation of the greatest part of his misfortunes through life. On quitting the university, he entered into holy orders, and obtained immediately the lectureship of Trinity Chapel in Conduit-street, and was appointed preacher at the private chapel at Roehampton in Surrey.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

In 1755 our author began to publish, in folio numbers, his “Figures of Plants,” adapted to his dictionary. These extended to three hundred coloured plates, mating, with descriptions and remarks, two folio volumes, and were completed in 1760. They comprehend many rare and beautiful species, there exhibited for the first time. The commendable design of the writer was to give one or more of the species of each known genus, all from living plants; which as far as possible he accomplished. His plates have more botanical dissections than any that had previously appeared in this country. Miller was a fellow of the Royal Society, and enriched its Transactions with several papers. The most numerous of these were catalogues of the annual collections of fifty plants, which were required to be sent to that learned body, from Chelsea garden, by the rules of its foundation. These collections are preserved in the British Museum, and are occasionally resorted to for critical inquiries in botany. He wrote also on the poison ash, or Toxicodendrum, of America, which he believed to be the Japanese varnish tre of Koempfer; a position controverted by Mr. Ellis, who appears to have been in the right, and this may account for a certain degree of ill humour betrayed by Mr. Miller in the course of the dispute.

Bishop Milles left his fortune to his nephew, Jeremiah, who was born in 1714, and educated at Eton school, when he entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, and took his degrees of M. A. in 1735, and B. and D. D. in 1747, on which occasion he went out grand compounder. He was collated by his uncle to a prebend in the cathedral of Waterford, and to a living near that city, which he held but a short time, choosing to reside in England. Here he married Edith, a daughter of archbishop Potter, by whose interest he obtained the united rectories of St. Edmund the King and St. Nicholas Aeon in Lombard-street, with that of Merstham, Surrey, and the sinecure rectory of West Terring, in Sussex. To Merstham he was inducted in 1745. From the chantorship of Exeter he was promoted to the deanery of that cathedral, in 1762, on the advancement of Dr. Lyttelton to the see of Carlisle, whom he also succeeded as president of the society of antiquaries in 176.5. He had been chosen a fellow of this society in 1741, and of the Royal Society in 1742. His speech, on taking upon him the office of president of the Society of Antiquaries, was prefixed to the first volume of the Archoeologia. In other volumes of that work are some papers communicated by him, one of which, “Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the year 1483, wherein are contained the deliveries made for the coronation of king Richard III. and some other particulars relative to the history,” was answered by Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in a paper or essay, very characteristic of his lordship’s ingenuity and haughty petulance. In the early part of his life, Dr. Milles had made ample collections for a history of Devonshire, v*hich are noticed by Mr. Gough in his Topography. Ha was also engaged in illustrating the Da ish coinage, and the Domesday Survey, on both which subjects, it is thought, he left much valuable matter. His worst attempt was to vindicate the authenticity of Rowley’s poems, in an edition which he printed in 1782, 4to. After what Tyrwhitt and Warton had advanced on this subject, a grave answer to this was not necessary; but it was the writer’s misiortune to draw upon himself the wicked wit of the author of “An Archaeological Epistle,” and the more wicked irony of George Steevens in the St. James’s Chronicle. The dean died Feb. 13, 1784, and was buried in the church of St. Edmund, which, as well as his other preferments, he retained until his death, with the exception of the rectory of West Terring, which he resigned to his son Richard. His character is very justly recorded on his monument, as one conspicuous for the variety and extent of his knowledge, and for un remitted zeal and activity in those stations to which his merit had raised him; nor was he in private life less distinguished for sweetness of disposition, piety, and integrity.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

Milton’s next employment was to answer the celebrated Salmasius, who, at the instigation of the exiled Charles II. had written a defence* of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius was an antagonist worthy of Milton, as a general scholar, but scarcely his equal in that species of political talent which rendered Milton’s services so important to the new government. Salmasius’s work was entitled “Defensio Kegia,” and Milton’s “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” which greatly increased Milton’s reputation abroad, and at home we may be certain would procure him no small share of additional favour. That his work includes a very great portion of controversial bitterness, may be attributed either to the temper of the times, or of the writer, as the reader pleases; but the former was entirely in his favour, and his triumph was therefore complete. Of Salmasius’s work, the highest praise has been reserved to our own times, in which the last biographer of Milton has compared it to Mr. Burke’s celebrated book on the French revolution.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born either at Colophon, according to Strabo, or according to others at Smyrna, some time in the sixth century B. C. Strabo informs us that he was a musician, as well as a writer of elegies, which was his chief pursuit: and Nanno, the lady who passes for his mistress, is recorded to have got her livelihood by the same profession. There are but few fragments of his poems remaining, yet enough to shew him an accomplished master in his own style. His temper seems to have been as truly poetical as his writings, wholly bent on love and pleasure, and averse to the cares of common business. He appears to have valued life only as it could afford the means of pleasure. By some he is said to have been the inventor of the pentameter, but various specimens of that verse of older date are still extant. Mimnermus’s fragments are printed by Brunck, in his “Analecta,” and in the “Gnomici Poetae.”

, a learned German, was born at Brussels in 1573; and was first almoner and librarian of Albert, archduke of Austria. He was an ecclesiastic, and laboured all his life for the good of the church and of his country. He died in 1640. His works are, 1.“Elogiaillustrium Belgii scriptorum,” 1609, 4to. 2. “Opera Historica et Diplomatica.” This is a collection of charters and diplomas, relating to the Low Countries. The best edition is that of 1724, 4 vols. in folio, by Foppens, who has made notes, corrections, and additions to it. 3. “Rerum Belgicarum Chronicon;” useful for the history of the Low Countries. 4. “De rebus Bohemicis,” 12mo. 5. “Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica.” 6. “Vita Justi Lipsii,” &c. Penetration, and exactness in facts and citations, are usually esteemed the characteristics of this writer.

From a very recent writer, we have some account of his mode of living and general conduct while at Berlin, which was highly honourable to his sense and spirit. When he first arrived at Berlin, he had occasioned some perplexity to those who invited him to their houses, for he played no game of chance, so that his hosts constantly said to each other, “What shall we do with this Englishman, who never plays at cards” In a short time, however, the contest was, who should leave the card -table to enjoy the conversation of sir Andrew Mitchell, whose understanding, they discovered, was no less admirable than the virtues of his character. His bon-mots came into circulation, and were long retailed. Thiebault has recorded a few which, as he says, explain rather his principles than his understanding. On one occasion that three English mails were due, the king said to him, at the levee, “Have you not the spleen, Mr. Mitchell, when the mail is thus delayed r” “No, Sire, not when it is delayed, but often enough when it arrives duly.” This alludes to his being frequently dissatisfied with his own court. During the seven years’ war, in which, as we have already noticed, he constantly served immediately under Frederic, the English government had promised Frederic to send a fleet to the Baltic, for the protection of commerce, and to keep off the Swedes and Russians; but as this fleet never made its appearance, the Swedes were enabled to transport their army without interruption to Pomerania, together with all the necessaries for its support, and the Russians conveyed provisions for their troops by sea, and laid siege to Colberg, &c. All this could not fail to give umbrage to Frederic, and he incessantly complained to sir Andrew, who found himself embarrassed what reply to make. At length the ambassador, who had before been daily invited to dine with the king, received no longer this mark of attention; the generals, meeting him about the king’s hour of dinner, said to him, < It is dinner-time, M. Mitchell.“” Ah gentlemen,“replied he,” no fleet, no dinner“This was repeated to Frederic, and the invitations were renewed. Frederic in his fits of ill-humour was known to exercise his wit even at the expence of his allies; and the English minister at home expressed to sir Andrew Mitchell a wish that he would include some of these splenetic effusions in his official dispatches. Sir Andrew, however, in reply, stated the distinction between such kind of intelligence, and that which properly belonged to his office; and the application was not repeated, by which he was saved from the disgrace, for such he considered it, of descending to the littlenesses of a mere gossip and tale-bearer. We shall only add one more repartee of sir Andrew Mitchell, because, if we mistake not, it has been repeated as the property of other wits. After the affair of Port Mahon, the king of Prussia said to him,” You have made a bad beginning, M. Mitchell. What! your fleet beaten, and Port Mahon taken in your first campaign The trial in which you are proceeding against your admiral Byng is a bad plaister for the malady. You have made a pitiful campaign of it; this is certain.“” Sire, we hope, with God’s assistance, to make a better next year.“” With GocVs assistance, say you, Sir I did not know you had such an ally.“” We rely much upon him, though he costs us less than our other allies."

, viscount Molesworth of Swordes in Ireland, an eminent statesman and polite writer, was descended from a family, anciently seated in the counties of Northampton and Bedford in England; but his father having served in the civil wars in Ireland, settled afterwards in Dublin, where he became an eminent merchant, and died in 1656, leaving his wife pregnant with this only child, who raised his family to the honours they now enjoy. He was born in Dec. at Dublin, and bred in the college there; and engaged early in a marriage with a sister of Richard earl of Bellamont, who brought him a daughter in 1677. When the prince of Orange entered England in 1688, he distinguished himself by an early and zealous appearance for the revolution, which rendered him so obnoxious to king James, that he was attainted, and his estate sequestered by that king’s parliament, May 2, 1689. But when king William was settled on the throne, he called this sufferer, for whom he had a particular esteem, into his privy council; and, in 1692, sent him envoy extraordinary to the court of Denmark. Here he resided above three years, till, some particulars in his conduct disobliging his Danish majesty, he was forbidden the court. Pretending business in Flanders, he retired thither without any audience of leave, and came from thence home: where he was no sooner arrived, than he drew up “An Account of Denmark;” in which he represented the government of that country as arbitrary and tyrannical. This piece was greatly resented by prince George of Denmark, consort to the princess, afterwards queen Anne; and Scheel, the Danish envoy, first presented a memorial to king William, complaining of it, and then furnished materials for an answer, which was executed by Dr. William King. From King’s account it appears, that Molesworth’s offence in Denmark was, his boldly pretending to some privileges, which, by the custom of the country, are denied to every body but the king; as travelling the king’s road, and hunting the king’s game: which being done, as is represented, in defiance of opposition, occasioned the rupture between the envoy and that count. If this allegation have any truth, the fault lay certainly altogether on the side "of Molesworth whose disregard of the customs: of the country to which he was sent, cannot be defended.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

was permitted to have a long run. ridiculed; but Moliere, in the Tar‘­When Lows XIV. expressed to the tuftV,’ has attacked even the priests.“required the players also to bring their children to the rehearsals, that he might form his opinion of different passages from the natural expressions of their emotions. Moliere, who diverted himself on the theatre by laughing at the follies of mankind, could not guard against the effects of his own weakness. Seduced by a violent passion for the daughter of La Bejart, the actress, he married her, and was soon exposed to all the ridicule with which he had treated the husbands who were jealous of their wives. Happier in the society of his friends, he was beloved by his equals, and courted by the great. Marshal de Vivonne, the great Conde*, and even Lewis XIV. treated him with that familiarity which considers merit as on a level with birth. These flattering distinctions neither corrupted his understanding nor his heart. A poor man having returned him a piece of gold which he had given him by mistake,” In what a humble abode,“he exclaimed,” does Virtue dwell Here, my friend, take another.“When Baron informed him of one of his old theatrical companions whom extreme poverty prevented from appearing, Moliere sent for him, embraced him, and to words of consolation added a present of twenty pistoles and a rich theatrical dress.” When he was in the height of his reputation, Racine, who was just then come from Languedoc, and was scarcely known in Paris, went to see him, under pretence of consulting him about an ode which he had just finished. Moliere expressed such a favourable opinion of the ode, that Racine ventured to shew him his first tragedy, founded on the martyrdom of Theagenes and Chariclea, as he had read it in the Greek romance. Moliere, who had an honest consciousness of superiority, which exalted him above envy, was not sparing either of praise or of counsel. His liberality carried him still farther: he knew that Racine was not in easy circumstances, and therefore lent him a hundred louis-d'ors; thinking it a sufficient recompence to have the honour of producing a genius to the public, which, he foresaw, would one day be the glory of the stage. The French have very justly placed Moliere at the head of all their comic authors. There is, indeed, no author, in all the fruitful and distinguished age of Lewis XIV. who has attained a higher reputation, or who has more nearly reached the summit of perfection in his own art, according to the judgment of all the French critics. Voltaire boldly pronounces him to be the most eminent comic poet of any age or country nor, perhaps, is this the decision of mere partiality for, upon the whole, who deserves to be preferred to him When Louis XIV. insisted upon Boileau’s telling him who was the most original writer of his time, he answered, MoHere Moliere is always the satirist only of vice or folly. He has selected a great variety of ridiculous characters peculiar to the times in which he lived, and he has generally placed the ridicule justly. He possessed strong comic powers he is full of mirth and pleasantry and his pleasantry is always innocent. His comedies in verse, such as his “Misanthrope” and Tartuffe,“are a kind of dignified comedy, in which vice is exposed, in the style of elegant and polished satire. His verses have all the flow and freedom of conversation, yet he is said to have passed whole days’ in fixing upon a proper epithet or rhime. In his prose comedies, though there is abundance of ridicule, yet there is never any thing to offend a modest ear, or to throw contempt on sobriety and virtue. Together with those high qualities, Moliere has also some defects, which Voltaire, though his professed panegyrist, candidly admits. He is acknowledged not to be happy in the unravelling of his plots. Attentive more to the strong exhibition of characters, than to the conduct of the intrigue, his unravelling is frequently brought on with too little preparation, and in an improbable manner. In his verse comedies, he is sometimes not sufficiently interesting, and too full of long speeches; and in his risible pieces in prose, he is censured for being too farcical. Few writers, however, if any, ever possessed the spirit, or attained the true end of comedy, so perfectly, upon the whole, as Moliere. His” Tartuffe,“in the style of grave comedy, and his” Avare," in the gay, are accounted his two capital productions.

, descended from a very good family in the kingdom of Ireland, was born in the city of Dublin, and received part of his education at Trinity college there, of which he afterwards became a fellow. At his first coming to England he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and was supposed to have had a very considerable hand in the writing of a periodical paper, called “Fog’s Journal,” and afterwards to have been the principal writer of another well-known paper, entitled “Common Sense.” All these papers give testimony of strong' abilities, great depth of understanding, and clearness of reasoning. Dr. King was a considerable writer in the latter, as were lords Chesterfield and Lyttelton. Our author had large offers made him to write in defence of sir Robert Walpole, but these he rejected: notwithstanding which, at the great change in the ministry in 1742, he was entirely neglected, as well as his fellow-labourer Amherst, who conducted “The Craftsman.” Mr. Molloy, however, having married a lady of fortune, was in circumstances which enabled him to treat the ingratitude of his patriotic friends with the contempt it deserved. He lived many years after this period, dying so lately as July 16, 1767. He was buried at Edmonton, July 20. He also wrote three dramatic pieces, 1. “Perplexed Couple,” 1715, 12mo. 2. “The Coquet,” 1718, 8vo. 3. “Half-pay Officers,” 1720, 12mo. None of which met with any very extraordinary success.

, an able mathematical and medical writer, was born at Rheims about 1536, of a family which possessed jthe estate of Monantheuil in the Vermandois, in Picardy. He was educated at Paris in the college de Presles, under Kamus, to whose philosophical opinions he constantly adhered. Having an equal inclination and made equal progress in mathematics and medicine, he was first chosen professor of medicine, and dean of that faculty, and afterwards royal professor of mathematics. While holding the latter office he had the celebrated De Thou and Peter Lamoignon among the number of his scholars. During the troubles of the League, he remained faithful to his king, and even endangered his personal safety by holding meetings in his house, under pretence of scientific conversations, but really to concert measures for restoring Paris to Henry IV. He died in 1606, in the seventieth year of his age. His works are, 1 “Oratio pro mathematicis artibus,” Paris, 1574, 4to. 2. “Admonitio ad Jacobum Peletarium de angulo contactus,” ibid. 1581, 4to. 3. “Oratio pro suo in Regiam cathedram ritu,” ibid. 1585, 8vo. 4. “Panegyricus dictus Henrico IV. statim a felicissima et auspicatissima urbis restitutione,” &c. ibid. 1594, translated into French in 1596. 5. “Oratio qua ostenditur quale esse debeat collegium professorum regiorum,” &c. ibid. 15&6, 8vo. 6.“Commentarius in librum Aristotelis Tt^I Tuv /x>i%avjv,” Gr. and Lat. ibid. 1599, 4to. 7. “Ludus latromathematicus,” &c. ibid. 1597, 8vo, and 1700. 8. “De puncto primo Geometriae principio liber, 7 ' Leyden, 1600, 4to. This was at one time improperly attributed to his son, Thierry. 9.” Problematis omnium quse & 1200 annis inventa sunt nobilissimi demonstratio," Paris, 1600. He left some other works, both ms. and printed, of less consequence.

, a member of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1687. He was a very elegant writer, and his works have gone through various editions. His principal performances are, “An Essay on the necessity and means of Pleasing,” which is an ingenious book of maxims. He wrote “Les Ames Rivales,” an agreeable romance, containing lively and just descriptions of French manners. He was also author of various pieces of poetry, small theatrical pieces, complimentary verses, madrigals, &c. Moncrif died at Paris in 1770, at the age of eighty-three, and left behind him a great character for liberality, and amiable manners.

, an eminent French, writer, was born at the castle of Montaigne, in the Perigord, Feb. 8, 1533. His father, seigneur of Montaigne, and mayor of Bourdeaux, bestowed particular attention on his education, perceiving in him early proofs of talents that would one day reward his care. His mode of teaching him languages is mentioned as somewhat singular at that time, although it has since been frequently practised. He provided him with a German attendant, who did not know French, and who was enjoined to speak to him in Latin, and in consequence young Montaigne is said to have been a master of that language at the age of six years. He was taught Greek also as a sort of diversion, and because his father had heard that the brains of children may be injured by being roused too suddenly out of sleep, he caused him to be awakened every morning by soft music. All this care he repaid by the most tender veneration for the memory of his father. Filial piety, indeed, is said to have been one of the most remarkable traits of his character, and he sometimes displayed it rather in a singular manner. When on horseback he constantly wore a cloak which had belonged to his father, not, as he said, for convenience, but for the pleasure it gave him. “II me semble m'envelopper de lui,” “I seem to be wrapped up in my father;” and this, which from any other wit would have been called the personification of a pun, was considered in Montaigne as a sublime expression of filial piety.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

, a very celebrated French writer, was descended of an ancient and noble family of Guienne, and born at the castle of Brede near Bourdeaux, Jan. 18, 1639. The greatest care was taken of his education; and, at the age of twenty, he had actually prepared materials for his “Spirit of Laws,” by a well-digested extract from those immense volumes which compose the body of the civil law; and which he had studied both as a civilian and a philosopher. Maupertuis informs us that he studied this science almost from his infancy, and that the first product of his early genius was a work, in which he undertook to prove, that the idolatry of most part of the pagans did not deserve eternal punishment, but this he thought fit to suppress. In Feb. 1714, he became a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, and was received president amortier, July 13, 1716, in the room of an uncle, who left him his fortune and his office. He was admitted, April 3, 1716, into the academy of Bourdeaux, which was then only in its infancy. A taste for music, and for works of entertainment, had, at first, assembled the members who composed it; but the societies for belles lettres being grown, in his opinion, too numerous, he proposed to have physics for their chief object; and the duke de la Force, having, by a prize just founded at Bourdeaux, seconded this just and rational proposal, Bourdeaux acquired an academy of sciences.

In 1751, a literary dispute arose concerning the translation of the Bible into French: the question was, whether the second person singular, which is dismissed in all polite conversation, should be preserved Fontenelle was on the affirmative side, as well as Montesquieu. Remarks were written on this determination, in which the writer, among other things, observes, “That the author of the Persian Letters with his eastern taste, could not fail being an advocate for thou.”

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, was the grandson of the rev. John Moore of Devonshire, one of the ejected non-conformists, who died Aug. 23, 1717, leaving two sons in the dissenting ministry. Of these, Thomas, the father of our poet, removed to Abingdon Hi Berkshire, where he died in 1721, and where Edward was born March 22,. 1711-12, and for some time brought up under the care of his uncle. He was afterwards placed at the school of East Orchard in Dorsetshire, where he probably received no higher education than would qualify him for trade. For some years he followed the business of a linen-draper, both in London and in Ireland, but with so little success that he became disgusted with his occupation, and, as he informs us in his preface, “more from necessity than inclination,” began to encounter the vicissitudes of a literary life. His first attempts were of the poetical kind, which still preserve his name among the minor poets of his country. In 174-4, he published his “Fables for the Female Sex,” which were so favourably received as tointroducehim into the society of some learned and some opulent contemporaries. The hon. Mr. Pelham was one of his early patrons; and, by his “Trial of Selim,” he gained the friendship of lord Lyttelton, who felt himself flattered by a compliment turned with much ingenuity, and decorated by wit and spirit. But as, for some time, Moore derived no substantial advantage from patronage, his chief dependance was on the stage, to which, within five years, he supplied three pieces of considerable, although unequal, merit. “The Foundling,” a comedy, which was first acted in 1748, was decried from a fancied resemblance to the “Conscious Lovers.” His “Gil Bias,” which appeared in 1751, met with a more severe fate, and, notwithstanding the sprightliness of the dialogue, not altogether unjustly. “The Gamester,” a tragedy, first acted Feb. 7, 1753, was our author’s most successful attempt, and is still a favourite. In this piece, however, he deviated from the custom of the modern stage, as Lilio had in his “George Barnwell,” by discarding blank verse; and perbaps nothing short of the power by which the catastrophe engages the feelings, could have reconciled the audience to this innovation. But hisobject was the misery of the life and death of a gamester, to which it would have been difficult to give a heroic colouring; and his language became what would be most impressive, that of truth and nature. Davies, in his Life of Garrick, seems inclined to share the reputation of the “Gamester” between Moore and Garrick. Moore acknowledges, in his preface, that he was indebted to that inimitable actor for “many popular passages,” and Davies believes that the scene between Lewson and Stukely, in the fourth act, was almost entirely his, because he expressed, during the time of action, uncommon pleasure at the applause given to it. Whatever may be in this conjecture, the play, after having been acted to crowded houses for eleven nights, was suddenly withdrawn. The report of the day attributed this to the intervention of the leading members of some gaming clubs. Davies thinks this a mere report “to give more consequence to those assemblies than they could really boast.” From a letter, in our possession, written by Moore to Dr. Warton, it appears that Garrick suffered so much from, the fatigue of acting the principal character as to require some repose. Yet this will not account for the total neglect, for some years afterwards, of a play, not only popular, but so obviously calculated to give the alarm to reclaimable gamesters, and perhaps bring the whole gang into discredit. The author mentions, in his letter to Dr. Warton, that he expected to clear about four hundred pounds by his tragedy, exclusive of the profits by the sale of the copy. It is asserted by Dr. Johnson, in his life of lord Lyttelton, that, in return for Moore’s elegant compliment, “The Trial of Selim,” his lordship paid him with “kind words, which, as is common, raised great hopes, that at last were disappointed.” It is possible, however, that these hopes were of another kind than it was in his lordship’s power to gratify*; and it is certain that he substituted a method of serving Moore, which was not only successful for a considerable time, but must have been agreeable to the feelings of a delicate and independent mind. Abouttheyears 175 1-2, periodical writing began to revive in its most pleasing form, but had hitherto been executed by men of learning only. Lord Lyttelton projected a paper, in concert with Dodsiey, which should unite the talents of certain men of rank, and receive such a tone and consequence from that circumstance, as mere scholars can seldom hope to command or attain. Such was the origin of the “World,” for every paper of which Dodsiey stipulated to pay Moore three guineas, whether the papers were written by him, or by the volunteer contributors. Lord Lyttelton, to render this bargain more productive to the editor, solicited and obtained the assistance of the earls of Chesterfield, Bath, and Corke, and of Messrs. Walpole, Cambridge, Jenyns, and other men of rank and taste, who gave their assistance, some with great regularity, and all so effectually as to render the “World” far more popular than any of its contemporaries.

Of his poetry, simplicity and smoothness appear to be the leading features; hence he is easily intelligible, and consequently instructive, and his “Fables” have always been popular. Ail his pieces are of the light kind, produced with little effort, and to answer temporary purposes. We find nowhere indications that he could have succeeded in the higher species of poetry. His songs have much originality of thought, but sometimes a looseness of expression which would not now be tolerated. The “Trial of Selim” is an ingenious and elegant panegyric, but it ought to have sufficed to have once versified the forms of law. The “Trial of Sarah *** alias Slim Sal,” has too much the air of a copy. He ranks but low as a writer of odes, yet " The Discovery,' 1 addressed to Mr. Pel ham, has many beauties, and among those the two last stanzas may be safely enumerated.

, a medical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of the rev. Charles Moore, a minister of the English church at Stirling, in Scotland, where this, his only surviving son, was born in 1730. His lather dying in 1735, his mother, who was a native of Glasgow, and had some property there, removed to that city, and carefully superintended the early years of her son while at school and college. Being destined for the profession of medicine, he was placed under Mr. Gordon, a practitioner of pharmacy and surgery, and at the same time attended such medical lectures as the college of Glasgow at that time afforded, which were principally the anatomical lectures of Dr. Hamilton, and those on the practice of physic by Dr. Cullen, afterwards the great ornament of the medical school of Edinburgh. Mr. Moore’s application to his studies must have been more than ordinarily successful, as we find that in 1747, when only in his seventeenth year, he went to the continent, under the protection of the duke of Argyle, and was employed as a mate in one of the military hospitals at Maestricht, in Brabant, and afterwards at Flushing. Hence he was promoted to be assistant to the surgeon of the Coldstream regiment of foot guards, comman-ded by general Braddock, and after remaining during the winter of 1748 with this regiment at Breda, came to England at the conclusion of the peace. At London he resumed his medical studies under Dr. Hunter, and soon after set out for Paris, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Albemarle, whom he had known in Flanders, and who was now English ambassador at the court of France, and immediately appointed Mr. Moore surgeon to his household. In this situation, although he had an opportunity of being with the ambassador, he preferred to lodge nearer the hospitals, and other sources of instruction, xvith which a more distant part of the capital abounded, and visited lord Albemarle’s family only when his assistance was required. After residing two years in Paris, it was proposed by Mr. Gordon, who was not insensible to the assiduity and improvements of his former pupil, that he should return to Glasgow, and enter into partnership with him. Mr. Moore, by the advice of his friends, accepted the invitation, but deemed it proper to take London in his way, and while there, went through a course under Dr. Smellie, then a celebrated accoucheur. On his return to Glasgow, he practised there during the space of two years, but when a diploma was granted by the university of that city to his partner, now Dr. Gordon, who chose to prescribe as a physician alone, Mr. Moore still continued to act as a surgeon; and, as a partner appeared to be necessary, he chose Mr. Hamilton, professor of anatomy, as his associate. Mr. Moore remained for a considerable period at Glasgow; but when he had attained his fortieth year, an incident occurred that gave a new turn to his ideas, and opeqed new pursuits and situations to a mind naturally active and inquisitive. James George, duke of Hamilton, a young nobleman of great promise, being affected with a consumptive disorder, in 1769, he was attended by Mr. Moore, who has always spoken of this youth in terms of the highest admiration; but, as his malady baffled all the efforts of medicine, he yielded to its pressure, after a lingering illness, in the fifteenth year of his age. This event, which Mr. Moore recorded, together with the extraordinary endowments of his patient, on his tomb in the buryingplace at Hamilton, led to a more intimate connection with this noble family. The late duke of Hamilton, being, like his brother, of a sickly constitution, his mother, the duchess f Argyle, determined that he should travel in company with some gentleman, who to a knowledge of medicine added an acquaintance with the continent. Both these qualities were united in the person of Dr. Moore, who by this time had obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow. They accordingly set out together, and spent a period of no less than five years abroad, during which they visited France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. On their return, in 1778, Dr. Moore brought his family from Glasgow to London; and in the course of the next year appeared the fruits of his travels, in “A View of Society and Manners in France', Switzerland, and Germany,” in 2 vols. 8vo. Two years after, in 1781, he published a continuation of the same work, in two additional volumes, entitled “A View of Society and Manners in Italy.” Having spent s6 large a portion of his time either in Scotland or on the continent, he could not expect suddenly to attain an extensive practice in the capital; nor indeed was he much consulted, unless by his particular friends. With a view, however, to practice, he published in 1785, his “Medical Sketches,” a work which was favourably received, but made no great alteration in his engagements; and the next work he published was “Zeluco,” a novel, which abounds with many interesting events, arising from uncontrouled passion on the part of a darling son, and unconditional compliance on that of a fond mother. While enjoying the success of this novel, which was very considerable, the French revolution began to occupy the minds and writings of the literary world. Dr. Moore happened to reside in France in 1792, and witnessed many of the important scenes of that eventful year, but the massacres of September tending to render a residence in Paris highly disagreeable, he returned to England; and soon after his arrival, began to arrange his materials, and in 1795, published “A View of the Causes and Progress of the French Revolution,” in 2 vols. 8vo, dedicated to the Duke of Devonshire. He begins with the reign of Henry IV. and ends with the execution of the royal family. In 1796 appeared another novel, “Edward: various Views of Human Nature, taken from Life and Manners chiefly in England.” In 1800, Dr. Moore published his “Mordaunt,” being “Sketches of Life, Characters, and Manners in various Countries including the Memoirs of a French Lady of Quality,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This chiefly consists of a series of letters, written by “the honourable John Mordaunt,” while confined to his couch at Vevay, in Switzerland, giving an account of what he had seen in Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, &c. The work itself comes under no precise head, being neither a romance, nor a novel, nor travels: the most proper title would perhaps be that of “Recollections.” Dr. Moore was one of the first to notice the talents of his countryman the unfortunate Robert Burns, who, at his request, drew up an account of his life, and submitted it to his inspection.

, rector of Kirkbride, and chaplnin of Douglas in the Isle of Mann, a gentleman well known in the literary world, by his correspondence with men of genius in several parts of it, and by them eminently distinguished as the divine and scholar, was born in 1705. In the earlier part of a life industriously employed in promoting the present and future happiness of mankind, he served as chaplain to the right reverend Dr. Wilson, the venerable bishop of Mann, whose friend and companion he was for many years: at his funeral he was appointed to preach his sermon, which is affixed to the discourses of that prelate, in the edition of his works printed at Bath, 1781, in two volumes, quarto, and that in folio. At the request of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he undertook the revision of the translation into Manks of the Holy Scriptures, the book of Common Prayer, bishop Wilson on the Sacrament, and other religious pieces, printed for the use of the diocese of Mann; and, during the execution of the first of these works, he was honoured with the advice of the tw*o greatest Hebrseans of the age, bishop Lowth and Dr. Kennicott. In the more private walks of life, he was not less beloved and admired; in his duty as a clergyman, he was active and exemplary, and pursued a conduct (as far as human nature is capable) “void of offence towards God and towards man.” His conversation, prompted by an uncommon quickness of parts, and refined by study, was at once lively, instructive, and entertaining; and his friendly correspondence (which was very extensive) breathes perhaps as much original humour as can, be met with in any writer who has appeared in public, Sterne not excepted, to whom he did not yield even in that vivid philanthropy, which the fictitious Sterne could so often assume. All the clergy in the island at the time of his death, had been (except four) educated by him, and by them he was always distinguished with peculiar respect and affection. His conduct operated in the same degree amongst all ranks of people, and it is hard to say, whether he won more by his doctrine or example; in both, religion appeared most amiable, and addressed herself to the judgments of men, clothed in that cheerfulness which is the result of firm conviction and a pure intention. It is unnecessary to add, that though his death, which happened at Douglas, Jan. 22, 1783, in his 78th year, was gentle, yet a retrospect of so useful and amiable a life made it deeply regretted. His remains were interred with great solemnity in Kirk Braddon church, attended by all the clergy of the island, and a great number of the most respectable inhabitants. In 1785, a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of the rev. Dr. Thomas Wilson, son of the bishop, and prebendary of Westminster, &c.

The works of this prelate were, 1. “Apologia Catholica,” parti. Lond. 1605, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. 2. “An exact Discovery of Romish Doctrine in the case of Conspiracy and Rebellion or Romish Positions and Practices,” &c. Lond. 1605, 4to, occasioned by the discovery of the gunpowdertreason-plot. 3. “Apologia Catholica,” part II. Lond. 1606, 4to. 4. “A full Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie, hainous Rebellion, and more than heathenish Æquivocation containing three parts. The two former belong to the Reply upon the Moderate Answer: the first for confirmation of the discovery in these two points, treason and equivocation; the second is a justification of protestants touching the same points. The third part is a large discourse confuting the reasons and grounds of other priests, both in the case of rebellion and ^equivocation: published by authoritie,” Lond. 1606, 4to. Father Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, undertook to vindicate his friend, the writer of the “Moderate Answer:” in a book published under the name of P. R. and entitled “ATreatise, tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Tho. Morton,” 1607, 4to. To this our author returned an answer, entitled, 5. “A Preamble unto an Incounter with, P. R. the author of the deceitful Treatise of Mitigation,” Lond. 1608, 4to. To this book and some others of our

, a distinguished French writer in the seventeenth century, to be classed with those whose scepticism and indelicacies have disgraced their talents, was born at Paris in 1588, of a family of gentlemen of the long robe. He was himself educated for the bar, and long held the office which his father resigned to him, of substitute procurator-general to the parliament; but his love of polite literature induced him to desert his profession, and employ his time in study and writing. By this he acquired such reputation as to be received into the French academy in 1639, of which he was accounted one of the ablest members. When a tutor was to be appointed for Louis XIV. in 1644, it was generally supposed that La Alothe le Vayer would have been the man, and it certainly was so intended by cardinal Richelieu, both on account of an excellent work he had published on the education of the dauphin, and the reputation his other writings had acquired to him; but the queen having determined not to bestow the place on a married man> the design was dropt. It is probable that the queen’s object, in refusing a married man, was to prefer an ecclesiastic, of whose religious principles she might be secure; for those of Le Vayer were already more than suspected by his work De la Vertu de Payens."

Having thus failed in obtaining the first situation in which a man of letters could be placed, he succeeded, in 1647, in being appointed to what might be considered as the second, that of preceptor to Philip, then duke of Anjou, and afterwards duke of Orleans, the king’s brother. He had also conferred on him the titles of historiographer of France and counsellor of state. By his first wife he had an only son, who died in 1664, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His wife also being dead long before, he is said to have been so much afflicted at the loss of his son, as to determine to marry again, which he did the same year, 1664, at the age of seventy-six He died in 1672, aged eightyfour. He was a voluminous writer, and upon all subjects, ancient, modern, sacred and profane. We cannot, perhaps, to some of our readers, give a better idea of his works, than by comparing them to those of Bayle. We find in them the same scepticism and the same indecencies; and on this account Bayle expatiates on his character with congenial pleasure. In his private character, he was somewhat of a humourist, but his moral conduct was more correct than might have been expected from his writings. He is mentioned hy Guy Patin as a Stoic, who would neither praise nor be praised, and who followed his own fancies and caprices without any regard to the opinions of the world, and his dress and usual demeanour distinguished him from other men. In the court he lived like a philosopher, immersed in books, simple and regular in his manner of living, and void of ambition and avarice. His treatise which we have mentioned, “On the Virtue of Pagans/' was answered by Arnauld. La Mothers bookseller complaining that his book did not sell,” I know a secret,“said the author,” to quicken the sale:" he procured an order from government for its suppression, which was the means of selling the whole edition. His works were collected in two volumes folio; and there was an edition, we believe the last, printed at Dresden, in 1756, in 14 vols. 8vo, so lowpriced, in the French catalogues, that there seems now little value placed on them.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 17, 1672. He was educated in a seminary of Jesuits, and afterwards entered on the study of the law, which he quitted for the stage, as in his opinion affording the more brilliant prospect. His first attempt, however, a comedy, miscarried, and he felt the disgrace so acutely as to throw himself into the celebrated monastery of La Trappe, where he fancied he could comply with its austerities; but after a few months he returned to the world, and produced some operas and pastorals, which had considerable success. His lyric efforts were particularly applauded, and he now published a volume of odes; but in these, says D'Alembert, “the images are scanty, the colouring feeble, and the harmony often neglected.” Dr. Warton had pronounced, long before, that these odes, although highly praised by Sanadon, and by Fontenelle, were fuller of delicate sentiment, and philosophical reflection, than of imagery, figures, and poetry. There are particular stanzas eminently good, but not one entire ode. So far the French and English critics seem to agree. We learn also, from D'Alembert, that La Motte’s odes were soon effaced by those of the celebrated Rousseau, who, with less wit, perhaps, than La Motte, had superior qualifications for the higher poetry. Yet, when these rivals became competitors for a seat in the academy in 1710, La Motte was preferred, from his having friends who loved him, while Rousseau, from his repulsive temper, did not possess one. La Motte succeeded Corneille in the academy, and, like him, was at this time nearly blind. He very ingeniously made use of this calamity, in his discourse at his reception, to interest his auditors. After having spoken of the merit of his predecessor, he proceeded “You have beheld him faithful to your duties till extreme old age, infirm as he was, and already deprived of sight. The mention of this circumstance makes rne feel the condition to which I am myself reduced. What age ravished from my predecessor, I have lost from my youth. I must, however, confess, that this privation of which I complain, will no longer serve me as an excuse for ignorance you, gentlemen, have restored me my sight you, by associating me with yourselves, have laid all books open to me; and, since I am able to hear you, I no longer envy the happiness of those who can read.” La Motte soon after became totally deprived of sight. He next ventured to appear on a theatre more worthy of a poet’s ambition, and produced the tragedy of the “Maccabees,” concealing his name. The critics found a great deal of merit in it while this concealment lasted and some went so far as to conceive it a posthumous work of Racine but when he discovered himself, they withdrew their praises, or changed them into censures; and the tragedy, being really of the mediocre kind, disappeared from the stage. It was followed by others, of which “Ines de Castro” obtained a permanent place on the stage, notwithstanding many attacks from wit, malice, and arrogance; all which he bore with good-humour. He was one day in a coffee-house, in the midst of a swarm of literary drones, who were abusing his work without knowing the author. He patiently heard them a long time in silence, and then called out to a friend who accompanied him, “Let us go and yawn at the fiftieth representation of this unfortunate piece.” At another time, when told of the numerous criticisms made on his tragedy, “It is true,” said he, “it has been much criticised, but with tears.”

, a native of France, was born in 1660, at Rouen, in Normandy, where also he received his education, on the revocation of the edict of Nantz he came over to England, and lived at first with his godfather and relation, Paul Dominique, esq. but afterwards grew a considerable trader himself, kept a large East-India warehouse in Leadenhall-street, and had a good place in the foreign post-office. During his residence in this kingdom, he acquired a great knowledge of the English language, and not only published a good translation of “Don Quixote,” but also wrote several “Songs,” “Prologues,” “Epilogues,” &c. dedicated a poem “On Tea,” to the Spectator, and, what was still more extraordinary, became a successful dramatic writer in the language of a country of which he was not a native. The respective titles of his numerous pieces of that kind may be seen in the “Biographia Dramatica.” Although married to a very beautiful woman, his morals were licentious, and he was one day found dead in a brothel in the parish of St. Clement Danes, not without suspicion of having been murdered; though other accounts state that he was in some measure accessary to his death. This happened Feb. 19, 1717-18, which, being his birth-day, exactly completed his fifty-eighth year. His body was interred in his parish-church, that of St. Andrew Undershaft, in the city of London.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

Bishop Mountagu was allowed by his opponents to be a man of extensive learning, particularly in ecclesiastical history; but of a warm temper, and from his attachment to the writings of the fathers, holding some peculiar opinions, which were acceptable neither to churchmen or sectaries. Fuller says of him, that “his great parts were attended with a tartness of writing; very sharp the nib of his pen, and much gall in the ink, against such as opposed him. However, such the equability of this sharpness of his style, he was impartial therein: be he ancient or modern writer, papist or protestant, that stood in his way, they should equally taste thereof.” Selden was one of those against whom he exercised not a little of this sharpness of style; and yet, which is a considerable testimony in his favour, “he owns him to have been a man well skilled in ancient learning.”

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, a French mathematician, born in the province of Auvergne about 1643, became a professor of rhetoric and mathematics in different seminaries belonging to the Jesuits, and was at length appointed professor- royal at the university of Toulouse. He died, in 1713, a sacrifice to his exertions in the cause of humanity, during the dreadful pestilential disorder which then raged at Toulouse. To very profound as well as extensive erudition, he united the most polished and amiable manners, and the most ardent piety, which made him zealous in his attempts to reform the age in which he lived. He was a considerable writer: his most celebrated pieces are, “New Elements of Geometry, comprised in less than fifty Propositions;” “A Parallel between Christian Morality and that of the Ancient Philosophers;” “An Explanation of the Theology of the Pythagoreans, and of the other learned Sects in Greece, for the Purpose of illustrating the Writings of the Christian Fathers” and “A Treatise on French Poetry.”

, an ingenious and learned English writer, was son of sir Walter Moyle, and born in Cornwall in 1672. After he had made a considerable progress in school-learning, he was sent to Oxford; and thence removed to the Temple, where he applied himself chiefly to such parts of the law as led to the knowledge of our constitution and government; “for there was a drudgery,” says Mr. Hammond, “in what he called law-lucrative, which he could never submit to.” He came into the world with a firm zeal for the protestant settlement, and a great contempt of those who imagined that the liberty of our constitution and the reformation could subsist under a popish king; nor did he ever vary from these sentiments. From the Temple he removed to Covent- Garden, in order to be nearer the polite and entertaining part or the town and here it was, as Dryden observes in his “Life of Lucian,” that “the learning and judgment above his age, which every one discovered in Mr. Moyle, were proofs of those abilities he has shewn in his country’s service, when he was chosen to serve it in the senate, as his father sir Walter had done.”

, a celebrated German traveller and writer, was born in 1705, in Herforden, in Westphalia, and was educated at the age of seventeen at llinteln and Leipsic, at which last place he so distinguished himself, that professor Mencke obtained for him the place of adjunct in the historical class of the academy founded at Petersburgh by Peter the Great. In tbat city he was some time employed in teaching Latin, geography, and history, and as assistant secretary to the institution. In 1728, he was made under-keeper of the imperial library, and in 1730 he was chosen professor of history. He now applied for leave of absence, in order to gratify his wish of seeing foreign countries. In the year 1731 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and after his return to Petersburgh he was appointed to accompany Gmelin and De l'Isle de la Croyere on their travels through Siberia, which occupied ten years, during which they travelled 4480 German miles, or more than three times that number of English miles. An account of their travels was published by Gmelin, in four volumes, 8vo. After this, Mullef, who was not rewarded in any degree equal to the labours and sufferings which he had undergone, undertook, at the desire of prince Jusupof, “A Dissertation on the Trade of Siberia,” which, though written, or at least begun, in 1744, was not published till 1750, and then only the first part. In 1747, he was appointed historiographer of the Russian empire, and in 1754 he was nominated by the president to be the secretary of the Academy of Sciences, and was employed in superintending the publication of their transactions, and in other literary undertakings. In 1763, he was appointed director ^of the school for foundlings, established by Catherine at Moseow, and in 1766, he was appointed keeper of the archives in that city, with an additional salary of 1000 roubles. From this period till his death, which took place in 1783, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuits of literature, having been previously raised to the rank of counsellor of state, and invested with the order of Wladimir. Mr. Coxe, in his Travels, vol. I. in speaking of Muller, who was then living, says, “He collected during his travels the most ample materials for the history and geography of this extensive empire, which was scarcely known to the Russians themselves before his valuable researches were given to the world in various publications. His principal work is” A Collection of Russian Histories,“in nine volumes octavo, printed at different intervals at the press of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The first part came out in 1732, and the last in 1764. This storehouse of information pnd literature in regard to the antiquities, history, geography, and commerce of Russia, and many of the neighbouring countries, conveys the most indisputable proofs of the author’s learning, diligence, and fidelity. To this work the accurate and indefatigable author has successively added many other valuable performances upon similar subjects, both in the German and Russian languages, which elucidate various parts in the history of this empire.” Mr. Coxe adds, that he spoke and wrote the German, Russian, French, and Latin tongues, with surprizing fluency; and read the English, Dutch, Swedish, Danisn, and Greek, with great facility His memory was surprising; and his accurate acquaintance with the minutest incidents of the Russian annals almost surpassed belief. His collection of state papers and manuscripts were all arranged in the exactest order, and classed into several volumes, distinguished by the names of those illustrious personages to whom they principally relate; such as Peter L, Catherine I. Menzikof, Osterman, &c."

, is celebrated by Meres, amongst the comic poets, as the best plotter; and a few of his dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dramatica, are occasionally to be met with and purchased as curiosities. He appears to have been a writer through a very long period, there being works existing published by him for the booksellers, which are dated in 1580 and 1621, and probably both earlier and later than those years. He frequently employed his talents on the translation of romances, but with little spirit or fidelity. He rendered himself more celebrated in his day as the author of the city pageants, from 1605 to 1616. In 1582 he detected the treasonable practices of Edmund Campion, and his confederates, of which he published an account, wherein he is styled “some time the pope’s scholler allowed in the seminarie at Roome.” The publication of this pamphlet brought down upon him the vengeance of his opponents, one of whom, in an answer to him, has given his history in these words:

Among the many subjects which engaged the pen of this laborious writer, was that of religion, in which he was so unfortunate as to excite suspicions of his orthodoxy; but although this involved him in temporary controversies, it does not appear that he was brought into very serious trouble. Having thought it necessary to vindicate himself to pope Benedict IV. he appears to have succeeded, and was much esteemed by that pontiff. He was enabled by a course of temperance to enjoy good health to a very advanced period of life, and felt little decay until a few months before his death, Jan. 21, 1750, in his seventyeighth year. During the period of his authorship he enjoyed a most extensive reputation, principally as an antiquary, and carried on a correspondence with the most distinguished men of learning in Europe. He was also a member of many learned societies, and was chosen into our royal society as early as 1717. He has been called the Montfaucon of Italy, and ranks with that eminent antiquary, as having performed the most important services to the history of his country.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Clooniquin, in the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, Dec. 27, 1727. His father, Richard Murphy, who was a merchant, perished in 1729, in one of his own trading-vessels for Philadelphia, probably in a violent storm, but no intelligence of the ship, or any of its passengers or crew, ever transpired. From this time the care of the subject of the present article devolved upon his mother, who, in 1735, removed, with her children, to London but Arthur was sent, at the age of ten, to the English college at St. Omer’s, where he remained six years and made very extraordinary proficiency in Greek and Latin, a love for which he retained all his life, and particularly improved his acquaintance with the Latin classics. On his return to England, in 1744, he resided with his mother till August 1747, when he was sent to Cork, to an uncle Jeffery French, in whose counting-house he was employed till April 1749. After this his uncle destined him to go to Jamaica to overlook a large estate which he possessed in that island; but his inclination was averse to business of every kind, and he returned to his mother in London, in 1751. Here he either first contracted, or began at least to indulge, his predominant passion for the theatre, although placed in the counting-house of Ironside and Belchier, bankers. In October 1752, he published the first number of “The Gray’s-Inn Journal,” a weekly paper, which he continued for two years, and which served to connect him much with dramatic performers and writers, as well as to make him known to the public as a wit and a critic. On the death of his uncle, he was much disappointed in not finding his name mentioned in his will, and the more so as he had contracted debts, in faith of a good legacy, to the amount of three hundred pounds. In this embarrassed state, by the advice of the celebrated Foote, he went on the stage, and appeared for the first time in the character of Othello. Jn one season, by the help of strict economy, he paid off his debts, and had at the end of the year four hundred pounds in his pocket. With this sum he determined to quit the stage, on which, as a performer, notwithstanding the advantages of a fine person, and good judgment, he made no very distinguished figure, and never used to be more offended than when reminded of this part of his career.

Mr. Murphy, in his better days, was a man of elegant manners, and of a well-informed mind, rich also in anecdotes of the literature of his period, which he related with great humour and accuracy, and there was a time when the company of few men was more courted, or was in itself more entertaining. As a dramatic writer he may be deemed both fortunate and unfortunate fortunate as he established a very high character, and produced more stock pieces than any man of his time; and unfortunate, as the stage detached him from a profession by which he might have attained ease and independence. The consciousness of this had visible effects on his temper in his last years. It was a painful recollection that he had lived to see the companions and familiar friends of his youth advanced to the highest ranks in the state, while he was left to derive a scanty support from talents now in their decay.

After making a complete tour of Europe, which he began by going through France, and finished by returning through Switzerland and Holland, he arrived in London, with every possible testimonial of his talents, but without a friend or patron. At this time plans were requested by the city of London for constructing a bridge at Black Friars, and Mr. Mylne, among twenty others, became a candidate. It was well known that one of his rivals was befriended by lord Bute, who had then great influence, but Mr. Mylne succeeded by the impartial verdict of the judges appointed to examine the respective plans; and the first stone was laid in 1761, with a pomp becoming the vast undertaking. A writer of no common talents, in the supplement to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” after a very close examination of the details of this structure, pronounces it to be the most perfect of any that is upon record, and at large points out the great superiority of the centering employed by Mr. Mylne. The learned author seerns, however, to suppose that this ingenious architect made a secret of his mode of centering; but few men had a more liberal spirit, or more aversion to professional quackery of every kind, and therefore, he deposited in the British Museum, an exact model of the centering employed at Blackfriars bridge, which gives a most precise and satisfactory idea of the work. When the bridge was first proposed, Mr. Mylne engaged in a short controversy with Dr. Johnson, on the form of the arch; but they were afterwards intimate friends, and in conversation agreed in a certain sturdy independence of mind which perhaps cemented that friendship. It is much to the honour of Mr. Mylne’s accuracy, as well as integrity, that Blackfriars-bridge was completed in 1765, for the exact sum specified in his estimate, namely, one hundred and fifty-three thousand pounds. On his proposals being accepted, the city committee, in February 1760, voted him an annual salary of three hundred pounds; and his farther remuneration was to be five per cent, on the money laid out on the bridge. To obtain this, however, he hud a long struggle with the city, which he maintained with his characteristic firmness and spirit; and, in answer to a question several times put to him, with no great delicacy, uniformly declared, that what he claimed, he claimed as a matter of right, and not of favour. At length, but not until 1776, his claims were allowed; on which occasion he sent to the corporation a letter of thanks.

, an historical writer, was born probably about 1638, and educated at Cambridge, of which he became LL. D. We have discovered very few particulars of his life. He appears to have been zealous in the royal cause during the usurpation, and became rector of Doddington cum March, in the Isle of Ely. He was also in 1684 collated to a prebend in that cathedral. Wood and Bentham say that he died March 24, 1685-6, aged fortyeight years, and was buried in Ely cathedral. If Bentham did not copy this date from Wood, but took it from the registers of Ely, we know not how to reconcile it with a letter from Dr. Nalson, printed in Gutch’s “Collectanea,” and dated 1688, at the time the bishops were sent to the Tower by the infatuated James II. Be this as it may, he published “An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639, to the murder of king Charles I, &c.” Lond. 1682-3, 2 vols. fol. This collection was intended as an antidote to that of Rush worth, whose prejudices were in favour of the parliament; and contains many authentic and curious circumstances not to be found in other writers. Nalson’s statements are reviewed by Roger Coke, esq. in his *' Treatise of the Life of Man,“1685, fbl. Besides this historical collection, Dr. Nalson wrote, 1.” The Countermine: or, a short, but true discovery of the dangerous principles, and secret practices of the dissenting party, especially the presbyterians; shewing, that religion is pretended, but rebellion intended,“&c. Lond. 1677, 8vo. 2.” The Common Interest of King and People, shewing the original, antiquity, and excellency, of monarchy compared with aristocracy and democracy, and particularly of our English monarchy; and that absolute, papal, and presbyterian popular supremacy are utterly inconsistent with prerogative, property, and liberty;“ibid. 1678, 8vo. 3.” A True Copy of the Journal of the High Court of Justice, for the' trial of Charles I. as it was read in the House of Commons, and attested under the hand of Phelps, clerk to that infamous court,“with an introduction, ibid. 1684, fol. He also translated Maimbourg’s” History of the Crusade," &c. ibid. 1685, fol.

, or Nannius, or in his native language, Nanningh (Peter), a very learned philologer, and general scholar, was born at Alcmaer, in Holland, in 1500; he studied at Louvain, and then was employed in the private education of some young men until the death of Conrad Goclenius, when the university unanimously appointed him to pronounce a funeral oration on that eminent teacher, and to succeed him as Latin professor. In this office he gave such satisfaction, that all his scholars, who were exceedingly numerous, ever preserved the highest respect for him, and acknowledged that the care he took was the foundation of their future advancement and fame. He was also much esteemed by the cardinal de Granvelle, and by Nicholas Everard, president of the great council of Mechlin. The cardinal preferred him to a canonry in his church of ArraS, and the president placed his children under his care, and rewarded him munificently. With the patronage of these two personages, he was so satisfied as to refuse many liberal offers to remove to Italy, and remained the whole of his life at Louvain. He was a most industrious writer, as well as teacher, and in the numerous list given by Foppen of his publications, we find commentaries on Cicero, on Virgil, and Horace’s Art of Poetry; paraphrases on the Song of Solomon, and on the Proverbs; annotations on civil law, of which he acquired a profound knowledge; translations of some part of Demosthenes, Synesius, Apollonius, Plutarch, St. Athanasius, St. N Basil, Chrysostom; prefaces introductory and illustrative of Homer, and Demosthenes, &c. He also translated the Psalms into Latin verse, and, in the opinion of his contemporaries, with equal elegance and fidelity. Among his separate publications his “Miscellaoeorum decas,” a collection of critical remarks on ancient authors, and his “Dialogismi Heroinarum,” were much esteemed. This eminent scholar died at Louvain, July 21, 1557, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, where one of his scholars, Sigismond Frederic Fugger, placed a monument to his memory. He is mentioned in terms of the highest praise by Miræus, Thuanus, Melchior Adam, Gyraldus, Huet, and many other learned men.

, a learned French writer and bibliographer, was born at Paris in the beginning of February 1600, and having discovered a strong inclination in his earliest years for reading, his parents determined to give him every benefit of education. After studying Latin, and being initiated in the principles of religion, in a community of the religious, he was sent to the university, where he made such proficiency in humanity and philosophy, as to be admitted to the degree of master of arts much before the usual age. He then, principally by the advice of his friends, began to study with a view to the church; but this was not agreeable to his sentiments, which were more free in matters of religion than consisted with a cordial profession of the prevailing tenets. He therefore soon preferred the study of medicine, and in 1626 attended the lectures with such application as to acquire a name in the world. Henry de Mesmes, president-a-mortier, hearing of him, appointed him to that for which it appeared afterwards he was best qualified, the office of librarian; and it was for this patron’s use that he wrote his excellent little work, entitled “Avis pour dresser une Bibliotheque,” printed at Paris in 1627, and again in 1644, with Louis Jacob’s “Traite des plus belles Bibliotheques.”

In 1515, he was nominated by the senate of Venice historiographer of iiis native country, and was at that time deemed the most elegant Latin writer that Italy could boast. He appears however to have been so fastidious as to be rarely satisfied with any thing he wrote, and is supposed to have destroyed ten books of the history of Venice a few hours before his death. Many of his poems shared the same fate, either because they fell short of that standard of excellence which he had formed in his own mind, or had been composed after models which he deemed illchosen. If he could be thus severe to himself, we cannot wonder that he should be equally so to others. It is said, that he every year burnt a copy of Martial, as a corrupter of that pure taste which distinguished the writers of the Augustan age. Navagero’s Latin poems are how consequently few in number, but sufficient to justify the character bestowed by his countrymen, and the esteem in which they held him. They were printed in 1530, under the title “Andreas Naugerii Patricii Veneti Orationes duse, Carminaque nonnulla,” Venice, folio. Considerable additions were made by Vulpius, although improperly called “opera omnia;” and printed at Padua, in quarto, 1718.

From this time he published only five occasional sermons, till 1732, when the first volume of his “History of the Puritans” appeared; and continued to be published, the second volume in 1733, the third in 1736, and the fourth in 1738, in 8vo. Of the impartiality of this work various opinions were then and are still entertained. We have had repeated occasions to examine it, and we think it exhibits as much impartiality as could have been expected from a writer whose object was to elevate the character of the puritans and non-conformists, at the expence of the members of the established church. And when it was discovered that he represented the church of England as almost uniformly a persecuting church, it was not surprizing he should meet with answers from those who, in surveying the history of the puritans, when they became known by the name of non-conformists, considered that the ejected were at one time the ejectors; the right of the usurping powers in Cromwell’s time to throw down the whole edifice of the church, being the main principle on which the controversy hinges. Mr. Neal’s representation of that event, and of the sufferings of his brethren, first called forth the abilities of Dr. Maddox, bishop of St. Asaph, who published “A Vindication of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of England, as established in the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the injurious reflections of Mr. Neal’s first volume,” &c. 8vo. To this Mr. Neal replied in “A Review of the Principal Facts objected to in the first volume of the History of the Puritans.” The subject was then taken up by Dr. Zachary Grey, in “An Impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans. In which the reflections of that author, upon king James I. and king Charles I. are proved to be groundless; his misrepresentations of the conduct of the prelates of those times, fully detected; and his numerous mistakes in history, and unfair way of quoting his authorities, exposed to public view,” 1736, 8vo. In 1737 and 1739, Dr. Grey published two more volumes, containing the same kind of examination of the third and fourth volumes of Neal’s History. Although Mr. Neal lived seven years after the appearance of Dr. Grey’s first volume in 1736, we are told that it was his declining state of health which prevented him from publishing a vindication. This task has been since attempted by Dr. Joshua Toulmin of Birmingham, in a new edition of Neal begun in 1793, and completed in 1797, 5 vols. 8vo; but we may repeat the opinion given in our account of Dr. Grey, that his and bishop Maddux’s volumes are still absolutely necessary to an impartial consideration of the subject.

Mr. Needham was elected a member of the royal society of London in 1746, and of the society of antiquaries some time after. From 1751 to 1767 he was chiefly employed as a travelling tutor to several English and Irish noblemen. He then retired from this wandering life to the English seminary at Paris, and in 1768 was chosen by the royal academy of sciences in that city a corresponding member. When the regency of the Austrian Netherlands, for the revival of philosophy and literature in that country, formed the project of an imperial academy, which was preceded by the erection of a small literary society to prepare the way for its execution, Mr. Needham was invited to Brussels, and was appointed successively chief director of both these foundations; an appointment which he held, together with some ecclesiastical preferments in the Low Countries, till his death, which happened December the 30th, 1781. The abbe Mann, from whose account of Mr. Needham we derive the above particulars, says, that “his piety, temperance, and purity of manners, were eminent; his attachment to the doctrines and duties of Christianity was inviolable. His zealous opposition to modern infidels was indefatigable, and even passionate. His probity was untainted. He was incapable of every species of duplicity: his beneficence was universal, and his unsuspicious candour rendered him often a dupe to perfidy.” The same writer, however, adds, that “his pen was neither remarkable for fecundity nor method; his writings are rather the great lines of a subject expressed with energy, and thrown upon paper in a hurry, than finished treatises.”

, an English political writer, and a model of political prostitutes, was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, in August 1620. His mother was daughter to an inn-keeper at Burford, and Hftarried to Mr. Marchamont Needham, an Oxford student. He died in 1621, and Mrs. Marchamont, his mother, the next year re-married with Christopher Glynn, vicar of Burford;, and master of the free-school there. This gentleman, perceiving his step-son to have very pregnant parts, took him under his own tuition; and, at the age of fourteen, he was-sent to Alt-Souls college. Here, being made one of the choristers, he continued till 1637; when taking the degree of B. A. which was inconsistent with his chorister’s place, he retired to St. Mary’s Hall, and in 1640 became third under-master of Merchant Taylors’ School. This, however, he resigned in 1642, and his next employment was that of a writer to an attorney in Gray’s Inn, but this too he soon quitted, and commenced his political career in a weekly paper under the title of “Mercurius Britannicus,” on the side of parliament. This procured him popularity, apparently without respect, as he was familiarly known among the populace by the name of captain Needham, of Gray’s Inn. In this publication he pretended to communicate “the affairs of Great Britain, for the better information of the people.” It began about the middle of August 1643, and came out on Mondays in one sheet, to the“latter end of 1646, or beginning of 1647. Perhaps our author might take the Me from a tragicomedy called” Mercurius Britannicus, or the English Intelligencer," reprinted in 1641, in 4to, written by Richard Brathwayte.

In 1680 he was chosen F. R. S. probably by the introduction of his friend and school-fellow, Dr. Halley, for whom he had a particular regard, and in whose company he set out on his travels the same year. In the road to Paris they saw the remarkable comet which gave rise to the cometical astronomy of sir Isaac Newton; and our author, apparently by the advantage of his fellow-traveller’s instructions, sent dean Tillotson a description of it. Before he left Paris he received a letter from a friend in the English court, suggesting to him to purchase a place there, and promising his assistance in it. But although Nelson had a great affection for king Charles and the duke of York, and was at first pleased with the thoughts of aU taching himself to the court, on which, however, at that time, he was more likely to confer honour, than to derive any from it, yet he could not resolve upon an affair of such consequence without the approbation of his mother and uncle. He first, therefore, applied to Tillotson to obtain their opinion, with assurances of determining himself by their and the dean’s advice; but, finding no encouragement from either of the parties, he relinquished his intention, and pursued his journey with his fellow-traveller to Rome. Here he became acquainted with a lady considerably older than himself, the lady Theophila Lucy, widow of sir Kingsmili Lucy, of Broxburne, Herts, bare, and second daughter of George earl of Berkeley, who soon discovered a strong passion for him, which concluded in a marriage, after his arrival in England, in 1682. His disappointment was, however, very great, when he found that she had deceived him in one very essential point, that of her having been won over to the popish religion while on this tour; and it was some time before she confessed this change, which was owing to her acquaintance with Bossuet, and conversations at Rome with cardinal Philip Howard, who was grandson of the earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundelian marbles, &c. and had been raised to the purple by Clement X. in May 1675. Nor was this important alteration of her religious sentiments confined to her own mind, but involved in it her daughter by her first husband, whom she drew over to her new religion; and her zeal for it prompted her even to become a writer in one of the controversies so common at that time. She is the supposed authoress of a piece printed in 1686, 4to, under the title of “A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversy in matters of Religion, shewing the necessity of such a judge.”

was a Greek philosopher, who embraced Christianity, and was made bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, where he was born about the year 370. We have a piece by him, entitled “De Natura Hominis;” in which he refutes the fatality of the Stoics, and the errors of the Manichees, the Apollinarists, and the Eunomians: but he espouses the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls. Brucker calls this treatise one of the most elegant specimens, now extant, of the philosophy which prevailed among the ancient Christians. The writer relates and examines the opinions of the Greek philosophers on the subject of his dissertation with great perspicuity of thought, and correctness of language. But the treatise is chiefly curious, as it discovers a degree of acquaintance with physiology, not to be paralleled in any other writers of this period. Brucker adds, that he treats clearly concerning the use of the bile, the spleen, the kidneys, and other glands of the human body, and seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. But Brucker was not aware that his knowledge of this last discovery has been shewn to be a mistake by Dr. Freind, in his “History of Physic.” This treatise was translated by Valla, and printed in 1535. Another version was afterwards made of it by Ellebodius, and printed in 1665; it is also inserted into the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” in Greek and Latin. The last and best edition was published at Oxford, in 1671, 8vo.

, a physician and miscellaneous writer, the son of John Nettleton, was born in 1683, at Dewsbury, and settled at Halifax, in Yorkshire, where he practised physic for several years with great success, having taken the degree of M. D. at Utrecht. He and Mr. West, of Underbank, near Penniston, in Yorkshire, were the first who instructed professor Sanderson in the principles of mathematics; and Dr. Nettleton used to say, that the scholar soon became more knowing than his master. We find several communications from Dr. Nettleton in the Philosophical Transactions, as “An account of the height of the Barometer at different elevations above the surface of the earth;” and two papers on the small-pox. It appears that he had inoculated sixty-one persons, when the whole amount of persons inoculated by other practitioners was only one hundred and twenty-one. In 1729, he published a pamphlet, entitled “Some thoughts concerning virtue and happiness, in a letter to a clergyman,” 8vo, which he afterwards much enlarged. It was reprinted at London in 1736 and 1751, both in small octavo, but the former of these is the most valuable, because it had the author’s finishing hand. The design is to shew that happiness is the end of all our actions; but that it must be founded on virtue, which is not only the support and ornament of society, but yields the greatest pleasure, both in its immediate exercise, and in its consequence and effects. Dr. Nettleton married, in March 1708, Elizabeth Cotton, of Haigh-hall, by whom he had several children. He died Jan. 9, 1742, at Halifax, and was buried at Dewsbury, with a Latin epitaph on the south wall of the church. To the account of his publications, not noticed in our authority, we may add his thesis on taking his degree, “Disput. de Inflammatione,” Utrecht, 1706; and his “Account of the success of inoculating the Smallpox.” Lond. 1722, 4to; neither of which his biographer appears to have seen.

, an English poetical writer, was a native of Kent, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Nevil, was the son of Richard Nevil of the county of Nottingham, esq. by Anne Mantel, daughter of sir Walter Mantel, of Heyford in Northamptonshire, knight. He was born in 1544. If not educated at Cambridge, his name occurs as having received the degree of M. A. there, along with Robert earl of Essex, July 6, 1581. He was one of the learned men whom archbishop Parker retained in his family, and was his secretary at his grace’s death in 1575. It is no small testimony of his merit and virtues that he was retained in the same of-, fice by the succeeding archbishop, Grindal, to whom, as well as to archbishop Parker, he dedicated his Latin narrative of the Norfolk insurrection under Kett. To this he added a Latin account of Norwich, accompanied by an engraved map of the Saxon and British kings. These were both written in archbishop Parker’s time, who assisted Nevile in the latter. The title is, “Kettus, sive de furoribus Norfolciensium Ketto duce,” Lond. 1575, 4to. reprinted both in Latin and English the same year, in Latin in 1582, and in English in 1615 and 1623. Prefixed are some verses on the death of archbishop Parker, and the epistle dedicatory to Grindal, with a recommendatory Latin poem, by Thomas Drant, the first translator of Horace. His “Norvicus,” published with the preceding, is the first printed account of Norwich; the plates are by R. Lyne and Rem. Hogenbergius, both attached to the household of the learned and munificent Parker. There are copies of almost all the preceding editions in Mr. Cough’s library at Oxford. Strype has published, in the appendix to his Life of Parker, an elegant Latin letter from Nevile to Parker, which is prefixed to the “Kettus.” The first Latin edition, printed in 1575, is dedicated solely to -Parker: and the second, of the same year, which has the two dedications, has also a passage, not in the former, and probably struck out by Parker, which gave offence to the Welsh. It occurs at p. 132, “Sed enim Kettiani rati,” &c, to “Nam prosterquam quod,” &c. p. 133.

, a republican writer, the second son of sir Henry Nevile, of Billingbeare, in Berkshire, was born in 1620, and became a commoner of Merton college, Oxford, in 1635, but appears to have left it without taking a degree. In the beginning of the rebellion, he travelled on the continent, but returned in 1645, and became an active agent for republicanism. In November 1651, he was elected one of the council of state, but when he found Cromwell aspiring to the crown, under the pretence of a protectorate, he retired. He caballed with Harrington and others for their imaginary commonwealth until the Restoration, when he was taken into custody, but soon after released. From this time he lived privately until his death, Sept. 20, 1694, at Warfi eld in Berkshire. The only one of his publications worthy of notice was, his “Plato Redivivus: or a Dialogue concerning Government,” 168 I, which Mr. Hollis, in his republican zeal, reprinted in 1763. His other works were, 1. “The Parliament of Ladies,” 1647, 4to, a kind of banter on sir Henry Blount, for certain loose sentiments respecting the female sex. 2. “Shuffling, cutting, and dealing, in a game at Piquet,” 1659, 4to, another satire on Cromwell. 3. “The Isle of Pines: or a late discovery of a fourth island near Terra australis incognita, by Hen. Cornelius Van Sloetten,” Lond. 1668, 4to. He was also the editor of Machiavel’s works, and the defender of his principles. Wood says he wrote some poems, inserted in various collections. One in Mr. Nichols’s collection, vol. VII. p. 1, gives us no very favourable idea of his genius or decency.

After Dr. Young had published his celebrated satires, Mr. Newcomb, who was very intimate with him, printed, 1. “The Manners of the Times, in seven Satires.” 2. “An Ode to the Queen, on the happy accession of their Majesties to the Crown,” 1727. 3. “An Ode to the Right Honourable the Earl of Orford, on Retirement,” 1742. 4. “A Collection of Odes and Epigrams, &c. occasioned by the Success of the British and Confederate Arms in Germany,” 1743. 5. “An Ode inscribed to the Memory of the late Earl of Orford,” 1747. 6. Two Odes to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, on hjs return from Scotland, and on his Voyage to Holland,“1746. 7.” A Paraphrase on some Select Psalms.“8.” The Consummation, a Sacred Ode on the final Dissolution of the World, inscribed to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,“1752, 4to. 9.” A Miscellaneous Collection of Original Poems, Odes, Epistles, Translations, &c. written chiefly on political and moral subjects; to which are added, Occasional Letters and Essays, formerly published in defence of the present government and administration,“1756, a large volume in 4to. 10.” Vindicta Britannicn, an Ode on the Royal Navy, inscribed to the King,“1759, 4to, 11.” Novus Epigrammatum Delectus, or Original State Epigrams and Minor Odes, suited to the Times,“1760, 8vo. 12.” The Retired Penitent, being a poetical Version of one of the Rev. Dr. Young’s Moral Contemplations. Revised, approved, and published, with the Consent of that learned and eminent Writer,“1760, 12mo. 13.” A congratulatory Ode to the Queen, on her Voyage to England,“1761, 4to. 14.” On the Success of the British Arms;, A congratulatory Ode addressed to his Majesty,“1763, 4to. 15.” The Death of Abel, a Sacred Poem, written originally in the German language, attempted in the style of Milton,“1763, 12mo. 16. In 1757, he published” Versions of two of Hervey’s Meditations,“in blank verse. And, in 1764, the whole of them were printed in two volumes, 12mo, inscribed to the right hon. Arthur Onslow, sir Thomas Parker, and lady Juliana Penn. Mr. Nichols also supposes, that Dr. Newcomb was the author of” A Supplement to a late excellent poem, entitled Are these things so?“1740; and of” Preexistence and Transmigration, or the new Metamorphosis; a Philosophical Essay on the Nature and Progress of the Soul; a poem, something between a panegyric and a satire," 1743. Dr. Newcomb died probably about 1766^ in which year his library was sold, an4 when he must have been in his ninety-first year.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

, D. D. founder of Hertford college, Oxford, was descended from a family that had long been of considerable repute, and of good fortune, but much injured during the civil wars. His father enjoyed a moderate estate at Lavendon Grange, in Bucks, (which is now in the family,) and lived in a house of lord Northampton’s in Yardlv-chase, where Dr. Newton is said to have been born about 1676. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and elected from that foundation in 1694 to a studentship of Christ-church, Oxford, where he executed the office of tutor very much to his own and the college’s honour and benefit. Here he became M. A. April 12, 1701; and B. D. March 18, 1707. He was inducted principal of Hart-hall, by Dr. Aldrich, in 1710, and took the degree of D. D. Dec. 7, that year. He was received into lord Pelham’s family, to superintend the education of the late duke of Newcastle, the minister, and his brother Mr. Pelham, who ever retained a most affectionate regard for him. Of this, however, he was long without any substantial proofs. Being a man of too independent and liberal principles ever to solicit a favour for himself, he was overlooked by these statesmen, till, in 1752, a short time before his death, when he was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, which he held with his principalship of Hertford-college. He was honoured with the esteem of the late lord Granville, than whom none at that timfe a better judge of merit and men of learning. He was aU lowed to be as polite a scholar and as ingenious a writer as any of the age. In closeness of argument, and perspicuity and elegance of language, he had not his equal. Never was any private person employed in more trusts, or discharged them with greater integrity. He was a true friend to religion, the university, and the clergy; a man of exemplary piety, and extensive charity. No one man was called forth so often to preach, in the latter end of queen Anne’s time, and in the beginning of king George I. as Dr. Newton.

He wrote, 1. “A notable history of the Saracens, &c. drawn out of Aug. Curio, in three books,” Lond. 1575, 4to. 2. “A Summary, or brief Chronicle of the Saracens and Turks,” &c. printed with the former. 3. “Approved medicines and cordial precepts, with the nature and symptoms,” &c. ibid. 1580, 8vo. 4. “Illustrium aliquot Anglorum encomia,” ibid. 1589, 4to, at the end of Leland’s “Encomia.” 5. “Atropoion Delion or the death of Delia, with the tears of her funeral. A poetical Discourse of our late Elizabeth,” ibid. 1603, 4to. 6. “A pleasant new History: or a Fragrant Posie made of three flowers: Rose, Rosalynd, and Rosemary,” ibid. 1604. He also corrected “Embryon Relimatum,” written by John Stambridge, but he was not the author of the two parts of Tamerlane the great Scythian emperor, which were written by Marlow. He translated the following works: 7. “A Direction for the Health of Magistrates and Students,” from Gratarolus, Lond. 1574, 12mo; of this a copious extract may be seen in the Bibliographer, vol. II, 8. “Commentary on the two Epistles general of St. Simon and St. Jude,” from Luther, ibid. 1581, 4to. 9. “Touchstone of Complexions,” from Levinus Lemnius, ibid. 1581, 8vo, noticed in the “Censura Literaria,” with an extract, vol. VI. 10. “The third tragedy of L. An. Seneca, entitled Thebais,” ibid. 1581, published with the other translated plays, by Studley, Nevile, &c. Dr. Pulteney thinks that the “Herbal to the Bible,” printed in 1587, 8vo, was by him; and this is not improbable, as it is only a translation, of “Levini Lemnii explicatio similitudjnum quæ in Bibliis ex herbis et arboribus sumuntur.” He conceives also that Newton was the writer of the commendatory lines prefixed to Lyte’s Herbal, in which, after complimenting the author for his judicious selection of useful knowledge from former writers, he has versified, in less than two pages, the names of more than two hundred worthies in medical science, from the earliest antiquity to his own times. Warton observes that most of the ingenious and learned men of that age courted his favours as a polite and popular encomiast. Warton also infers that he was a partizan of the puritans, from no better authority than his having written “Christian friendship, with an invective against dice-play and other profane games,” Lond. 1586.

His arduous application to polite literature enabled him to imitate the style of the best Latin authors, particularly that of Terence; but he is most admired as an elegant writer in his own language. In France he suffered much by undertaking the defence of Jansenius, whose opinions were condemned by the Sorbonne, the clergy of France, and indeed the whole church. His works are very numerous, consisting of not less than an hundred articles: the principal are, I.“Moral Essays,” 14 vols. 12mo, among which are three volumes of “Letters and Reflections on the Epistles and Gospels,” 5 vols, which joined to the “Theological Instructions on the Sacrament,” 2 vols, “on the Creed,” 2 vols.; “on the Lord’s Prayer,” 1 vol.; “on the Decalogue,” 2 vols. and the “Treatise on Prayer,” 2 vols, form the 23 volumes of what are called “Moral Essays.” 2. “Lettresimaginaires et visionaires,” 1667, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. The small “Perpetuity of the Faith,” with a defence of it. 4. The large “Perpetuity,” written in conjunction with M. Arnauld, 3 vols. 4to, but almost entirely by M. Nicole. 5. “Les Prejuges legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 12mo. 6. “Tr. de PUnke* de l'Eglise,” against Jurieu. 7. “Les Pretendes Réformés convaincus de Schisme; Réfutation des principales erreurs des Quitistes.” Besides many other controversial pieces in defence of Jansenius and M. Arnauld, he published a selection of Latin epigrams, entitled “Epigrammaturn Delectus,” 1659, 12mo, and a Latin translation of the “Provincial Letters,” with notes, &c. under the assumed name of Wendrock. A history of the life and writings of M. Nicole was published in 1735, 12mo.

, a French academician and dramatic writer, was born at Paris in 1692. Being the nephew of a farmer-general, he might have acquired opulence, by so valuable a connection, but he preferred the study of polite literature. His first work was a criticism on the fables of La Motte, who was his friend, but who never objected to any liberties of that kind which his friends might take with him. When La Motte advanced his famous paradox on the in utility of versification in tragedy, &c. Nivelle joined la Faye as one of his opponents, and published an “Epitre a Clio,” 1733, 12mo, which was much admired, and in which he has taken considerable freedoms with La Motte. As a dramatic writer, Nivelle brought into fashion what the French call the comedies larmoy antes, or comedies in which there are more scenes of tenderness than of wit and humour. Of these his “Prejuge a la mode” “Ecole des Amis,” and “Melanide,” are still much admired in France as are his “Ecole des Meres,” and “La Gbuvernante,” although not received at first so favourably. He wrote many other dramatic pieces, with moderate success, which with his other works, were published at Paris, in 1762, 5 vols. 12mo. La Harpe ranks him among the authors who have done honour to the French theatre. He died May 14, 1754, in the sixty-second year of his age.

, a learned English divine and Platonic philosopher, was born in 1657, at Collingborne-Kingston, in Wiltshire, of which place his father, Mr. John Norris, was then minister. After being educated in grammar, &c, at Winchester school, he was entered of Exeter college in Oxford in 1676; but was elected fellow of All Souls in 1680, soon after he had taken his degree of bachelor of arts. From his first application to philosophy, Plato became his favourite author; by degrees he grew deeply enamoured with beauties in that divine writer, as he thought him, and took an early occasion to communicate his ideal happiness to the public, by printing an English translation of a rhapsody entitled “Effigies Arnoris,” but which he called “The Picture of Love unveiled,” in 1682. He commenced master of arts in 1684, and the same year opened a correspondence with that learned mystic Dr. Henry More, of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and with those learned females, lady Masham, and Mrs. Astell.

As to his character, he had a tincture of enthusiasm in his composition, which led him to imbibe the principles of the idealists in philosophy, and the mystics in theology; and the whole turn of his poetry shews that enthusiasm made him a poet. As an idealist, he opposed Locke, and adorned Malebranche’s opinion, of seeing all things in God, with all the advantages of style, and perspicuity of expression. A late writer who appears to have studied his works with almost the same enthusiasm that inspired them, says, that " in metaphysical acumen, in theological learning, and in purity of diction, Mr. Norris acknowledges no superior. Mr. Locke, the reputed discoverer of the true theory of the mind, does not rank higher in that peculiar branch of science than our penetrating divine; for if his reply to Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding be critically considered, it will be found to detect many fundamental errors in that celebrated treatise.

" ‘The Theory of the Ideal World’ may be considered as the capital work of Norris. The depth of thought, and the acuteness of logic, which he displays in this treatise on a very abstruse subject, justly entitle him to claim a high rank among metaphysicians. His philosophical pieces, with a peculiar vigour of mind, display a closeness of style, and a nice but just discrimination of causes and effects; and though in a treatise professedly on the subject, he decries the value of scholastic learning, yet he every where proves his familiarity with every branch of it; and perhaps he has made a more frequent and better use of logic, than any writer in the English language.

, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the last century, was a native of Ireland, who merits some notice, although we have not been able to recover many particulars of his history. He appears to have resided the greater part of his life in London, and employed his pen on various works for the booksellers, principally translations. In 1765 he received the degree of LL. D. from the university of Aberdeen. He died at his apartments in Gray’s Inn, April 27, 1772, with the character of a man of learning, industry, and contented temper. The first of his translations which we have met with, was that of Burlamaqui’s “Principles of Politic Law,” 1752, 8vo. This was followed by the abbe de Condillac’s “Essay on the origin of Human Knowledge,” 1756, 8vo. Macquer’s “Chronological abridgment of the Roman History,” 1759, 8vo; and Henault’s “Chronological abridgment of the History of France,” 1762, 2 vols. 8vo. In 1766 he travelled on the continent for the purpose of collecting materials for his “History of Vandalia,” which he completed in 3 vols. 4to, in 1776. This tour also occasioned his publishing “Travels through Germany,” &c. 2 vols. 8vo. We find him afterwards appearing as compiler or translator of a “Historyof France” “New Observations on Italy;” “The present state of Europe;” the “Life of Benv^nuto Cellini” Grossley’s “Tour to London” a French Dictionary, &c. &c. His translations were generally admired for elegance and accuracy; his principal faifure was in tjr^translation of Rousseau' “Emilius,” but it seems doubtful whether he translated this, or only permitted his name to be used.

, a celebrated English actress, and most accomplished woman, was born in Pall-mall, London, in 1683. Her father, once possessed of a competent estate, was then an officer in the guards; but, being improvident, left his family, at his death, almost destitute. In these circumstances, the widow was forced to live with a sister, who kept a tavern in St. James’s market; and the daughter was placed with a sempstress in King-street, Westminster. Miss Oldfield, in the mean time, conceived an extraordinary taste for the drama, and was entertaining her relations at a tavern by reading, or attempting to act, when her voice chanced to reach the eat of Farquhar, the celebrated dramatic writer, who happened to dine in the same house. On being introduced, he was struck with her agreeable person and carriage, and presently pronounced her admirably formed for the stage. This concurring with her own inclinations, her mother opened the matter to sir John Vanburgh, a friend of the family, who having the same favourable opinion of her talents, recommended her to Mr. Rich, then patentee of the king’s theatre. She remained, however, in comparative obscurity, till 1703, when she first appeared to advantage in the part of Leonora in “Sir Courtly Nice;” and established her theatrical reputation, the following year, in th'at of Lady Betty Modish in the “Careless Husband.”

His works have been frequently printed in one volume, 8vo; in 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo, with the “Author’s Life;” and lately, under the inspection of captain Thomson, in 3 vols. 12mo. They consist of no less than fifty pieces; the chief of which are, “The Four Satires upon the Jesuits,” written in 1679. In 1681 he published “Some new pieces” by the author of the Satires upon the Jesuits, 8vo. The fame he acquired by these satires procured him the title of the English Juvenal, and although his language is frequently harsh and coarse, there are many passages of vigour and elegance, and much vivacity of description. Pope used to say, “Oldham is a very indelicate writer; he has strong rage, but too much like Billingsgate. Lord Rochester had much more delicacy, and more knowledge of mankind. Oldham is too rough and coarse. Rochester is the medium between him and the earl of Dorset, who is the best.”

, a writer well known in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. but of whom little is remembered, unless the titles of some few of his literary productions. One of his names took the degree of M. A. at Hart-hall, Oxford, in 1670. He was one of the original authors of “The Examiner,” and continued to write in that paper as long as it was kept up. He published, “A Vindication of the Bishop of Exeter” (Dr. Blackall), against Mr. Hoadly. 2. A volume called “State Tracts” and another called “State and Miscellany Poems, by the author of the Examiner,” 1715, 8vo. He translated, 3. The “Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare, of Horace;” wrote, 4. The “Life of Edmund Smith,” prefixed to his works, 1719; and, 5. “Timothy and Philatheus, in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated and answered in their kind, &c. By a Layman,” 1709, 1710, 3 vols. 8vo. This is the work to which Pope makes Lintot the bookseller allude, in their pleasant dialogue on a journey to Oxford, and which perhaps may also convey one of Pope’s delicate sneers at Oldisworth’s poetry . He also published a translation of “The Accomplished Senator,” from the Latin of Gozliski, bishop of Posnia, 1733, 4to. In the preface to this work he defends his own character as a writer for the prerogative and the ministry, and boldly asserts his independence, while he admits that he wrote under the earl of Oxford. He insinuates that some things have been published under his name, in which he had no hand, and probably the above-mentioned “State and Miscellany Poems” were of that number. His attachment to the Stuart family occasioned a report that he was killed at the battle of Preston in 1715; but it is certain that he survived this engagement many years, and died Sept. 15, 1734.

, ridiculed in the Taller by the name of Mr. Omicron, “the Unborn Poet,” descended from an ancient family of the name, originally seated at Oldmixon, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, and was born in 1673. Where he was educated is not known. He appears to have been early a writer for the stage; his first production was “Amyntas,” a pastoral, and his second, in 1700, an opera, neither of much merit or success. He Soon, however, became a violent party-writer, and a severe and malevolent critic. In the former light he was a strong opponent of the Stuart family, whom he has, on every occasion, endeavoured to vilify without any regard to that impartiality which ought ever to be the essential characteristic of an historian. As a critic he was perpetually attacking, with evident tokens of envy and malevolence, his several contemporaries; particularly Addison, Eusden, and Pope. The last of these, however, whom he had attacked in different letters which he wrote in “The Flying Post,” and repeatedly reflected on in his “Prose essays on Criticism,” and in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” written in imitation of Bouhours, has introduced him into his “Dunciad,” with some very distinguishing marks of eminence among the devotees of dulness. In the second book of that severe poem, where the dunces are contending for the prize of dulness, by diving in the mud of Fleet-ditch, he represents our author as mounting the sides of a lighter, in order to enable him to take a more efficacious plunge. Oldmixon’s malevolence of abuse entitled him to the above-mentioned honour; and, to the disgrace of the statesmen of that time, his zeal as a virulent party-writer procured him the place of collector of the customs at the port of Bridgewater, but he died at his house in Great Pulteney-street, aged sixty-nine, July 9, 1742. He left a daughter, who died in 1789, at Newiand in Gloucestershire, aged eighty-four. Another of his daughters sung at Hickford’s rooms in 1746. He lies buried in Ealing church.

Of the writings of Mr. Oldys, some of which were anonymous, the following account is probably very imperfect: I. In the British Museum is Oidys’s copy of “Langbaine’s _ Lives,” &c. not interleaved, but filled with notes written in the margin, and between the lines, in an extremely small hand. It came to the Museum as a part of the library of Dr. Birch, who bought it at an auction of Oidys’s books and papers for one guinea. Transcripts of this have been made by various literary gentlemen. 2. Mr. Gough, in the first volume of his “British Topography,” p. 567, tells us, that he had “been favoured, by George Steevens, esq. with the use of a thick folio of titles of books and pamphlets relative to London, and occasionally to Westminster and Middlesex, from 1521 to 1758, collected by the late Mr. Oldys, with many others added, as it seems, in another hand. Among them,” he adds, “are many purely historical, and many of too low a kind to rank under the head of topography or histpry. The rest, which are very numerous, I have inserted, marked O, with corrections, &c. of those I had myself collected. Mr. Steevens purchased this ms. of T. Davies, who bought Mr. Oidys’s library. It had been in the hands of Dr. Berkenhout, who had a design of publishing an English Topographer, and riiay possibly have inserted the articles in a different hand. It afterwards became the property of sir John Hawkins.” 3. “The British Librarian, exhibiting a compendious Review of all unpublished and valuable books, in all sciences,” which was printed without his name, in 1737, 8vo, and after having been long neglected and sold at a low price, is now valued as a work of such accuracy and utility deserves. 4, A “Life of sir Waiter Raleigh,” prefixed to his “History of the World,” in folio. 5. “Introduction to Hay ward’s British Muse (1738);” of which he says, “that the penurious publishers, to contract it within a sheet, left out a third part of the best matter in it, and made more faults than were in the original.” In this he was assisted by Dr. Campbell. 6. “His Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind boy at Ightharn, in Kent, by John Taylor, jun. oculist, 1753,” 8vo. Thetide of the pamphlet here alluded to was, “Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind Boy, of Ightham, in Kent, who, being born with cataracts in both eyes, was at eight years of age brought to sight on the 8th of October, 1751, by Mr. John Taylor, jun. oculist, in Hattongarden; containing his strange notions of objects upon the first enjoyment of his new sense; also, some attestations thereof; in a letter written by his father, Mr. William Taylor, farmer, in the same parish: interspersed with several curious examples, and remarks, historical and philosophical, thereupon. Dedicated to Dr. Monsey, physician to theRoyal hospital at Chelsea. Also, some address to the public, for a contribution towards the foundation of an hospital for the blind, already begun by some noble personages,” 8vo. 7. Various lives in the “Biographia Britannica,” with the signature G, the initial letter of Gray’sInn, where he formerly lived. He mentions, in his notes on Langbaine, his life of sir George Etherege, of Caxton, of Thomas May, and of Edward Alleyn, inserted in that work. He composed the “Life of Atherton;” which, if it ever deserved to have had a place in that work, ought not to have been removed from it any more than the “Life of Eugene Aram,” which is inserted in the second edition. That the publishers of the second edition meant no indignity to Oldys, by their leaving out his “Life of Atherton,” appears fram their having transcribed into their work a much superior quantity of his writings, consisting of notes and extracts from printed books, styled “Oldys’s Mss.” Of these papers no other account is given than that “they are a large and useful body of biographical materials;” but we may infer, from the known industry and narrow circumstances of the writer, that, if they had been in any degree prepared for public consideration, they would not have so long lain dormant. 8. At the importunity of Curll, he gave him a sketch of the life of Nell Gvvin, to help out his V History of the Stage.“9. He was concerned with Des Maizeaux in writing the” Life of Mr. Richard Carew,“the antiquary of Cornwall, in 1722. 10.” Observations, Historical and Critical, on the Catalogue of English Lives.“Whether this was ever printed we know not. 11.” Tables of the eminent persons celebrated by English Poets.“This he seems to quote in a manuscript note on Langbaine, but it does not appear to have been printed. 12. He mentions, ibidem, the first volume of his” Poetical Characteristics,“on which we may make the same remark. If these two works continued in ms. during his life-time, it is probable that they were not finished for publication, or that no bookseller would buy them. 13. O,idys seems to have been concerned likewise as a writer in the” General Dictionary,“for he mentions his having been the author of” The Life of sir-John Talbot,“in that work and in Birch’s Mss. is a receipt from him for \.L 5s. for writing the article of Fas tolf 14. He mentions likewise, in his notes on Langbaine, that he was the author of a pamphlet against Toland, called” No blind Guides.“15. He says, ibidem, that he communicated many things to Mrs. Cooper, which she published in her” Muse’s Library.“16. In 1746 was published, in 12mo,” health’s Improvement; or, Rules comprising the nature, method, and manner, of preparing foods used in this nation. Written by that ever famous Thomas Moffett, doctor in physic; corrected and enlarged by Christopher Bennet, doctor in physic, and fellow of the College of Physicians in London. To which is now prefixed, a short View of the Author’s Life and Writings, by Mr. Oldys; and an Introduction by R. James, M. D.“17. In the first volume of British Topography,” page 31, mention is made of a translation of “Gamden’s Britannia,” in 2 vols. 4to, “by W. O. esq.” which Mr. Gough, with great probability, ascribes to Mr. Oldys. 18. Among the Mss. in the British Museum, described in Mr. Ayscough’s Catalogue, we find p. 24, “Some Considerations upon the publication of sir Thomas Roe’s Epistolary Collections, supposed to be written by Mr. Oldys, and by him tendered to Sam. Boroughs, esq. with proposals, and some notes of Dr. Birch.” 19. In p. 736, “Memoirs of the family of Oldys.” 20. In p. 741, “Two small pocket books of short Biographical Anecdotes of many Persons,” and “some Fragments of Poetry,” perhaps collected by Mr. Oldys? 21. In p. 750, and p. 780, are two ms letters “of Mr. Oldys,” 1735 and 1751. 22. It is said, in a ms paper, by Dr. Dticarel, who knew him well, that Oldys had by him, at the time of his death, some collections towards a “Life of Shakspeare,” but not digested into any order, as he told the doctor a few days before he died. 23. On the same authority he is said to be a writer in, or the writer of, “The Scarborough Miscellany,” 1732, and 1734. 24. “The Universal Spectator,” of which he was some time the publisher, was a newspaper, a weekly journal, said; on the top of the paper, which appeared originally in single sheets, to be “by Henry Stonecastle, in Northumberland,” 1730 1732. It was afterwards collected into two volumes 8vo to which a third and fourth were added in 1747. In one of his Mss. we find the following wellturned anagram

O'Leary (Arthur), a Roman Catholic clergyman, was a native of Ireland, whence, when young, he embarked for France; studied at the college of St. Malo, in Briianny, and at length entered into the Franciscan order of Capuchins. He then acted, for some time, as chaplain to the English prisoners during the seven years war, for which he received a small pension from the Frenrh government, which he retained till the French revolution. Having obtained permission to go to Ireland, he obtained, by his talents, the notice and recompence of the Irish government; and took an early opportunity of shewing the superiority of his courage and genius, by principally attacking the heterodox doctrines of Michael Servetus, revived at that time hy a Dr. Blair, of the city of Cork. After this, in 1782, when there was a disposition to relax the rigour of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics, and establish a sort of test-oath, he published a tract entitled “Loyalty asserted, or the Test- Oath vindicated,” in which, in opposition to most of his brethren, he endeavoured to prove that the Roman Catholics of Ireland might, consistently with their religion, swear that the pope possessed there no temporal authority, which was the chief point on which the oath hinged; and in other respects he evinced his loyalty, and his desire to restrain the impetuous bigotry of his brethren. His other productions were of a various and miscellaneous nature; and several effusions are supposed to have come from his pen which he did not think it necessary or perhaps prudent to acknowledge. He was a man singularly gifted with natural humour, and possessed great acquirements. He wrote on polemical subjects without acrimony, and on politics with a spirit of conciliation. Peace indeed seems to have been much his object. Some years ago, when a considerable number of nocturnal insurgents, of the Romish persuasion, committed great excesses in the county of Cork, particularly towards the tithe- proctors of the protestant clergy, he rendered himself extremely useful, by his various literary addresses to the deluded people, in bringing them to a proper sense of their error and insubordination. This laudable conduct did not escape the attention of the Irish government; and induced them, when he quitted Ireland, to recommend him to men of power in this country. For many years he resided in London, as principal of the Roman Catholic chapel in Soho-square, where he was highly esteemed by people of his religion. In his private character he was always cheerful, gay, sparkling with wit, and full of anecdote. He died at an advanced age in January, 1802, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard. His works are, 1. “Several Addresses to the Catholics of Ireland.” 2. “Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s Defence of the Protestant Association.” 3. “Defence of his conduct in the affair of the insurrection in Munster,” 1787. 4. “Review of the important Controversy between Dr. Carrol and the rev. Messrs. Wharton and Hopkins.” 5. “Fast sermon at St. Patrick’s chapel, Soho, March 8, 1797.” 6. A Collection of his Miscellaneous Tracts, in 1 vol. 8vo. 7. “A Defence of the Conduct and Writings of the rev. Arthur O'Leary, &c. written by himself, in answer to the illgrounded insinuations of the right rev. Dr. Woodward, bishop of Cloyne,” 1788, 8vo. The bishop, in his controversy with Mr. O'Leary, acknowledges that he represents matters strongly and eloquently, and that, “Shakspeare like, he is well acquainted with the avenues to the human heart;” and Mr. Wesley calls him an “arch and lively writer.” His style was certainly voluble, bold, and figurative but deficient in grace, manliness, perspicuity, and sometimes grammar; but he was distinguished as a friend to freedom, liberality, and toleration and was highly complimented on this account by Messrs. Grattan, Flood, and other members of the Irish parliament, in their public speeches.

, an elegant French writer, and classical editor, was the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Besangon y and born at Salins, March 30, 1682. After having finished his early studies with much applause, he entered thse society of the Jesuits, but left them, to their great regret, at the age of thirty-three. Before this they had conceived so high an opinion of hid merit, as to recommend him to be tutor to the prince of Asturias, but the abbe preferred a life of independence and tranquillity. Some time after, he came to Paris, and profited by the conversation of the few eminent survivors of the age of Louis XIV. On his arrival here he found the men of literature engaged in the famous dispute relative to the comparative merits of the ancients and moderns, but had the good sense to disapprove of the sentiments and paradoxes of Perrauk, and Terrasson, La Mothe, and Fontenelle. His first object appears to have been the study of his own language, which he wrote in great purity. In 1723 he was elected a member of the French academj-, and from this time devoted himself to the life of a man of letters.

, a polemical writer of the time of James I. was descended paternally from a Lancashire family, which assumed the name of an estate in that county, in the reign of Henry III. of which it still continues the possession. His grandfather, John Ormerod, a younger brother of this house, married a Lancashire lady of the name of Whitaker, who from the contiguity of the estate of Ormerod and Holme, was most probably of the family of the Whitakers of the latter place. It is not unlikely that this relationship to the learned divinity-professor of Cambridge, might influence the subject of this article in his choice of his university, and in his theological studies.

Mr. Orton’s quitting his pastoral connection with the dissenters at Shrewsbury, was attended with unhappy consequences. A contest arose with respect to the choice of an assistant to Mr. Fownes, which, at length ended in a separation. The larger number of the society thought it their duty to provide themselves with another place of worship; and with these Mr. Orton concurred in opinion. He esteemed himself, says his biographer, bound to countenance them upon every principle of conscience, as a Christian, a Dissenter, a Minister, and a Friend to Liberty. Though Mr. Fownes continued at the old chapel, this circumstance did not occasion any diminution in the friendship and affection subsisting between him and Mr. Orton. One almost unavoidable effect of the division was, its being accompanied with a bad spirit, in several persons, on both sides of the question. The height to which the matter was carried, rendered Mr. Orton’s situation at Shrewsbury greatly uncomfortable, and materially affected his health. He found it necessary, therefore, to retire to another place; and at length, in 1766, he fixed at Kidderminster, to which he was principally led that he might have the advice of a very able and skilful physician (Dr. Johnstone, of Worcester), who always proved himself a faithful and tender friend. He continued at Kidderminster for the remainder of his clays; and although prevented, by the bad state of his health, from ever again appearing in the pulpit, he still retained the same zeal for promoting the great objects of the Christian religion. What he could not perform as a preacher, he was solicitous to effect as a practical writer. Previously to his resignation of the pastoral office his only publications were, his Funeral Sermon for Dr. Doddridge, printed in 1752; a Fast Sermon in 1756, occasioned by the earthquake at Lisbon; and “Three Discourses on Eternity, and the Importance and Advantage of looking at Eternal Things,” published in 1764. These three discourses have gone through six editions, and have been translated into Welch. Such was Mr. Orton’s ill state of health, together with his attention to the duties of his profession, that it was not till 1766 that he was enabled to give to the world his “Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of Dr. Doddridge.” In 1769, he published a set of sermons, under the title of “Religious Exercises recommended: or, Discourses on the Heavenly State, considered under the Idea of a Sabbath.” In 1771, he published “Discourses to the Aged.” Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1774, was entitled “Christian Zeal; or three Discourses on the Importance of seeking the Things of Christ more than our own.” These seem to have been intended to check the se!6sh and clamorous zeal which then appeared among the Dissenters for matters of a worldly kind, and to direct it to the support and advancement of real practical religion. In 1775, Mr. Orton committed to the press three farther Discourses, under the title of “Christian Worship,” which have been, translated into Welch. Two volumes of “Discourses on Practical Subjects” were the production of the next year. Mr. Orion’s last publication, which appeared in 1777, was entitled “Sacramental Meditations or, Devout Reflections on various Passages of Scripture, designed to assist Christians in their attendance on the Lord’s Supper, and their Improvement of it.” These meditations, which are fifty in number, are all founded on different texts of the Sacred Writings, and are, what the author himself used in the administration of the sacrament, according to the method observed among Dissenters from the Church of England.

Besides these several publications, all of which appeared with his name, Mr. Orton, in 1770, was the author of two anonymous tracts, entitled “Diotrophes admonished,” and “Diotrophes re-adrnonished.” They were written in defence of his excellent friend, Dr. Adams, at that time vicar of St. Chad’s, Shrewsbury, who had been violently attacked by the writer of a piece, which made a considerable noise in its day, called “Pietas Oxoniensis.” There is one small publication by Mr. Orton, hitherto omitted, which was the earliest piece printed by him, having first appeared in 1749, and we apprehend without his name. The title of it is “A Summary of Doctrinal and Practical Religion, by way of question and answer; with an introduction, shewing the Importance and Advantage of a Religious Education.” So well has this tract been received, that it has gone through seven editions. In the course of his ministerial service, he delivered a short and plain exposition of the Old Testament, with devotional and practical reflections; which exposition and reflections have recently been published, from the author’s manuscripts, for the use of families, by the reverend Robert Gentleman, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, in six large volumes, octavo. The first volume appeared in 1788, and the last in 1791; but the work has not attained any great share of popularity. The other posthumous publication is, “Letters to a young Clergyman,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo. Besides Mr. Orton’s publication of Dr. Doddridge’s hymns, and of the three last volumes of the Family Expositor, he printed, in 1764, a new edition of the life and death of the rev. Mr. Philip Henry, and prefixed to it an address to the descendants of that eminently pious and worthy divine.

, an English writer of considerable abilities, was born about 1589. He was descended from an ancient family, who had been long seated at Chicksand, near Shefford, in Bedfordshire, where his grandfather, and father, sir John Osborne, were men of fortune, and, according to Wood, puritans, who gave him what education he had at home, but never sent him to either school or university. This he appears to have afterwards much regretted, on comparing the advantages of public and private education. As soon, however, as he was of age, he commenced the life of a courtier, and being taken into the service of the Pembroke family, became master of the horse to William earl of Pembroke. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he sided with the parliament, but not in all their measures, nor all their principles; yet they conferred some public employments upon him; and, having married a sister of one of Oliver’s colonels, he was enabled to procure his son John a fellowship in All-souls’ college, Oxford, by the favour of the parliamentary visitors of that university, in 1648. After this he resided there himself, purposely to superintend his education; and also to print some books of his own composition. Accordingly, among others, he published there his “Advice to a Son,” the first part in 1656; which going through five editions within two years, he added a second, 1658, in 8vo. Though this had the usual fate of second parts, to be less relished than the first, yet both were eagerly bought and admired at Oxford, especially by the young students; which being observed by the “godly ministers,” as Wood calls them, they drew up a complaint against the said books, as instilling atheistical principles into the minds of the youth, and proposed to have them publicly burnt. Although this sentence was not carried into execution, there appeared so many objections to the volumes, that an order passed the 27th of July, 1658, forbidding all booksellers, or any other persons, to sell them. But our author did not long survive this order, dykig Feb. 11, 1659, aged about seventy. For the accusation of atheism there seems little foundation; but many of his sentiments are otherwise objectionable, and the quaintness of his style, and pedantry of his expression, have long ago consigned the work to oblivion. His other publications were, 1. “A seasonable Expostulation, with the Netherlands,” &c. 1652, 4to. 2. “Persuasive to mutual compliance under the present government.” 3. “Plea for a free State compared with Monarchy.” 4. “The private Christian’s non ultra,” &c. 1G56, 4to. 5. A volume in 8vo, containing, “The Turkish policy, &c. a Discourse upon Machiavel, &c. Observations upon the King of Sweden’s descent into Germany a Discourse upon Piso and Vindex, &c. a Discourse upon the greatness and corruption of the Court of Rome another upon the Election of Pope JLeo X. Political occasion for the defection from the Church of Rome a Discourse in vindication of Martin Luther.” Besides these were published, 1. “Historical Memoirs on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James.” 2. “A Miscellany of sundry Essays, &c. together with political deductions from the History of the Earl of Essex,” c. Other pieces have been ascribed to him on doubtful authority. A collection of his works was published in 1689, 8vo and again, 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo.

He is much commended for his piety and charity. He maintained several learned men in his palace, and at meals had some portion out of St. Barnard’s works read; after which all present were at liberty to propose any difficulties that occurred upon it. As a writer, Du Pin observes, that his diction is easy and elegant; for which reason he is called the Cicero of Portugal, as being a great imitator of Cicero, both in style, choice of subjects, and manner of treating them. His compositions are not intermixed with quotations, but consist of connected reasonings. He does not endeavour, in his “Commentaries” and “Paraphrases,” to explain the terms of the text, but to extend the sense of it, and shew its order and series fully, that young divines may improve their diction, and learn to write elegantly, both as Christian philosophers, orators, and divines. His works were collected and published at Rome, 1592, in 4 vols, folio, by Jerome Osorio his nephew, who prefixed his uncle’s life to the edition. The titles of his works are, “De nobilitate civili, et de nobilitate Christiana;” “De gloria,” printed with the foregoing. Some have thought this last to have been written by Cicero; and that Osorio found it, and published it as his own. “De regis institutione et disciplina;” “De rebus Emanuelis regis invictissimi virtute et auspicio gestis;” of which a new edition was published at Coimbra, 1791, 3 vols. 12mo. There is an English translation, 1752, 2 vols. 8vo. “De justitia caelesti, lib. x. ad Reginaldum Polum Cardinalem;” “De vera sapientia, lib. v. ad Gregorium XIII. P. M.;” besides paraphrases and commentaries upon several parts of scripture. He wrote a piece to exhort our queen Elizabeth to turn papist; which was answered by Walter Haddon, master of the requests to that queen.

Father Tarquinio Galucci made his funeral oration, or panegyric; the sum of which is, that he united the most exact probity with the most consummate policy, and therefore was universally esteemed. He was a man, says Perrault, of an incredible penetration and he laid his measures with such true discernment, and executed them with such diligence, that it is scarce possible to mark a single false step in the numerous affairs which he negociated. Wicquefort, speaking of his abilities, observes, that he had given proofs of his skill in negociations in that which he transacted, with the grand duke of Tuscany, for the restitution of the island of If; in that with pope Clement VIII. in order to reconcile Henty IV. to the church of Rome; in that of the invalidity of the said king’s marriage with queen Margaret of Valois, which had been valid near thirty years; in that of the dispensation with regard to the marriage between Catharine of Bourbon, sister to Henry, with the duke of Bar, a papist, then a protestant; and in several other very important and delicate affairs. His dispatches, continues this writer, are as useful to an ambassador, who hopes to succeed in his employment, as the Bible and the “Corpus Juris” to such lawyers and divines as would succeed in their respective professions. These letters of our minister were first published under the title of “Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat,” at Paris, 1624, folio, and have been enlarged and published at several times and places since. They were published at Paris in 1697, 4to, with his life, and notes by Amelot de la Houssaye ; and, lastly, in 1708, at Amsterdam, 12mo, five volumes. This is the best and most ample edition. Several of his original letters were formerly in Colbert’s library. In 1771, a life of him was published at Paris, in 2 vols. 12mo, which is said to be extremely partial to the character of the cardinal, but to contain much valuable information as to the history of the events in which he was concerned. 1

, one of the first names in the English drama, was born at Trottin in Sussex, March 3, 1651— 2, the son of the rev. Humphrey Otway, rector of Woolbeding. From Winchester-school, where he was educated, he was entered, in 1669, a commoner of Christ-church, but left the university without a degree, whether for want of money, or from impatience of academical restraint, or mere eagerness to mingle with the world, is not known. The anonymous writer of his life in one of the editions of His works, reports that he removed from Oxford to St. John’s-college, Cambridge, the probability of which rests only on a copy of verses sent to him by Duke the poet, who was his intimate friend. At Cambridge, however, he could not have remained long, if ever he paid more than a visit to it, for he appeared in London in 1672 in the character of the king in Mrs. Behn’s “Forced Marriage,” and found himself unable to gain any reputation on the stage. If he ever went to Cambridge, it must have been after this period, for Duke himself was not entered of Trinity-college until 1675.

Notwithstanding all Oughtred’s mathematical merit, he was, in 1646, in danger of a sequestration by the committee for plundering ministers; in order to which, several articles were deposed and sworn against him; but, upon his day of hearing, William Lilly, the famous astrologer, applied to sir Bulstrode Whitelocke and all his old friends, who appeared so numerous in his behalf, that though the chairman and many other presbyterian members were active against him, yet he was cleared by the majority. This Lilly tells us himself, in the “History of his own Life,” where he styles Oughtred the most famous mathematician then of Europe. “The truth is,” continues this writer, “he had a considerable parsonage and that alone was enough to sequester any moderate judgment besides, he was also well known to affect his majesty.” His merit, however, appeared so much neglected, and his situation was made so uneasy at home, that his friends procured several invitations to him from abroad, to live either in Italy, France, or Holland, but he chose to encounter all his difficulties at Albury. Aubrey informs us that the grand duke invited him to Florence, and offered him 500l. a year, but he would not accept it because of his religion. From the same author we learn that he was thought a very indifferent preacher, so bent were his thoughts on mathematics; but, when he found himself in danger of being sequestered for a royalist, " he fell to the study of divinity, and preached (they sayd) admirably well, even in his old age.

, a learned French ecclesiastic, of the seventeenth century, was a native of Chinon in Tourraine, and a canon of Tours, He enjoyed the reputation of an universal scholar; was a poet, mathematician, divine, a controversial writer, and even a musician, although in the latter character he appears to have escaped the very minute researches of Dr. Burney in his valuable history of that art. He had been music- master of the holy chapel at Paris for ten years, before he became a canon of Tours. He wrote a great many works, among which some of his controversial pieces against the protestants, his “History of Music from its origin to the present time,” and his dissertation on Vossius’s treatise “De poematum cantu et viribus rythmi,” remain in manuscript. Those which were published, are, 1. “Secret pour composer en musique par un art nouveau,” Paris, 1660. 2. “Studiosis sanctarum scripturarum Biblia Sacra in lectiones ad singulos dies, per legem, prophetas, et evangelium distributa, et 529 carminibus mnemonicis comprehensa,” ibid. 1668; of this a French edition was published in 1669. 3. “Motifs de reunion a l‘eglise catholique, presentes a ceux de la religion pretendue-reforme*e de France, avec un avertissement sur la reponse d’un ministre a Poffice du saint Sacrement,” ibid. 1668. 4. “Le motifs de la conversion du comte de Lorges Montgommery,” dedicated to Louis XIV. ibid. 1670. 5. “Defense de Tancienne tradition des eglises de France, sur la mission des premiers predicateurs evangeliques dans les Gaules, du temps des apotres ou de leurs disciples immediats, et de Pusage des ecrits des S. S. Severe-Sulpice, et Gregoire de Tours, et de Tabus qu‘on en faiten cette rnatiere et en d’autres pareilles,” ibid. 178. This was addressed to the clergy and people of To'irs by the author, who held the same sentiments as M.de Ma re a, respecting St. Denis. 6. “L‘Art de la science des Nombres, en Francois et en Latin, avec un preface de i’excellence de Farithmetique,” ibid. 1677. 7. “Architecture harmonique, ou application de la doctrine des proportions, de la musique a ^architecture, avec un addition a cet ecrit,” ibid. 1679, 4to. 8. “Calendarium novum, perpetuum, et irrevocable,” 1682; but this work he was induced to suppress by the advice of his friend M. Arnauld, who thought that his ideas in it were too crude to do credit to his character. His last publication was, 9. “Breviarium Turonense, renovatum, et in melius restitutum,” 1685. He died at Tours, July 19, 1694, and the following lines,

, an accomplished English gentleman, and polite writer, the descendant of an ancient family, was the son of Nicholas Overbury, of Bourton on the Hill, near Morton in Marsh, in Gloucestershire, esq. by Mary his wife, daughter of Giles Palmer, of ComptonScorfen, in the parish of Ilmington, in Warwickshire. He was born at Compton-Scorfen in the house of his grandfather by the mother’s side, about 1581. In Michaelmas term 1595, he became a gentleman commoner of Queen’s college, in Oxfordshire, where he made great progress in logic and philosophy, and November 15, 1598, took the degree of B. A. which being completed by determination in the Lent following, he left the university for the Middle Temple, where he had been before entered in order to study the municipal law, but it does not appear that he remained here long. We are told that in a little time he set out for France, and on his return was accounted a very finished gentleman, and well qualified to shine at court, which, unhappily, was his ambition.

The character of Dr. Owen, apart from the share he had in the troubles of his country, seems entitled to the praise bestowed by his various biographers. In person he was tall, grave in aspect, of a comely and majestic figure, and his deportment was in every respect that of a gentleman. As he was indisputably the most learned, he was at the same time the most moderate and candid of the nonconformists. With great talents, keenness, and spirit for controversy, he confined himself strictly to argument, and abstained from personal reflections and arrogance. As a writer he was perhaps the most voluminous of his brethren. His works amount to seven volumes in folio, twenty in quarto, and about thirty in octavo.

, a controversial writer against the Jesuits, was born in Merionethshire in 1572, and educated at Christ Church, Oxford, which he left without taking a degree, “having,” as Wood says, “some petty employment bestowed on him.” He afterwards went to the continent, and entered into the society of the Jesuits in Spain, but discovering that their conduct savoured more of worldly policy than true religion, he made use of the information he had picked up among them to expose their intrigues. With this view he published, 1. “The Running Register; recording a true relation of the state of the English colleges, seminaries, and cioysters of all forraigne parts. Together with a brief and compendious discourse of the lives, practices, couzenage, impostures and deceits of all our English monks, friars, Jesuits, and seminarie priests in general,” Lond. 1626. This curious book (of which some extracts are given in the “Restituta,” vol. I. p. 141) abounds with anecdotes of those English Roman catholics who had fled for refuge to the foreign seminaries. 2. “The unmasking of all popish monks, friars, and Jesuits; or, a treatise of their genealogy, beginnings, proceedings, and present state,” &c. ibid. 1628, 4to. 3. “Speculum Jesuiticum, or the Jesuit’s Looking-glass; wherein they may behold Ignatius (their patron) his progress, their own pilgrimage,” &c. ibid. 1629, 4to. To this is added a list of all their colleges, the number of their fellows, &c. This was reprinted in sir Edward Sandys’s “Europe Speculum.” Owen was living in 1629, as appears by the date of his work, but we have no information of what became of him afterwards.

, a learned English divine, was born in Derbyshire in 1625, and in 1641 was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1645, and according to his epitaph, seems to have been fellow of that college, as he was afterwards of Christ’s. In this last he took the degree of M. A. in 1649, and that of D. D. in 1660. His first preferment was in Lincolnshire, and he appears to have succeeded Dr. Josias Shute in the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, which he resigned in 1666. On July 30, 1669, he was installed archdeacon of Leicester, to which he was collated by Dr. William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln. In July 1670 he was also installed prebendary of Westminster, and was some time rector or minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He died August 23, 1679, aged fifty-four, and was interred in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin inscription. In this he is recorded as “a complete divine in all respects, a nervous and accurate writer, and an excellent and constant preacher.” It is also noticed that intense application to study brought on the stone, which at last proved fatal to him. He was an accomplished scholar in the Oriental languages, as appears by his excellent work “De Sacrifices,” Loud. 1677. This is divided into two books: in the first he treats of the origin of sacrifices; the places for sacrificing, and the tabernacle and temple of the Jews. His object is to defend the doctrine of vicarious punishment, and of piacular or expiatory sacrifices, in opposition to the Socinian notions. In the second book he treats of the priesthood of Christ; proves that Christ is a priest properly so called; that his sacrifice is an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of mankind; that his death is a vicarious punishment, or, that he suffered for, and in the stead of, sinful men, &c. &c. Some of his sermons having been surreptitiously printed, his relations selected twenty from his Mss. which were published by Dr. James Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Of these a second edition appeared in 1697, 8vo, with a preface by the editor, in which he gives a high character of Dr. Ovvtram. Baxter also speaks highly of him, Peck has published, in his “Desiderata,” a fragment of one of Dr. Owtram’s sermons.

, a writer, to whose industry, if not to his genius, the world was at one time thought indebted, received the first rudiments of his education from Mr. Shaw, an excellent grammarian, and master of the free-school at Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. He afterwards completed his grammatical studies under the rev. Mr. Mountford, of Christ’s Hospital, where, having attained considerable knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it was the intention of his friends to have sent him to the university of Cambridge, with a view to his being admitted into holy orders. But Mr. Ozell, averse to the confinement of a college-life, and perhaps disinclined to the clerical profession, and desirous of being sooner settled in the world than the regular course of academical gradations would permit, solicited and obtained an employment in a public office of accounts; with a view to which, he had taken previous care to qualify himself, by a most perfect knowledge of arithmetic in all its branches, and a greater degree of excellence in writing all the necessary hands. Notwithstanding, however, this grave attention to business, he still retained an inclination for, and an attention to, even polite literature, that could scarcely have been expected; and, by entering into much conversation with foreigners abroad, and a close application to reading at home, he made himself master of most of the living languages, especially the French, Italian, and Spanish, from all which, as well as from the Latin and Greek, he has favoured the world with many translations. Among these are Don Quixote, Rabelais, Fenelon on Learning, Vertot’s “Revolutions of Rome,” Nicole’s “Logic,” The Life of Veronica of Milan,“besides some parts of Rapin, Boileau, &c. &c. The only one which seems rather useful is his” Common Prayer, and Common Sense, in several places of the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Latin, and Greek Translations of the English Liturgy. Being a specimen of the manifold omissions, &c. in all, or most of the said translations, some of which were printed at Oxford, and the rest at Cambridge,“Lond. 1722, 8vo. For this he tells us, in his foolish advertisement hereafter mentioned, the bench of bishops gave him a purse of guineas. Ozell’s plays, though all translations, are very numerous, there being included in them a complete English version of the dramatic pieces of that justly celebrated French writer Moliere besides some others from Corneille, Racine, &c. the titles of which are to be found in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, the son of John Pack, of Stoke- Ash, in Suffolk, who, in 1697 was high sheriff of that county, was born about 1680. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, whence, at the age of sixteen, he removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, and remained there two years, at the end of which his father entered him of the Middle Temple, intending him for the profession of the law. His proficiency, as a law student, must have appeared in a very favourable light to the benchers of this honourable society, as he was at eight terms standing admitted barrister, when he was not much above twenty years of age. But habits of study and application to business not agreeing either with his health or inclination, he went into the army, and his first command, which he obtained in March 1705, was that of a company of foot. He served afterwards abroad under general Stanhope, and the duke of Argyle, who for his distinguished bravery promoted him to the rank of major, and ever after honoured him with his patronage and friendship. Some of the best of major Pack’s effusions were in celebration of his grace’s character, at a time when there was a jealousy between him and the du.ke of Marlborough. The major died at Aberdeen in Sept. 1728, where his regiment happened then to be quartered. He published first a miscellany of poems in 1718, dedicated to colonel Stanhope, which sold rapidly, and when it came to a second edition was enlarged by some prose pieces. In 1719 he published the “Life of Pomponius Atticus,” with remarks addressed to the duke of Aygyle; in 1720, “Religion and Philosophy, a Tale;” and in 1725, a “New Collection” of poetical miscellanies, to which he prefixed the “Lives of Miltiades and Cymon,” from Cornelius Nepos. His “Whole Works” were afterwards collected and published in one vol. 8vo, 1729. In all he discovers considerable taste, vivacity, and learning. His connections, as well as his principles, appear to have been of the superior cast.

, a political and infidel writer of great notoriety, was born in 1737, at Thetford, in Norfolk. His father was a staymaker, a business which he himself carried on during his early years at London, Dover, and Sandwich. He afterwards became an exciseman and grocer, at Lewes in Sussex; and, upon the occasion of an election at Shoreham, in 1771, is said to have written an election song. In the following year he wrote a pamphlet, recommending an application to parliament for the“increase of the salaries of excisemen; but, for some misdemeanours, was himself dismissed from his office in 1774. In the mean time, the ability displayed in his pamphlet attracted the notice of one of the commissioners of excise, who sent him to America, with a strong recommendation to Dr. Franklin, as a person who could be serviceable at that time in America. What services were expected from him, we know not, but he arrived at a time when the Americans were prepared for the revolution which followed, and which he is supposed to have promoted, by scattering among the discontented his memorable pamphlet, entitled” Common Sense."

, an excellent writer in the sixteenth century, was born at Veroli, in the Campagna di Roma, and descended of noble and ancient families by both his parents. He was baptised by the name of Anthony, which according to the custom of the times, he altered to the classical form of Aonius. He applied himself early to the Greek and Latin languages, in which he made great progress, and then proceeded to philosophy and divinity. The desire he had of knowledge, prompted him to travel through the greatest part of Italy; and to listen to the instructions of the most famous professors in every place he visited. His longest residence was at Rome, where he continued for six years, till that city was taken by Charles V. when the disorders committed by the troops of that prince leaving no hopes of enjoying tranquillity, he resolved to depart, and retire to Tuscany. He had at this time a great inclination to travel into France, Germany, and even as far as Greece; but the narrowness of his fortune would not admit of this. On his arrival in Tuscany, he chose Sienna for his abode, to which he was induced by the pleasantness of the situation, and the sprightliness and sagacity of the inhabitants: and accordingly he sold his estate at Veroli, with the determination never to see a place any more, where, though he was born, yet he was not beloved. He purchased a country-house in the neighbourhood of Sienna, called Ceciniano, and pleased himself with the fancy of its having formerly belonged to Cecina, one of Cicero’s clients. Here he proposed to retire on his leisure- days, and accordingly embellished it as much as. possible. At Sienna he married ajoung woman, of whom he was passionately fond, and who brought him four children, two boys and two girls. He was also professor of polite letters, and had a great number of pupils.

, a learned Italian cardinal, descended from an illustrious family, was born at Bologna, Oct. 4, 1524. He was intended for the profession of the civil and canon law, in which some of his family had acquired fame, and he made great progress in that and other studies. His talents very early procured him a canonry of Bologna; after which he was appointed professor of civil law, and obtained the title of the new Alciatus from his emulating the judgment and taste of that learned writer. Some business requiring his presence at Rome, he was appointed by ca'rdinal Alexander Farnese, who had been his fellow-student at Bologna, and who was then perpetual legate of Avignon, governor of Vaisson, in the county of Venaissin, but hearing of the death of his mother, he made that a pretence for declining the office, and therefore returned to his professorship at Bologna. The Farnese family were, however, determined to serve him in spite of his modesty, and in 1557 obtained for him the post of auditor of the rota. When Pope Pius IV. opened the council of Trent, Paleotti was made proctor and counsellor to his legates, who, in truth, did nothing of importance without his advice. Of this council Paleotti wrote a history, which still remains in ms. and of which Pallavicini is said to have availed himself in his history. After this council broke up he resumed his functions at Rome, where in 1565 he was raised to the dignity of the purple by Pius IV. and by Pius V. he was created bishop of Bologna, but the see upon this occasion was erected into an archbishopric to do honour both to Paleotti and his native country. Being a conscientious man, he was always so assiduous in the duties of his diocese, that it was with the greatest reluctance the popes summoned him to attend the consistories and other business at Rome. He died at Rome, July 23, 1597, aged seventy-three. He was author of several works of considerable merit, on subjects in antiquities, jurisprudence, and morals. Of these the most considerable are the following: “Archiepiscopale Bonnoniense” “De imagiriibus Sacris, et Profanis,” 1582, 4to, in Italian; and in Latin, 1594; “De Sacri Consistorii Consultationibus” “De Nothis, Spuriisque Filiis,” Francfort, 1573, 8vo; “De Bono Senectutis” Pastoral Letters, &c.

In private life, Dr. Paley is said to have had nothing of the philosopher. He entered into little amusements with a degree of ardour which formed a singular contrast with the superiority of his mind. He was fond of company, which he had extraordinary powers of entertaining; nor was he at any time more happy, than when communicating the pleasure he could give by exerting his talents of wit and humour. No man was ever more beloved by his particular friends, or returned their affection with greater sincerity and ardour. That such a man, and such a writer, should not have been promoted to the bench of bishops, has been considered as not very creditable to the times in which we live. It is generally understood that Mr. Pitt recommended him to his majesty some years ago for a vacant bishopric, and that an opposition was made from a very high quarter of the church, which rendered the recommendation ineffectual. If this be true, it is a striking proof of Mr. Pitt’s liberality; for, according to his biographer, Dr. Paley frequently indulged in sarcastic and disrespectful notice of that celebrated statesman. What truth may be in this, or what justice in the complaints of his friends, we shall not inquire. Judging from his writings, we should be inclined to regret, with them, that he had not higher preferment; but, contemplating his character, as given in the “Memoirs of William Paley, D. D. by George Wilson Meadley,” we must rather wonder that he had so much. It will, however, be universally acknowledged, that no author ever wrote more pleasingly on the subjects he has treated than Dr. Paley. The force and terseness of his expressions are not less admirable than the strength of his conceptions; and there is both in his language and his notions a peculiarity of manner, stamped by the vigour of his mind, which will perpetuate the reputation of his works.

, bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, and afterwards of Aspona, was by nation a Galatian, and born about the year 368 at Cappadocia. He became an anchoret in the mountain of Nebria in the year 388, and was made a bishop in the year 401. This prelate was a steady friend to St. John Chrysostom, whom he never forsook during the time of his persecution, nor even in his exile. He went to Rome, some time after the death of that saint; and at the request of Lausus, governor of Cappadocia, composed the history of the Anchorets, or Hermits, and entitled it “Lausiaca,” after the name of that lord, to whom he dedicated it in the year 420, when it was written; being then in the 20th year of his episcopacy, and 53d of his age. Palladius was accused of being an Origenist, because he does not speak very favourably of St. Jerome, and was intimately connected with Ruffinus; but perhaps no good proof can be drawn thence of his Origenism. He had been the disciple of Evagrias of Pontus, and was even suspected to adhere to the sentiments of Pelagius. He died in the fifth century, but what year is not known. His “History” was published in Greek by Meursius, at Amsterdam, in 1619, and in Latin in the “Bibliotheca Patrum” but he seems not to have been the writer of the “Life of St. John Chrysostom, in Greek and Latin, by M. Bigot,” printed in 1680.

, a dissenting writer of the last century, was born in Southwark, where his father was an undertaker, and of the Calvinistic persuasion. Under whom he received his classical education is not known. In 1746 he began to attend lectures, for academical learning, under the rev. Dr. David Jennings, in Wellclose square, London. Soon after, leaving the academy, about 1752, he was, on the rev. James Read’s being incapacitated by growing disorders, chosen as assistant to officiate at the dissenting meeting in New Broad-street, in conjunction with Dr. Allen; and on the removal of the latter to Worcester, Mr. Palmer was ordained sole pastor of this congregation in 1759. He continued in this connection till 1780, when the society, greatly reduced in its numbers, was dissolved. For a great part of this time he filled the post of librarian, at Dr. Williams’s library, in Red- Cross-street. After the dissolution of his congregation he wholly left off preaching, and retired to Islington, where he lived privately till his death, on June 26, 1790, in the sixty-first year of his age. He married a lady of considerable property, and during the latter years of his life kept up but little connection with the dissenters. He was a man of considerable talents, and accounted a very sensible and rational preacher. His pulpit compositions were drawn up with much perspicuity, and delivered with propriety. He allowed himself great latitude in his religious sentiments, and was a determined enemy to any religious test whatever. Tests, indeed, must have been obnoxious to one who passed through all the accustomed deviations from Calvinism, in which he had been educated, to Socinianism.

, a Spanish painter and writer on the art, was born at Bujalance, and studied at Cordova in grammar, philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence. The elements of art he acquired of Don Juan de Valdes Leal; and to acquaint himself with tht? style of different schools, went, in company of Don Juan de Alfaro, in 1678, to Madrid. Here the friendship of Carrenno procuring him the commission of painting the gallery del Cierzo, he pleased the king and the minister, and in 1688 he was made painter to the king. He was now overwhelmed with commissions, for many of which, notwithstanding the most surprising activity, he could furnish only the designs; their ultimate finish was left to the hand of his pupil Dionysius Vidal hut whatever was designed and terminated by himself, in fresco or in oil, possesses invention, design, and colour, in the essential; and what taste and science could add, in the ornamental parts. His style was certainly more adapted to the demands of the epoch in which he lived, than to those of the preceding one, and probably would not have obtained from Murillo the praises lavished on it by Luca Giordano; but of the machinists, who surrounded him, he was, perhaps, the least debauched by manner.

, an eminent bibliographer, was born at Sulzbach in the Upper Palatinate, March 16, 1729, and having been educated for the church, took his doctor’s degree in divinity and philosophy, and became pastor of the cathedral church of St. Sebaldus at Nuremberg, where he died in 1805. No farther particulars have yet reached us of this learned and laborious writer, who has long been known here by his “Annales Typographiei, ab artis inventæ origine ad annum M. D. post Maittairii, Denisii, aliorumque doctissimorum virorum curas in ordinem redacti, emendati et aucti,” Nuremberg, 1793—1803, 11 vols. 4to. This is unquestionably a work of the very first importance to bibliographers, and is thought to exceed Maittaire’s in clearness of arrangement and accuracy. It comes down, beyond his original intention, to 1536; but is not quite complete without another work of his printed in German, “Annals of ancient German Literature, or an account of books printed in Germany frpm the invention of the art to 1520,” Nuremberg, 1788, 4to. His other works, also unfortunately in German, are an “Account of the most ancient German Bibles, printed in the fifteenth century, which are in the library at Nuremberg,” 1777, 4to; “History of Bibles printed at Nuremberg, from the invention of the Art,” Nuremberg, 1778, 4to. And a “History of early Printing at Nuremberg to the year 1500,” ibid. 1789, 4to.

, a native of Antwerp, was born in 1628, and was educated as a Jesuit. He has already been mentioned in our account of Holland us, as the coadjutor of that writer in the compilation of the “Acta Sanctorum.” He died in 1714, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. He was, according to Dupin, less credulous than Bollandus, and became involved in a controversy with the Carmelites respecting the origin of their order. There is little else interesting in his history; but in addition to the account given in our article Bollandus, of the “Acta Sanctorum,” we may now mention that the work has been continued to the fifty-third volume, folio, which appeared in 1794, but is yet imperfect, as it comes only to October 14th. Brunet informs us that there are very few perfect copies to be found in France, some of the latter volumes being destroyed during the revolutionary period. The reprint at Venice, 1734, 42 vols. is of less estimation.

This work, as might be expected, exasperated the protestants against him; and to avoid their resentment, he crossed the water to England, in 1686, where James II. was endeavouring to re- establish popery. There he receive 1 deacon’s and priest’s orders, irom the hands of Turner, bishop of Ely; and, in 16S7, published a book against Jurieu, entitled “Theological Essays concerning Providence and Grace, &c.” This exasperated that minister so much, that when he knew Papin was attempting to obtain some employ as a professor in Germany, he dispersed letters every where in order to defeat his applications; and, though he procured a preacher’s place at Hamburgh, Jurieu found means to get him dismissed in a few months. About this time his “Faith reduced to just bounds” coming into the hands of Bayle, that writer added some pages to it, and printed it. These additions were ascribed by Jurieu to our author, who did not disavow the principal maxims laid down, which were condemned in the synod of Bois-le-duc in 1687. In the mean time, an offer being made him of a professor’s chair in the church of the French refugees at Dantzic, he accepted it: but it being afterwards proposed to him to conform to the synodical decrees of the Walloon churches in the United Provinces, and to subscribe them, he refused to comply; because there were some opinions asserted in those decrees which he could not assent to, particularly that doctrine which maintained that Christ died only for the elect. Those who had invited him to Dantzic, were highly offended at his refusal; and he was ordered to depart, as soon as he had completed the half year of his preaching, which had been contracted for. He was dismissed in 168^, and not long after embraced the Roman catholic religion; delivering his abjuration into the hands of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, Nov. 15, 1690.

, an Italian comic writer, born at Placentia, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was an author of some eminence in his time. His comedies have a certain character of originality, which still, in some degree, supports their credit. They are six in number, five in prose, and one in verse. The best edition is that printed at Venice, in 1560, in two small volumes, duodecimo. There is a volume of letters by him, entitled “Lettere Amorose di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” printed also at Venice in 154-5. These were republished in 1548, “con alcune Novelle e Rime” and there is a volume of “Rime” alone, printed by Giolito at Venice, in 1547, 8vo. He composed also, novels in the style of Boccacio and Bandelli, which were published at Venice in 1552, under the title of “I Diporti di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” and reprinted in 1558, 1564, 1586, and 1598, and lately inserted in the collection entitled “Novelliero Italiano,” 1791, 26 vols. 8vo, with the imprint of Londra for Livorno. The work consists of three days, or “Giornate;” the first and second of which comprise sixteen tales, and four curious questions. The third contains several “Motti,” or bon-mots, with a few madrigals, and other short poems. There is also a volume by him entitled “Oracolo,” the oracle, published at Venice, in 1551, in 4to. In this the author gives answers to twelve questions proposed in the beginning of the book; which answers are given and varied according to some rules laid down in the preface. It appears that Parabosco lived chiefly, if not entirely, at Venice, as all his books were published there. His “Diporti,” or Sports, open with a panegyric upon that city.

, a French historian, and laborious writer of the sixteenth century, was still living in 1581, and was then turned fourscore. He was the author of many works, among which the following are remarkable: 1. “The History of Aristseus, respecting the version of the Pentateuch,” 4 to. 2. “Historia sui temporis,” written in Latin, but best known by a French version which was published in 1558. 3. “Annales de Bourgogne,” 1566, folio. This history, by no means well digested, begins at the year 378, and ends in 1482. 4. “De moribus Gallic, Historia,” 4to. 5. “Memoires de l'Histoire de Lyon,” 1625, folio. 6. “De rehus in Beigio, anno 1543 gestis,”l:>4:i, 8vo. 7. “LaChroniquede Savoie,” 1602, fol. 8. “Histuna Galliae, a Fraiu isci I. coronatione ad annum 1550.” 9. “Historia Ecclesiae Gallicanae.” 10. “Memoralia insignium Francis Famiiiarum.” He was an ecclesias.ic, and became dean of Beaujeu.

, son of the preceding, one of the most laborious grammarians that Germany ever produced, was born at Hembach, May 24, 1576. He began his studies at Neustadt, continued them at Heidelberg, and afterwards visited some of the foreign universities, at the expence of the elector Palatine, where he was always courteously received, not only on account of his own merit, but his father’s high reputation. Among others, he received great civilities from Isaac Casaubon at Paris. In 1612, he was made rector of the college of Neustadt, which post he held till the place was taken by the Spaniards in 1622, when he was ordered by those new masters to leave the country immediately, at which time his library was also plundered by the soldiers. He published several books on- grammatical subjects, and was remarkably fond of Plautus. This drew him into a dispute with John Gruter, professor at Heidelberg, in 1620, which was carried to such a height, that neither the desolation which ruined both their universities and their libraries, and reduced their persons to the greatest extremities, nor even their banishment, proved sufficient to restrain their animosity, or incline them to the forbearance of mutual sufferers. Philip also undertook the cause of his late father against Owen, mentioned in the last article, whom he answered in a piece entitled “Anti-Owenus,” &c. He was principal of several colleges, as he was of that at Hanau in 1645. The dedication of his father’s exegetical works shews him to be living in 1647, and Saxius conjectures that he died the following year. The same writer informs us that his first publication was “Castigationes in brevem et maledicam admonitionem Joannis Magiri Jesuitae predicantis apud Nemetes Spirantes,” Heidelberg, 1608, 8vo. This refers to a controversy which his father had with Magirus, the Jesuit. He wrote also some commentaries upon the “Holy Scriptures,” and other theological works. He published “Plautus,” in 1609, with notes; also a “Lexicon Plautinum,” in 1614; st Analecta Plautina,“in 1617; a treatise” De imitatione Tereiuiana, ubi Plautum imitatus est,“1617; a second edition of” Plautus,“in 1619, and of the” Analecta Plautina,“in 1620, and again in 1623. H also published a third edition of his” Plautus“in 1641. The” Prolegomena“which it contains of that poet’s life, the character of his versification, and the nature of his comedy, have been prefixed entire to the Delphin edition. He published his answer to Gruter in 1620, with this title,” Provocatio ad senatum criticum pro Plauto et electis Plautinis“and more of this angry controversy may be seen in the long preface prefixed to his” Analecta Plautina.“He also published” Calligraphia Romana, sive Thesaurus phrasium linguae Latinos,“in 1620; and” Electa Symmachiana, Lexicon Symmachianum, Calligraphia Synimachiana,“in 1617, 8vo: to which we may add his father’s life,” Narratio de curriculo vitce et obitu D. Parei," 1633, 8vo.

, a man of some learning, and no contemptible writer, but of despicable character, was born in Sept. 1640, at Northampton, where his father, John Parker, then practised the law. John had been bred to that profession in one of the Temples at London, and inclining to the parliament against the king, was preferred to be a member of the high court of justice in 1649, in which office he gave sentence against the three lords, Capel, Holland, and Hamilton, who were beheaded. During Oliver’s usurpation he was made an assistant committeeman for his county. In 1650, be published a book in defence of the new government, as a commonwealth, without a king or house of lords, entitled “The Government of the People of England, precedent and present,” with an emblematical engraved title-page. In June 1655, when Cromwell was declared protector, he was appointed one of the commissioners for removing obstructions at Worcesterhouse, in the Strand, near London, and was sworn serjeant at law next day. In Jan. 1659, he was appointed by the rump-parliament one of the barons of the exchequer; but, upon a complaint against him, was soon after displaced. His character, however, appears to have been such, that he was again made regularly serjeant at law, by the recommendation of chancellor Hyde, at the first call after the return of Charles II.

His character was now become contemptible, and his authority in his diocese so very insignificant, that when he assembled his clergy and desired them to subscribe an “Address of Thanks to the king for his declaration of Liberty of Conscience,” they rejected it with such unanimity, that he got but one clergyman to concur with him in it. The last effort he made to serve the court was his publishing “Reasons for abrogating the Test” and this produced a controversy, in which he was completely foiled, his character despised, and his spirit broken. He died unlamented at Magdalen college, May 20, 1687, and was buried in the outer chapel. He was a man of learning, and in some instances an acute writer. Of that character MarvelPs wit cannot deprive him. But it may be allowed, with Burnet, that he was a man of no judgment, and of as little virtue; and as to religion, rather impious; that he was covetous and ambitious, and seemed to have no other sense ofreligion but as a political interest, and a subject of party and faction. He seldom came to prayers, or to any exercises of devotion; and was so lifted up with pride that he grew insufferable to all that came near him.

He had by this time given some occasional specimens of his poetical talent, but his ruling passion led him to the enjoyments of social life, and the company of men of wit a id learning; and as this was a taste he could gratify at home but in a very small degree, he contrived many excursions to London, where he became a favourite. From some letters published by his biographer, Dr. Goldsmith, we learn that he was admired for his talents as a companion, and his good nature as a man; but with all this, it is acknowledged, that his temper was unequal, and that he was always too much elevated, or too much depressed. It is added, indeed, that he was sensible of this; but his attempts to remove his spleen were rather singular. Goldsmith tells us, that, when under its influence, he would fly with all expedition to the remote parts of Ireland, and there make out a gloomy kind of satisfaction in giving hideous descriptions of the solitude to which he retired. Having tried this imaginary remedy for some time, he used to collect his revenues, and set out again for England to enjoy the conversation of his friends, lord Oxford, Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, and Gay. With Pope he had a more than usual share of intimacy. Pope highly respected him, and they exchanged opinions on each other’s productions with freedom and candour. He afforded Pope some assistance in his translation of Homer, and wrote the life prefixed to it; but Parnell was a very bad prose-writer, and Pope had more trouble in correcting this life than it would have cost, him to 'write it. Being intimate with all the Scriblerustribe, he contributed the “Origin of the Sciences:” and also wrote the “Life of Zoilus,” as a satire on Dennis and Theobald, with whom the club had long been at variance. To the Spectator and Guardian he contributed a few papers of very considerable merit, in the form of “Visions.”

We shall close this article with an extract from Dr. Maty’s eulogium: “The surprising variety of branches which Dr. Parsons embraced, and the several living as well as dead languages he had a knowledge of, qualified him abundantly for the place of assistant secretary for foreign correspondences, which the council of the royal society bestowed upon him about 1750. He acquitted himself to the utmost of his power of the functions of this place, till a few years before his death, when he resigned in favour of his friend, who now gratefully pays this last tribute to his memory. Dr. Parsons joined to his academical honours those which the royal college of physicians of London bestowed upon him, by admitting him, after due examination, licentiate, on the first day of April, 1751. The diffusive spirit of our friend was only equalled by his desire of information. To both these principles he owed the intimacies which he formed with some of the greatest men of his time. The names of Folkes, Hales, Mead, Stukeley, Needham, Baker, Collinson, and Garden, may be mentioned on this occasion; and many more might be added. Weekly meetings were formed, where the earliest intelligence was received and communicated of any discovery both here and abroad; and new trials were made, to bring to the test of experience the reality or usefulness of these discoveries. Here it was that the microscopical animals found in several infusions were first produced; the propagation of several insects by section ascertained; the constancy of nature amidst these wonderful changes established. His ‘ Remains of Japhet, being historical inquiries into the affinity and origin of the European Languages,’ is a most laborious performance, tending to prove the antiquity of the first inhabitants of these islands, as being originally descended from Gomer and Magog, above 1000 years before Christ, their primitive and still subsisting language, and its affinity with some others. It cannot be denied that there is much ingenuity as well true learning in this work, which helps conviction, and often supplies the want of it. But we cannot help thinking that our friend’s warm feelings now and then mislead his judgment, and that some at least of his conjectures, rest' ing upon partial traditions, and poetical scraps of Irish filids and Welsh bards, are less satisfactory than his tables of affinity between the several northern languages, as deduced from one common stock. Literature, however, is much obliged to him for having in this, as well as in many of his other works, opened a new field of observations and discoveries. In enumerating our learned friend’s dissertations, we find ourselves at a loss whether we should follow the order of subjects, or of time; neither is it easy to account for their surprising variety and quick succession. The truth is, that his eagerness after knowledge was such, as to embrace almost with equal facility all its branches, and with equal zeal to ascertain the merit of inventions, and ascribe to their respective, and sometimes unknown, authors, the glory of the discovery. Many operations which the ancients have transmitted to us, havebeen thought fabulous, merely from our ignorance of the art by which they were performed. Thus the burning of the ships of the Romans at a considerable distance, during the siege of Syracuse, by Archimedes, would, perhaps, still continue to be exploded, had not the celebrated M. Buffon in France shewn the possibility of it, by presenting and describing a model of a speculum, or rather assemblage of mirrors, by which he could set fire at the distance of several hundred feet. Inthe contriving, indeed, though not in the executing of such an apparatus, he had in some measure been forestalled by a writer now very little known or read. This Dr. Parsons proved in a- very satisfactory manner; and he had the pleasure to find the French philosopher did not refuse to the Jesuit his share in the invention, and was not at all offended by the liberty he had taken. Another French discovery, I mean a new kind of painting fathered upon the ancients, was reduced to its real value, in a paper which shewed ouv author was possessed of a good taste for the fine arts: and I am informed that his skill in music was by no means inferior, and that his favourite amusement was the flute. Richly, it appears from these performances, did our author merit the honour of being a member of the antiquarian society, which long ago had associated him to its labours. To another society, founded upon the great principles of humanity, patriotism, and natural emulation, he undoubtedly was greatly useful. He assisted at most of their general meetings and committees and was for many years chairman to that of agriculture always equally ready to point out and to promote useful improvements, and to oppose the interested views of fraud and ignorance, so inseparable from very extensive associations. No sooner was this society formed, than Dr. Parsons became a member of it. Intimately convinced of the nobleness of its views, though from his station in life little concerned in its success, he grudged neither attendance nor expence. Neither ambitious of taking the lead, nor fond of opposition, he joined in any measure he thought right; and submitted cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority, though against his own private opinion. The just ideas he had of the dignity of our profession, as well as of the common links which ought to unite all its members, notwithstanding the differences of country, religion, or places of education, made him bear impatiently the shackles laid upon a great number of respectable practitioners; he wished, fondly wished, to see these broken; not with a view of empty honour and dangerous power, but as the only means observing mankind more effectually, checking the progress of designing men and illiterate practitioners, and diffusing through the whole body a spirit of emulation. Though by frequent disappointments he foresaw, as well as we, the little chance of a speedy redress, he nobly persisted in the attempt; and, had he lived to the final event, would undoubtedly, like Cato, still have preferred the conquered cause to that supported by the gods. Afier having tried to retire from business and from London, for the sake of his health, and having disposed of most of his books with that view, he found it inconsistent with his happiness to forsake all the advantages which a long residence in the capital, and the many connexions he had formed, had rendered habitual to him. He therefore returned to his old house, and died in it, after a short illness, April 4, 1770. The style of our friend’s compositions was sufficiently clear in description, though in argument not so close as could have been wished. Full of Lis ideas, he did not always so dispose and connect them together as to produce in the minds of his readers that conviction which was in his own. He too much despised those additional graces which command attention when joined to learning, observation, and sound reasoning. Let us hope that his example and spirit will animate all his colleagues; and that those practitioners who are in the same circumstances will be induced to join their brethren, sure to find amongst them those great blessings of life, freedom, equality, information, and friendship. As long as these great principles shall subsist in this society, and I tVust they will outlast the longest liver, there is no doubt but the members will meet with the reward honest men are ambitious of, the approbation of their conscience, the esteem of the virtuous, the remembrance of posterity.”

, an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Dedham, in Essex, in 1729. His family was ancient, and settled at Hadleigh, in Suffolk, as early as the reign of HenryV1I. where some of their descendants still reside. He lost his father when veryyoung, and owed the care of his education to his maternal uncle, the rev. Thomas Smythies, master of the grammar school at Lavenham, in Suffolk, with whom he continued till he went to Cambridge, where he was entered of Sidney Sussex college, and took his degrees there of B. A. in 1752, and M. A. in 1776. After he had taken orders he was appointed to the free school of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and remained there till 1761, when he was presented to the school and curacy of Wye by Daniel earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. In the sedulous discharge of the twofold duties of this preferment he was engaged upwards of half a century, and was distinguished by his urbanity, diligence, and classical talents, nor was he less esteemed in his clerical character. He was also presented to the rectory of Eastwell, in 1767, by the same patron, and to the small rectory of Snave in 1776, by archbishop Cornwallis, who enhanced the value of this preferment by a very kind letter, in which his grace testified his high respect for the character and talents of the new incumbent. Mr. Parsons was the author of several publications, among which were, The nine first papers in the second volume of the “Student,” published in 1750; “On advertising for Curates;” a paper in The World; “The inefficacy of Satire, a poem,” 176G, 4to; “Newmarket, or an Essay on the Turf,” 1774, 2 vols.; “Astronomic Doubts, a pamphlet,” 1774; “A volume of Essays,” 1775; “Dialogues of the Dead with the Living,” 1782; “Simplicity,” a poem, 1784; and “Monuments and Painted Glass in upwards of 100 churches, chiefly in the eastern part of Kent,” 1794, 4to. This work, which is interspersed with judicious remarks and interesting anecdotes by the compiler, is become scarce, owing to the fire in Mr. Nichols’s premises, but is highly valuable to the antiquary and lover of such researches. Mr. Parsons also established a Sunday school at Wye; and recommended and contributed much to their establishment in the county of Kent by a sermon and some letters which he published on this occasion. The last years of his life were passed in great retirement; alternately engaged in the discharge of his ministerial functions, and in literary pursuits and correspondence, which, however, were interrupted by the loss of his sight about a year before his death, and at the same time by a very painful disorder. He bore these trials with exemplary patience and resignation. It was his frequent practice, when on his bed, and free from the more excruciating pains of his disorder, to compose moral, lively, and religious pieces, which he afterwards dictated to a faithful amanuensis, who wrote them down. He died at Wye, June 12, 1812, in the eighty-third year of his age.

The character of father Parsons was variously represented by protestants and catholics, but even the latter are not agreed. More recent writers seem little disposed to elevate it, although belonging to the same communion. Berrington, who has drawn a very impartial character, begins with asserting that “intrigue, device, stratagem, and all the crooked policy of the Machiavelian school,” are associated with the sound of his name. Dodd, the general biographer of the popish writers, is not without a considerable degree of impartiality in characterizing Parsons, but yet appears more zealous to defend him than strict impartiality admits. Parsons, however, was certainly a man of talents, and beyond comparison the best writer of his party.

The works of Pascal were collected in five volumes octavo, and published at Paris in 1779. This edition of Pascal’s works may be considered as the first published; at least the greater part of thern were not before collected into one body; and some of them had remained only in manuscript. For this collection the public were indebted to the abbot Bossut, and Pascal deserved to have such an editor. “This extraordinary man,” says he, “inherited from nature all the powers of genius. He was a geometrician of the first rank, a profound reasoner, and a sublime and elegant writer. If we reflect, that in a very short life, oppressed by continual infirmities, he invented a curious arithmetical machine, the elements of the calculation of cnances, and a method of resolving various problems respecting the cycloid; that he fixed in an irrevocable manner the wavering opinions of the learned respecting the weight of the air; that he wrote one of the completest works which exist in the French language; and that in his thoughts there are passages, the depth and beauty of which are incomparablewe shall be induced to believe, that a greater genius never existed in any age or nation. All those who had occasion to frequent his company in the ordinary commerce of the world, acknowledged his superiority; but it excited no envy against him, as he was never fqnd of shewing it. His conversation instructed, without making those who heard him sensible of their own inferiority; and he was remarkably indulgent towards the faults of others. It may be easily seen by his Provincial Letters, and by some of his other works, that he was born with a great fund of humour, which his infirmities could never entirely destroy. In company, he readily indulged in that harmless and delicate raillery which never gives offence, and which greaily tends to enliven conversation; but its principal object generally was of a moral nature. For example, ridiculing those authors who say,” my book, my commentary, my history; they would do better,“added he,” to say our book, our commentary, our history; since there are in them much more of other people’s than their own."

, an Italian cardinal, famous rather as a patron of letters, than as a writer, and employed by the see of Rome in many important negociations, was born at Fossombrone in the dutchy of Urbino, in 1682. He studied in the Clementine college at Rome, where he afterwards formed that vast library and curious collection of manuscripts, from which the learned world has derived so much advantage. In 1706 he attended the nuncio Gualterio, his relation, to Paris, where he formed an intimacy with the most learned men of the time, and examined every thing that deserved attention. He was particularly intimate with Mabillon, and Montfaucon. In 1708 ha went into Holland, at first for the sake of literary inquiries, but afterwards as a kind of secret agent for the pope at the Hague, where he resided four years, and attended the congress at Utrecht in 1712. On his return to Rome., he passed through Paris, where he was most graciously and honourably received by Louis XIV. who gave him his portrait set with diamonds. He then proceeded to Turin to accommodate some differences between the pope and the duke of Savoy; and upon his return to Rome was declared president of the apostolic chamber. In the two congresses at Bale in 1714, and at Soleure in 1715, he was again employed, and strongly evinced his zeal, talents, activity, prudence, and other qualities of a great negotiator. His account of this embassy was published in 1738, in folio, under the title of “Acta Legationis Helvetica,” which may be considered as a model of conduct for persons employed in such services. Upon the accession of Clement XII. he was sent as nuncio to the court of Vienna, where he pronounced the funeral oration of prince Eugene. In the pontificate of Innocent XIII. which lasted from 1721 to 1724, Passionei had been made archbishop of Ephesus; ie continued in favour with the successors of that pope, Benedict XIII. and Clement XII. the latter of whom, in 1738, raised him to the dignity of cardinal, having at the same time made him secretary of the briefs. Benedict XIV. in 1755 made him librarian of the Vatican, which he enriched by many important accessions; and in the same year he was admitted into the French academy, under the peculiar title of associ6 etranger. He died on the 15th of July, 1761, at the age of seventy-nine.

Mr. Paterson was a writer of some consideration, and from time to time indulged in several publications, to none of which he ever put his name. The first, in order of time, is, to our knowledge, “Another Traveller; or, Cursory Remarks made upon a Journey through Part of the Netherlands, by Coriat, jun. in 1766,” in three volumes 12mo; the second is “The Joineriana or, The Book of Scraps,” in two volumes 8vo, 1772, consisting of philosophical and literary aphorisms; the third is “The Templar,” a periodical paper, of which only fourteen numbers appear to have been published, and the last of them in December 1773, intended as an attack on the newspapers for advertising ecclesiastical offices, and places of trust under government; and the last is “Speculations on Law and Lawyers,” 1778, tending to evince the danger and impropriety of personal arrests for debt previous to any verification, At the pressing solicitations of his friends, he consented, as soon as the Fagel catalogue was completed, to undertake some “Memoirs of the Vicissitudes of Literature in England during the latter Half of the Eighteenth Century;” of which it is not improbable some materials may be found among his papers.

He then visited Germany, Holland, England, Swisserland, and Italy, and finally settled at Padua, where he was, in Sept. 1676, appointed professor extraordinary, in 1681 first professor of chemistry, and in 1683, professor of the practice of physic. In all these appointments he acquitted himself with such credit and ability, that the Venetian state honoured him with knighthood of the order of St. Mark; the academy “naturae curiosorum” also admitted him a member, under the title of Galen L, and he was a long time chief director of the academy of the Ricovratu He died at Padua Oct. 2, 1693. He was a man of extensive learning, and a voluminous writer both in Latin, French, and Italian. Such of his works as relate to medicine are only inaugural orations; but those by which he is best known, relate to the medallic science, in which he was a great proficient. These are, 1. “Familiae Romans ex antiquis numismatibus ah urbe condita ad tempera D. Augusti,” 1663, folio. This is chiefly founded on the work of Fulvius Ursinus. 2. “Introduction a l'Histoire par la Connoissance des Medailles,” 1665, 12mo. 3. “Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata,” 1671, folio. 4. “Thesaurus Numismatum,” 1672, 4to. 5. “Practica delle Medaglie,” 1673, 12mo. 6. “Suetonius ex Numismatibus illustratus,” 1675, 4to,“and some other pieces. He published also the lives of the professors of Padua, with the title of” Lycseum Patavinum, sive Icones et Vitae Professorum Patavi, anno 1682, docentium,“Pat. 1682, 4to. His wife and two daughters were learned women, and members of the Academy of Ricovrati at Padua, in which they distinguished themselves. Charlotte-Catherine, the eldest daughter, pronounced a Latin oration on the raising of the siege of Vienna, and published” Tabellse Selectae," which contained an explanation of forty-one engravings from the most celebrated painters. Gabrielle-Charlotte, the youngest daughter, published a panegyrical oration on Louis XIV., and a Latin dissertation on the phoenix on a medal of Caracalla, Venice, 1683. His wife was author of a collection of moral and Christian reflections.

, a polite scholar, and memorable for being one of the first polishers and refiners of the French language, was born in 1604 at Paris, where his father was procurator to the parliament. After studying the law, and being received an advocate, he went into Italy; and, on his return to Paris, frequented the bar. “He was the first,” says Voltaire, “who introduced correctness and purity of language in pleadings.” He obtained the reputation of a most exact speaker and excellent writer, and was esteemed so perfectly knowing in grammar and in his own language, that all his decisions were submitted to as oracles. Vaugelas, the famous grammarian, to whom the French language was greatly indebted, for much of its perfection, confesses that he learned much from Patru and Boileau applied to him to review his works, and used to protit by his opinion. Patru was an extremely rigid censor, though just; and when Racine made some observations upon the works of Boileau a little too subtle and refined, Boileau, instead of the Latin proverb, “Ne sis mihi patruus,” “Do not treat me with the severity of an uncle,” replied, “Ne sis mihi Patru,” “Do not treat me with the severity of Patru.”

, an ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, was descended from an illustrious family of Roman senators, and born at Bourdeaux about the year 253. He was directed in his studies by the famous Ausonius; and applied himself so earnestly to the best Latin authors, that he acquired a style not unlike theirs. He was advanced afterwards to the most considerable offices of the empire. Ausonius says, that Paulinus was consul with him; but his name not being found in the Fasti Consulares, it is probable he obtained that dignity only in the room of some other person, who died in the office, and perhaps in the year 378, after the death of Valens. He married Therasia, an opulent Spar nish lady, who proved instrumental in converting him to Christianity; and he was baptized in the year 389. He dwelt four years in Spain, where he embraced voluntary poverty; selling his goods by degrees, and giving them to the poor. The inhabitants of Barcelona, where he resided, conceived such an esteem for him, that they would have him ordained a priest to which, after a long resistance, he consented, upon condition that he should not be obliged to remain in Barcelona, because his design was to withdraw to Nola. This ordination was performed in the year 393, and the next year he left Spain to go into Italy. In his way he saw St. Ambrose at Florence, who shewed him marks of respect; and was kindly received at Rome both by the quality and the people: but the clergy there growing jealous of him, he left that city quickly, and went to Nola, where he dwelt in a country-house about half a league from the town. He lived there sixteen years with his wife Therasia, in the study and exercises of a monastic life; and then, in the year 409, was chosen and ordained bishop of Nola. The beginning of his episcopate was disturbed by the incursions of the Goths, who took that city; but the assault being over, he enjoyed it peaceably to his death, which happened in the year 431.

, an ancient Greek writer, who has left us a curious description of Greece, lived in the second century, but very few particulars of his life are known. Suidas mentions two of this name: one of Laconia, who wrote concerning the Hellespont, Laconia, the Amphyclions, &c. another, who was a sophist or rhetorician of Cicsarea in Cappadocia, lived at the same time with Aristides, and is mentioned by Philostratus, in his Lives of the Orators. This last is supposed to be our Pausanias. He was, according to the same Philostratus, “a disciple of the famous sophist Herodes Atticus, whom he imitated in many respects, but especially in composing without premeditation. His pronunciation was according to the manner of the Cappadocians, who had a way of lengthening short syllables, and shortening long ones. The character of his composition was negligent, yet not without force. He declaimed a long time at Rome, where he died very old, though he continued all the while a member of the college at Athens.” His work is properly an account of a journey through Greece, in which the author noted every thing that was remarkable. All public monuments, as temples, theatres, tombs, statues, paintings, &c. came within his design: he took the dimensions of cities, which had formerly been great and famous, but were then in ruins; nor did he hastily pass over places that were memorable for illustrious transactions of old. By these observations he throws much light upon the history and antiquities of Greece; and clears up many passages in ancient authors, which would otherwise have remained very perplexed and obscure. His work has been recommended to modern travellers, and it is well known that Spon and VVheler made great use of it. Pausanias was first published at Venice in 1516, fol. by Aldus, who was assisted by Marcus Musurus: Muslims wrote a preface in Greek, which is prefixed to this edition, and addressed to John Lascaris, a learned Greek of the same age. Afterwards, in 1547, Romulus Amaseus published a Latin version of this work at Rome; and, three years after, an edition was printed at Basil, with a new Latin version by Abr. Loescherus. A better edition than had yet appeared, with the Greek text of Aldus corrected by Xylander, and the Latin version of Amaseus by Sylburgius, came out ut Francfort, 1583, in folio; from which that of Hanover, 1613, in folio, was printed word for word. But the best of all is that of Leipsic, 1696, in folio, with the notes of Kuhnius. This learned man had already given proof, by his critical labours upon JElian, D. Laertius, and Pollux, that he was very well qualified for a work of this nature and his notes, though short, are very good. When he undertook this edition of Pausanias he proposed great advantages from four manuscripts in the king of France’s library; but, upon consulting them on several corrupt and obscure passages, he found that they did not vary from Aldus’s copy. The main succours he derived were from some manuscript notes of Isaac Casaubon, upon the margin of Aldus’s edition; and, by the help of these, and his own critical skill, he was enabled to correct and amend an infinite number of places. A new edition, in 4 vols. 8vo, was published at Leipsic, in 1794 1797, by Jo. Frid. Facius, which by the few who have had an opportunity of examining it, is thought excellent. It has very correct indexes, and some aid from a Vienna and a Moscow manuscript. An English translation was published in 1794 by Mr. Thomas Taylor.

, a writer of considerable note inhis day, appears to have been the son of Mr. Henry Peacham of Leverton, in Holland, in the county of Lincoln, and was born in the latter part of the seventeenth century, unless he was the Henry Peacham who published “The Garden of Eloquence,” a treatise on rhetoric, in 1577, 4to, and then he must be referred to the early part of the reign of queen Elizabeth. But we are more inclined to think, with Mr. Malone, that the “Garden of Eloquence” was a production of his father’s. Very little i& known with certainty of his history, and that little has been gleaned from his works, in which he frequently introduces himself. In his “Compleat Gentleman,” he says he was born at North Mims, near St. Alban’s, where he received his education under an ignorant schoolmaster. He was afterwards of Trinity college, Cambridge, and in the title to his “Minerva,” styles himself master of arts. He speaks of his being well skilled in music, and it appears that he resided a considerable time in Italy, where he learnt music of Orazio Vecchi. He was also intimate with all the great masters of the time at home, and has characterized their several styles, as well as those of many on the continent. His opinions, says Dr. Burney, concerning their works are very accurate, and manifest great knowledge of all that was understood at the time respecting practical music.

Dr. Pearce published in his life-time nine occasional sermons, a discourse against self-murder, which is now in the list of tracts distributed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge; and soon after the publication of his “Commentary,” his editor gave the public a collee-r tion of the bishop’s “Sermons on various subjects,” 4 vols, 8vo. Besides what 'have been already specified, our author published in 1720, a pamphlet entitled “An Account of Trinity college, Cambridge;” and in 1722, “A Letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” on occasion of the bishop of Rochester’s commitment to the Tower. He had also a short controversy with Dr. Middleton, against whom he published “Two Letters,” and fully convicted that writer of disingenuousness in quotation. His editor, Mr. Derby, who had married his neice, did not long suryive his benefactor, dying Oct. 8, 1778, only five days after the date of his dedication of the bishop’s “Sermons.”

, a very learned English bishop, was born Feb. 12, 1612, at Snoring in Norfolk; of which place his father was rector. In 1623 he was sent to Eton school; whence he was elected to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1632. He took the degree of B. A. in 1635, and that of master in 1639; in which year he resigned his fellowship of the college, and lived afterwards a fellow-commoner in it. The same year he entered into orders, and was collated to a prebend in the church of Sarum. In 1640 he was appointed chaplain to Finch, lord-keeper of the great seal; by whom in that year he was presented to the living of Torrington, in Suffolk. Upon the breaking out of the civil war he became chaplain to the lord Goring, whom he attended in the army, and afterwards to sir Robert Cook in London. In 1650 he was made minister of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, in London. In 1657 he and Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, had a dispute with two Roman catholics upon the subject of schism. This conference was managed iivwriting, and by mutual agreement nothing was to be made public without the consent of both parties; yet a partial account of it was published in 1658, by one of the Romish disputants, cum privilegw, at Paris, with this title, “Schism unmasked a late conference,” &c. In 1659 he published “An Exposition of the Creed,” at London, in 4to; dedicated to his parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, to whom the substance of that excellent work had betn preached several years before, and by whom he had been desired to nnake it public. This “Exposition,” which has gone through twelve or thirteen editions, is accounted one of the most finished pieces of theology in our language. It is itself a body of divinity, the style of which is just; the periods, for the most part, well turned the method very exact; and it is, upon the whole, free from those errors which are too often found in theological systems. There is a translation of it into Latin by a foreign divine, who styles himself “Simon Joannes Arnoldus, Ecclesiarum ballivise, sive praefecturae Sonnenburgensis Inspector;” and a very valuable and judicious abridgment was in 1810 published by the rev. Charles Burney, LL. D. F. R. S. In the same year (1659) bishop Pearson published “The Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, of Eton;” to which he wrote a preface, containing the character of that great man, with whom he had been acquainted for many years, drawn with great elegance and force. Soon after the restoration he was presented by Juxon, then bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Christopher’s, iri that city; created D. D. at Cambridge, in pursuance of the king’s letters mandatory; installed prebendary of Ely, archdeacon of Surrey, and made master of Jesus college, Cambridge; all before the end of 1660. March 25, 1661, he succeeded Dr. Lore in the Margaret professorship of that university; and, the first day of the ensuing year, was nominated one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy in the conference at the Savoy, where the nonconformists allow he was the first of their opponents for candour and ability. In April 1662, he was admitted master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and, in August resigned his rectory of St. Christopher’s, and prebend of Sarum. In 1667 he was admitted a fellow of the royal society. Jn 1672 he published, at Cambridge, in 4to, “Vindiciae F.pistolarum S. Ignatii,” in answer to mons. Dailie; to which is subjoined, “Isaaci Vossii epistolas duæ adversus Davidem Blondellum.” Upon the death of Wilkins, bishop of Chester, Pearson was promoted to that see, to which he was consecrated Feb. 9, 1673. In 1684- his “Annales Cynrianici, sive tredecim annorum, quibus S. Cyprian, inter Christianos versatus est, historia chronologica,” was published at Oxford, with Fell’s edition. of that father’s works. Dr. Pearson was disabled from all public service by ill health, having entirely lost his memory, a considerable time before his death, which happened at Chester, July 16, 1686. Two years after, his posthumous works were published by Dodweli at London, “Cl. Jaannis Pearsoni Cestriensis nuper Episcopi opera posthuma, &c. &c.” There are extant two sermons published by him, 1. “No Necessity for a Reformation,' 7 1661, 4to. 2.” A Sermon preached before the King, on Eccles. vii. 14, published by his majesty’s special command," 1671, 4to. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1789 p. 493) speaks of some unpublished Mss. by bishop Pearson in his possession. His ms notes on Suidas are in. the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, and were used by Kuster in his edition.

, an English poet, who flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was a native of Devonshire. was first educated at Broadgate’s Hall, but was some. time afterwards made a student of Christ Church college, Oxford, about 1573, where, after going through all the several forms of logic and philosophy, and taking all the necessary steps, he was admitted to his master of arts degree in 1579. After this it appears that he removed to London, became the city poet, and had the ordering of the pageants. He lived on the Bank-side, over against Black-friars, and maintained the estimation in his poetical capacity which he had acquired at the university, which seems to have been of no inconsiderable rank. He was a good pastoral poet; and Wood informs us that his plays were not only often acted with great applause in his life-time, but did also endure reading, with due commendation, many years after his death. He speaks of him, however, as a more voluminous writer in that way than he appears to have been, mentioning his dramatic pieces by the distinction of tragedies and comedies, and has given us a list of those which he says he had seen; but in this he must have made some mistake, as he has divided the several incidents in one of them, namely, his “Edward I.” in such manner as to make the “Life of Llewellin,” and the “Sinking of Queen Eleanor,” two detached and separate pieces of themselves; theerror of which will be seen in the perusal of the whole title of this play. He moreover tells us, that the lastmentioned piece, together with a ballad on the same subject, was, in his time, usually sold by the common balladmongers. The real titles of the plays written by this author, of which five only are known, are, 1. “The Arraignment of Paris,” 1584, 4to. 2, “Edward the First, 1593,” 4to. 3. “King David and Fair Bethsabe,” 1599, 4to. 4. “The Turkish Mahomet and Hyren the Fair Greek.” 5. “The Old Wives Tale,” a comedy, 1595, 4to.,

A very honourable funeral was provided for him by his nephew Claude, in the absence of his brother, who was then at Paris; but who, returning shortly to Provence, hastened to perform the funeral rites, and to be present at the obsequies. He also procured a block of marble from Genoa, from which a monument was made and erected to his memory, with an epitaph by Rigault. As he had been chosen in his life-time a member of the academy of the Humoristi at Rome, his eulogium was pronounced by John James Bouchier, of that learned society, in the presence of cardinal Barberini, his brother Antonio, cardinal Bentivoglio. and several other cardinals, and such a multitude of celebrated and learned men, that the hall was scarce able to contain them. Many copies of verses, in Italian, Latin, and Greek, were recited; which were afterwards printed together, with a collection of funeral elegies in forty languages, under the title of “Panglossia.” Peiresc was, in his person, of a middle size, and of a thin habit; his forehead large, and his eyes grey; a little hawk-nosed, his cheeks tempered with red the hair of his head yellow, as also his beard, which he used to wear long; his whole countenance bearing the marks of uncommon courtesy and affability. In his diet he affected cleanliness, and in all things about him; but nothing superfluous or costly. His clothes were suitable to his dignity; yet he never wore silk. In like manner, the rest of his house was adorned according to his condition, and very well furnished; but he neglected his own chamber. Instead of tapestry, there hung the pictures of his chief friends and of famous men, besides innumerable bundles of commentaries, transcripts, notes, collections from books, epistles, and such like papers. His bed was exceeding plain, and his table continually loaded and covered with papers, books, letters, and other things; as also all the seats round about, and the greatest part of the floor. These were so many evidences of the turn of his mind, which made the writer of his eulogium compare him to the Roman Atticus; and Bayle, considering his universal correspondence and general assistance to all the literati in Europe, called him “the attorney-general of the literary republic.” The multiplicity of his engagements prevented him from finishing any considerable work; but he left behind him a great number of Mss. on local history and antiquities, mathematics and astronomy, the medallic science, languages, &c. Of the writings of this scholar there have been published 48 Italian letters, addressed to Paul and John Baptist Gualdo, in the “Lettere d'uomini illustri;” a considerable number of letters among those of Camden, and a long and learned dissertation on an ancient tripod found at Frejus, in the “Mem. de Literature et de l'Histoire,” by Desmalets, in 1731. It is remarkable, that though Peiresc bought more books than any man of his time, yet the collection which he left was not large. The reason was, that as fast as he purchased, he kept continually making presents of them to learned men to whom he knew they would be useful. But the destruction of a multitude of his papers after his death, by some of his near relations, is mentioned by the learned with indignation and regret; they were applied to the vile uses of heating the oven and boiling the pot. Gassendi, another ornament of France, has given us his life iii detail, in elegant Latin, one of those delightful works, which exhibit a striking likeness of a great and good man at full length, and shew every feature and fold of the drapery in the strongest and clearest light.

, an historical writer, was born Oct. 17, 1694, at Leipsic, but his family were originally of Lyons. Being appointed preceptor to the prince de Montbelliard’s son, with whom ho spent the years 1712 and 1713, at Geneva, he had an opportunity of attending Messrs. Turretin and Pictet’s theological lectures; and M. Lenfant, whose pupil he also was, consecrated him to the service of the altar. He became pastor of the French church at Berlin, counsellor to the Upper Consistory, member and librarian of the academy, and died 1757, aged sixty-three. His “Histoire des Celtes,” printed in Holland, 1740, and 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo, was reprinted at Paris, 1770, 3 vols. 12mo, or 2 vols. 4to, and is esteemed a work of accuracy and merit.

, a writer of considerable estimation among the people called Quakers, was the son of an alderman of London during Cromwell’s time, who was lord mayor in 1642, and appointed one of the judges on the trial of the king. For this he was at the restoration prosecuted, and died in the Tower. Isaac the son, was born about 1617, and in his education is said to have had the advantages which the schools and universities of his country could give; but what school or university had the honour of his education, is not mentioned. From his father’s station, we are told, he had a reasonable prospect of rising in the world, but chose a life devoted to religion and retirement; and, as he has himself said, received impressions of piety from his childhood. He is represented by himself and his sect, as one who passed much of the early part of his life in a state of spiritual affliction, perceiving in himself, and in the world at large, a want of that vital religion and communion with the divine nature, which he believed the holy men of ancient time to have possessed. Whatever he read in the Scripture, as opened to his understanding, he determined fully to practise, and was contented to bear the reproach, opposition, and suffering which it occasioned. It appears also, that he met with opposition from his relations, and, among the rest, from his father; but he declares that his heart was preserved in love to them amidst all he suffered from them. On his first hearing of the Quakers, he thought them a poor, weak, and contemptible people, although, while his judgment seemed to reject them, the conferences which he occasionally had with them, seemed to increase his secret attachment. At length, in 1658, he became fully satisfied respecting them, partly through the preaching of George Fox; and became himself an unshaken and constant asserter of their peculiar tenets, as a minister and author.

The first earl of Egmont, according to Mr. Lodge, appears to have been a man of an exemplary character, both in public and private life, and a writer of considerable elegance and acuteness. He published, 1. “A Dialogue between a member of the church of England and a Protestant Dissenter, concerning a repeal of the Test Act,” 1732. 2. “The Question of the Precedency of the Peers of Ireland in England,” 1739. Part only of this book was written by the earl of Egmont; which was in consequence of a memorial presented by his lordship to his majesty Nov. 2, 1733, upon occasion of the solemnity of the marriage of the princess-royal with the prince of Orange. 3. “Remarks upon a scandalous piece, entitled A brief account of the causes that have retarded the progress of the colony of Georgia,” 1743. His lordship published several other tracts about that time, relating to the colony; and many letters and essays upon moral subjects, in a paper called “The Weekly Miscellany.” His Lordship also formed a collection of the “Lives and Characters of eminent men in England, from very ancient to very modern times.” Dr. Kippis appears to have had the use of this collection, when employed on the Biographia. It is in the possession of lord Arden. The earl of Egmont wrote a considerable part of a genealogical history of his own family, which was afterwards enlarged and methodized by Anderson, author of the Royal Genealogies; and by Mr. W r histon, of the Tally Court. This book, which was printed by the second carl of Egmont, is entitled “A genealogical History of the house of I very,” and is illustrated by a great number of portraits and plates. It was not intended for sale; but a few copies are got abroad, and sell at a very high price. Lord Orford, in the first edition of his “Royal and Noble Authors,” attributed “The great Importance of a religious Life,” to this nobleman, which, however, was soon discovered to be from the pen of Mr. Melmoth.

As a writer, he deserves most credit for a very able and celebrated pamphlet, long attributed to lord Bath, entitled “Faction detected by the evidence of facts containing an impartial view of Parties at home and affairs abroad.” Of this a fifth edition was published in 1743, 8vo. The following also are said to have been written by him: 1. “An Examination of the principles, and an inquiry into the conduct of the two brothers (the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham),” 1749. 2. “A second series of facts and arguments’ 1 on the same subject, 1749. 3.” An occasional Letter from a gentleman in the country to his friend in town, concerning the Treaty negociated at Hanau in the year 1743,“174k 4.” Memorial soliciting a grant of the whole island of St. John, in the gulph of St. Lawrence. This was not published, but copies were given by the author to ministers and some members of both houses. Lord Orford says, that its object was to revive the feudal system in this island. 5. “A Proposal for selling part of the Forest Land and Chaces, and disposing of the produce towards the discharge of that part of the national debt due to the Bank of England; and for the establishment of a National Bank, &c.” 1763, 41O.

During his retreat, Perrault employed his leisure io the composition of several works, among which were his “Poem on the age of Lewis the Great,” and his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns.” The long and bitter war these pieces excited between Boileau and the author, is well known. The chief fault of Perrauit was his censuring the ancients in bad verses, which gave Boileau the advantage. Had the two adversaries combated in prose, the match would have been more equal. In the collection of Boileau’s works, may be seen a letter addressed to him by Perrault, in the height of this warfare, against which this great poet’s prose, somewhat inclined to harshness and ponderosity, is scarcely able to sustain itself, notwithstanding all the author’s talents for sarcasm and irony. Perrault’s letter, though filled with reproaches, for the worst part well merited by his antagonist, is a model of decorum and delicacy. With respect to the ground of the dispute, the two adversaries, as usual in these quarrels, are aitrrhafely right and wrong. Perrault, too little conversant m the Greek language, too exclusively sensible of the defects of Homer, shows too little feeliirg of the superior beau ties of this great bard, and is not enough indulgent to his errors in favour of his genius. Boileau, perpetually on his knees before his idol, defends him sometimes unhapplx, and always with a rudeness almost equal to that with which the heroes of the Iliad abuse each other. It is, indeed, asserted that the enmity of Boileau against the author of the “Poem on^Louis le Grand,” had a secret cause, more potent than his devotion for the ancients; which was, that the writer, when justly celebrating the great Corneille, had affected to avoid all mention of the author of “Phaedra” and“” Iphigenia." There is some reason to believe that Boileau was- not better satisfied with the silence observed with respect to himself in this poem, which had not disdained to notice Godeaux and Tristan. But the satirist’s self-love in the displeasure he professed, prudently concealed itself behind his friendship for Racine, and perhaps was thus concealed even from himself. If on this occasion he displayed an excess of feeling, his adversary had been guilty of great injustice. To deprive the age of Lewis the Fourteenth of Boileau and Racine, is to deprive the age of Augustus, of Horace and Virgil.

The enmity of the two academicians was of older date than their quarrel concerning the ancients and moderns. Charles Perrault and his brothers, friends of those writers whom Boileau had treated with most severity, did not content themselves with a silent disapprobation of his attacks upon them; they freely expressed their sentiments of the satirist, who, on his part, did not spare them. We ought not, on this occasion, to suppress an anecdote of Perrault, which does him much honour. The French academy, in 1671, had proposed as the subject of their first poetical prize, the “abolition of duels.” Some days before the prizes were distributed, Perrault had spoken highly in commendation of the successful piece, the writer of which, M. de la Monnoye, was unknown. A person who heard him, said to Perrault, “You would be much surprized were the piece to prove Boileau’s.” “Were it the devil’s,” answered Perrault, “it deserves the prize, and shall have it.” Boileau on his part, as if through emulation, rendered some justice to Perrault, and even on account of his verses. He praised the six lines which conclude the preface to Perrault’s “Parallels,” though the ancients are not treated in them with much respect.

Persius is said to have been of a weak constitution, and troubled with indigestion, of which he died in his 30th year. Of his satires, six are extant, and have procured him to be named with Horace and Juvenal as the third great Latin satirist. With regard to his obscurity, critics have varied in their opinions of the cause of it: some attribute it as an original defect in his style; while others assert, that what we call obscurities and difficulties arise from allusions to persons, events, and practices, with which we are now unacquainted. There are, undoubtedly, such allusions in all the Roman poets; but Persius cannot be altogether acquitted of harshness and obscority of style, independent of such. He has more of the force and fire of Juvenal, than of the politeness of Horace; but as a moral writer he excels both.

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

, 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.

, an agreeable French writer and learned Orientalist, was born in 1654. After a suitable education he became the king of France’s secretary, and interpreter for Oriental languages, and succeeded his father in those offices, which, his countrymen inform us, he was eminently well qualified to fill. To a very considerable share of general learning, he added an integrity and firmness of mind which enabled him to resist the importunities of corruption in a very remarkable instance. He had great offers made to him if he would insert in the treaty between the Algerines and Lewis XIV. that the six hundred thousand livres, to be received by the latter, should be paid in Tripoli crowns, which would have made a difference of a sixth part. But this he rejected with contempt, although the trick could not have been discovered, or known to any except those who were to profit by it.

It seems to be generally agreed, that Petrarch greatly contributed to the restoration of letters in Italy, and through Italy to the other realms of Europe. The Latin tongue, in particular, is chiefly indebted to him for the restoration of its purity; Italian poetry for its perfection; and even philosophy for a considerable share of improvement. The science of ethics he studied with attention, and clothed many excellent precepts of morality with all the graces of pure and classical language. His treatises, “De Remediis utriusque Fortunae;” “De vera Sapientia;” “De Contemptu Mundi;” “De Republica optime administranda;” “De Avaritia;” On the Remedies of Fortune; True Wisdom; the Contempt of the World; Government; Avarice; and above all the rest, “De sua ipsius et aliorum ignorantia,” On his own Ignorance of himself and others, are exceedingly valuable. In reading the moral writings of Petrarch, we visit, says Brucker, not a barren desert of dry disputation, but a fruitful garden of elegant observations, full of the choicest flowers of literature. But Brucker’s animated praise of Petrarch’s prose works is probably confined to himself. The above-mentioned treatises might have been useful and interesting when written, when the world “was in its elements;” but they would meet with a very cold reception in the present improved state of moral and philosophical discussion. Petrarch’s fame as a writer depends now entirely on his Italian poetry, and on those facts in history which exhibit him as contributing to the revival of literature.

On this subject, a recent ingenious writer observes, that although the monks had for ages been assiduously engaged in the meritorious work of transcription, yet in Petrarch’s time the libraries of Italy had little to show, besides some works of the fathers, of ancient and modern theologians, of ecclesiastical and civil jurisprudence; of medicine, astrology, and philosophy; and even these in no abundance. The names of the classical writers were barely retained: their productions, and the times in which they lived were miserably confounded, and the authenticity of authors not unfrequently disregarded; while transcribers were often grossly ignorant and careless. In this dearth of accurate copies, and even of the valuable works of many ancient authors, Petrarch turned his mind to the most useful inquiries. He saw that his own efforts would be useless, without recalling into general notice the true models of taste: he owned that, on this subject, he was animated by a real passion, the force of which he had no desire to check; and communicating his wishes to hia friends, he entreated them to join their researches to his own, and to ransack the archives of libraries.

, student of the Middle Temple, bencher and treasurer of the Inner Temple, and keeper of the records in the Tower, was born in 1636, at a place called, in his Latin epitapir, Siorithes, near Skipton, in Craven, Yorkshire. Of his progress through life we have no information, except that he enjoyed much reputation as a law-writer, and particularly as the collector of a very curious library, and many valuable Mss. now in the Inner Temple library. He died at Chelsea, Oct. 3, 1707, aged seventy-one, but was buried in the Temple church, where is a long Latin epitaph, recording his many virtues and his collections, donations, &c. It is probable Chelsea was his favourite residence, as the year before his death he built a vestry and school-room adjoining the church-yard, with lodgings for the master, entirely at his own expenee.

It is remarkable, that no writer of antiquity has made any mention of this author; for it is generally supposed, that the Phcedrus mentioned by Martial is not the same. Seneca evidently knew nothing of him; otherwise he never could have laid it down, as he does, for matter of fact, that the Romans had not attempted fables and Esopean compositions: “Fabellas et ^sopeos logos, intentatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” This may account for the obscurity in which the name and reputation of Quintus Curtius lay buried for so many years; which was likewise the case with Velleius Paterculus and Manilius. Even Isaac Casaubon, with all his learning, did not know there was a Phaedrus among the ancients, till Peter Pithou, or Pithceus, published his “Fables.” c It is by your letter,“says Casaubon,” that I first came to be acquainted with Phaedrus, Augustus’s freedman, for that name was quite unknown to me before; and I never read any thing either of the man or of his works, or, if I did, I do not remember it.“This letter of Casaubon was written in 1596, at which time Pithceus published the” Fables of Phoedrus," at Troyes. He sent a copy of them to father Sirmond, who was then at Rome; and this Jesuit shewed it to the learned men in that city, who judged it, at first, a supposititious work; but, upon carefully examining, altered their opinion, and thought they could observe in it the characteristical marks of the Augustan age.

He died soon after the 12th of August, 1560, on which day his will was dated. His translation of Virgil is written, like the preceding specimen, in long Alexandrines of seven feet. The translation was completed, with the addition of Maphaeus’s thirteenth book, by Thomas Twyne, a young physician, afterwards author of other works: his part is deemed by Warton evidently inferior to that of his predecessor, though Phaer has omitted, misrepresented, and paraphrased, many passages. Of what he did of this nature Phaer himself has given an account, in his postscript to the seven books: “Trusting that you, my right worshipful maisters and studentes of universities, and such as be teachers of children and readers of this auctour in Latin, will not be to muche offended, though every verse answere not to your expectation. For (besides the diversitie between a construction and a translation) you know there be many mistical secretes in this writer, which uttered in English would shewe little pleasour, and in mine opinion are better to be untouched than to diminish the grace of the rest with tediousnes and darknes. I have therefore followed the counsel of Horace, teaching the duety of a good interpretour, * qui quae desperat nitescere posse relinquit;' by which occasion, somwhat I have in places omitted, somwhat altered, and some things I have expounded, and al to the ease of inferior readers; for you that are learned nede not to be instructed.” A ridiculous error of the press stands in the opening of the second Æneid, as reprinted by Twyne, Phaer had translated “conticuere omnes” by “they whusted all,” for “they whisted,” or kept silence but Twyne has printed it “they whistled all.” Sir Thomas Chaloner, in his Encomia, printed at London, 1579, 4to, p. 356, has pathetically lamented Phaer 7 as a most skilful physician. As to his name, it is written Phayer by Wood, and Phaier by Warton; but as we find it Phaer in every part of the translation of Virgil, and in the “Mirror for Magistrates,” we have so given it. His story of Owen Glendour is in stanzas of seven lines, the same as Sackville’s Induction, and the greater part of those narratives.

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."

, an ancient Greek writer, and of a noble family among the Jews, flourished at Alexandria in the reign of Caligula. He was the chief person of an embassy which was sent to Rome about the year 42, to plead the cause of his nation against Apion, who was commissioned by the Alexandrians to charge it with neglecting the honours due to Caesar; but that emperor would not suffer him to speak, and behaved to him with such anger, that Philo was in no small danger of losing his life. He went a second time to Rome, in the reign of Claudius; and then, according to Eusebius and Jerome, became acquainted, and upon terms of friendship, with St. Peter. Photius says further, that he was baptized into the Christian religion, and afterwards, from some motive of resentment, renounced it; but there is much uncertainty in all this, and few believe that St. Peter was at Rome so early as the reign of Claudius, if he was there at all.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

, archbishop of Patras, and coadjutor of Sienna, his native place, was born in 1503. His family was illustrious, and originally Roman, but settled afterwards at Sienna. He was a successful writer of the drama; but, though involved in that seducing pursuit, preserved the credit of exemplary morals, as well as genius. His general charity was extreme, but he was particularly considerate of the wants of literary men, His works are numerous, all written in Italian, which language he was the first author who applied to philosophical subjects. He died at Sienna on the 12th of March, 1578. The most distinguished of his works are these: 1. Several dramatic compositions, which formed the chief basis of his reputation. 2. “The Morality of Nobles,” Venice, 1552, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the Sphere.” 4. “A Theory of the Planets.” 5. “A Translation of the Rhetoric and Poetic of Aristotle,” 4to. 6. “The Institution of Morality,” Venice, 1575, 4to. Many of his works evince a profound knowledge of natural philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. One work attributed to him, “Delia bella Creanza della Donne,” “On the Education of Ladies,” printed in 1541, 1558, and 1574, has been valued because scarce, but is disgraced by many dangerous maxims, and must have been a production of his youth; during which, we are told, he was a correspondent of the infamous Peter Aretin.

In the beginning of 1488, we find Picus in the possession of a peaceful asylum at Fiesole, in the vicinity of Florence, which had been given him by Lorenzo de Medici, who had a villa in the neighbourhood; and he and Politian spent many of their hours of literary leisure together. Here also he enjoyed the friendship of Robert Salviatus and the family of the Benivieni, four in number, and all men of learning and talents. Jerome Benivieni, or Benivenius, became more especially the intimate friend of Picus, the depositary of his religious and moral opinions, and all that congeniality of opinion and disposition can render one person to another. Picus wrote a commentary on one of Benivieni’s Canzone, which will be noticed hereafter* In 1489, Picus’s “Heptaplus” was published, and received with great encomiums by the learned of the age, as worthy of its author’s talents and pre-acquired celebrity It can scarcely, however, says his biographer, be productive of any valuable purpose, very minutely to inquire into the merit of a woik which the tacit consent of posterity has consigned to almost total oblivion. Picus intermixes much of Platonism in all his theological writings; and they are also tinctured with the fancied doctrines of the Jewish Cabala, which is particularly observable in the work in question. After this he appears to have been employed on a commentary on the Psalms of David, at the request of Lorenzo de Medici; but respecting thecompletion of this, nothing satisfactory is upon record. About the beginning of 1490 he was employed on his favourite object of reconciling Plato and Aristotle. “To this work,” he says in a letter to Baptista Mantuanus, “I daily devote the whole of my morning hours; the afternoon I give to the society of friends, those relaxations which are requisite for the preservation of health, and occasionally to the poets and orators, and similar studies of a lighter kind; my nights are divided betwixt sleep and the perusal of the Holy Scriptures.” In 1491 he published his treatise “De Ente et Uno,” which, says his biographer, exhibits a chain of the most profound and abstract reasoning concerning the Deity, expressed in a language consistent with the sacred ness of the subject, much more free from the terms and phraseology peculiar to the schoolmen than might be expected, and which (in comparison with the mode then usual, of treating arguments so metaphysical and abstruse) may be denominated luminous and classical. This work afterwards gave occasion to a friendly controversy between Picus and Antonius Faventinus, or Cittadinus, the whole of which is included in the works of Picus, who, as a controversial writer, appears in a very amiable view.

In the religious opinions held by Picus, and inculcated in his works, he seems to have accorded chiefly with those of his own age and church, whom ecclesiastical writers have denominated by the general appellation of mystics; though, doubtless, if the minuter shades of difference be compared, he will, as a religious writer, be found to possess his wonted originality, and to reason and judge of many speculative points in a manner peculiar to himself. His devotional feelings were indeed subject to variation, and he once formed a resolution to dispose of all his property to the poor, and taking the crucifix in his hand, to travel barefooted from city to city as a preacher of the gospel; but this resolution he is said afterwards to have changed for that of joining the order of the Dominicans, at the instance of their general Savonarola; and his remains previous to interment (which was also the case with Politian’s) were invested with the habit of this order. Of the general character of Picus, with all the deductions which must be made from the reports of his contemporaries, Mr. Gresswell says, with great justice, that it still merits the admiration of those who contemplate with philosophical curiosity the powers and capabilities of the human rnind.

He was a great lover of letters, and applied himself intensely, at the seasons of his leisure, to reading and writing. He seems to have been a more voluminous writer than his uncle; and such of his tracts as were then composed, were inserted in the Strasburgh edition of his uncle’s works, in 1504, and continued in those of Basil 1573 and 1601. Among these are, 1. “De studio divinae & humanse philosophise, libri duo.” In this he compares profane philosophy with the knowledge of the Holy Scripture, and shews how preferable the latter is to the former. 2. “De imaginatione liber.” 3. “De imitatione, ad Petrum Bembum epistolse duge, & ejus responsum.” 4. “De re T rum prtenotione, libri IX.” In this book of the prescience of things, he treats of the Divine prescience, and of that knowledge which some pretend to have of things future, by compacts with evil spirits, by astrology, chiromancy, geomancy, and similar means, which he confutes at large. 5. “Examen vanitatis doctrinse gentium, & veritatis discipline Christianas, &c.” in which he opposes the errors of the philosophers, those of Aristotle particularly. 6. “Epistolarum libri quatuor.” 7. “De reformandis moribus oratio ad Leonem X.” These and some more compositions are to be found in the editions above mentioned of his uncle’s works; but there are others of his writings, which have nevef been collected together, but have always continued separate, as they were first published as, “Vita Hieronymi Savonarolae; De veris calamitatum temporum nostrorum causis liber De animae immortalitate Dialogus cui nomen Strix, sive de ludificatione dsemonum Hymni heroici tres ad Trinitatem, Christum, & Virginem De Venere & Cupidine expellendis carmen heroicum Liber de Providentia Dei, contra philosophastros De auro turn sestimando, turn conficiendo, turn utendo, libri tres, &c.” “There is not,” says Dupin, “so much wit, sprightliness, subtlety, and elegance, in the works of Francis Picus, as in those of his uncle; nor yet so much learning: but there is much more evenness and solidity.”

, an Italian historian and miscellaneous writer, was born at Ferrara in 1530, and prosecuted his studies with so much success, that at the age of twenty he obtained the professorship of rhetoric in his native city. Alphonsus II. who was then hereditary prince of Ferrara, having heard some of his lectures, conceived a high opinion of him, and when he succeeded his father, extended his friendship to Pigna in a manner calculated to raise ambition in him, and envy among his contemporaries. Pigna, however, while he set a proper value on his prince’s favours, studiously avoided every occasion of profiting by them, and refused every offer of preferment which was made, employing such time as he could spare from his attendance at court, on his studies. He died in 1575, in the forty-sixth year of his age, greatly lamented by the citizens of Ferrara, who had admired him as a favourite without pride, and a courtier without ambition. His chief work, as an historian, was his history of the house of Este, “Historia de' Principi di Este, in sino al 1476,” published at Ferrara, 1570, folio. This is a well- written account, but contains too much of the fabulous early history of that illustrious family, which was never judiciously investigated until Muratori and Leibnitz undertook the task. Pigna’s other works are, I. “11 Principe,” Venice, 1560, 8vo, in imitation of Machiavel’s Prince, but written upon sound principles, which, says one of his biographers with too much truth, is the reason why it is almost unknown. 2. “II duello, &c.” 1554, 4to. 3. “I Romanzi in quali della poesia e della vita d'Ariosto si tratta,” Venice, 1554, 4to. 4. “Carminum libri quatuor,” in a collection consisting likewise of the poems of Calcagnini and Ariosto, printed at Venice in 1553, 8vo.

, 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.”

Considered as a writer, she holds some rank in dramatic history, as the author of “The Turkish Court, or London Apprentice,” a comedy acted at Dublin in 1748, but never printed. The first act of her tragedy, “The Roman Father,” was no bad specimen of her talents in that way. Her “Memoirs” are written with great sprightliness and wit, and describe the different humours of mankind very naturally, but they must, as to facts, be read with the caution necessary in the Apologies of the Bellamys and Baddelys of our own days. She had a son, John Carteret Pilkington, who also became an adventurer, and somewhat of a poet. He published a volume of his “Memoirs,” 1760, 4to, and died in 1763.

Of all the works, which he is said to have composed, we have only his four books of hymns of triumph, on the conquerors in the four renowned games of Greece: the Olympian, the Pythian, the Nemaean, and the Isthmian; and such was his reputation for compositions of this kind, that no victory was thought complete, till it had the approbation of his muse. The spirit of Pindar’s poetry is so sublime, and the beauty so peculiar, that it is hardly possible to examine it by parts: and therefore the best judges have usually contented themselves with confirming his general title of “prince and father of lyric poetry,” without analyzing his particular excellences. “His Pegasus,” as Cowiey says, “flings writer and reader too, that sits not sure.” Horace called him inimitable, and, Quintiiian says, deservedly. Pindar and Sophocles,“says Longinus,” like a rapid fire, carry everything before them, though sometimes that fire is unexpectedly and unaccountably quenched.“The grandeur of his poetry, and his deep erudition, made the ancients give him the title of the Wisest, the Divine, the Great, and the most Sublime Plato calls him the Wisest and the Divine Æschylus the Great and Athenaeus, the most Sublime. Lord Bacon says, that” it is peculiar to Pindar, to strike the minds of men suddenly with some wonderful turn of thought, as it were, with a divine scepter."

, a learned jurist, son of a professor of law of the same name, was born at Bourges in 1612. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Paris in 1633, and rose to various honours in his profession; and was, at his death, sub-dean of the company of advocates. He owed his success in life to his great knowledge of the law of benefices, in which he was regarded as the oracle, and which he illustrated by several learned works. Of these were, “Traité des Benefices;” “La Pragmatique Sanction de St. Louis, et celle de Charles VII. avec Commentaires” “Notes sommaires sur les Indults, accorded a Louis XIV. &c.” “Trait^s des Regales,” 2 vols. 4to, which is said to be a very learned and useful performance. This industrious writer died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1691.

, a French dramatic poet, was born at Dijon in 1689, where he lived till he was past thirty, in all the dissipation of a young man of pleasure. At length, having given great offence to his countrymen by an ode which he produced, he removed to Paris; where, as his relations could not give him much assistance, he supported himself by his talent of writing an admirable hand. He was first secretary to M. Bellisle, and afterwards to a financier, who little suspected that he had such a genius in his house. By degrees he became known, from producing several small pieces, full of originality, at a little theatre in Paris; till the comedy called “Metromanie,” esteemed one of the best produced in the last century, raised his fame to the highest point. His very singular talent for conversation, in which he was always lively, and inexhaustible in wit, contributed to enhance his popularity; and as his company was more courted for a time than that of Voltaire, who had less good humour, he was inclined to fancy himself superior to that writer. Many traits of his wit are related, which convey, at the same time, the notion that he estimated himself very highly. At the first representation of Voltaire’s Semiramis, which was ill received, the author asked him in the theatre what he thought of it “I think,” said he, “that you would be very glad that I had written it.” The actors wishing him to alter one of his pieces, affronted him by using the word “corrections,” instead of alterations. They pleaded that Voltaire always listened to their wishes in that respect. “What then?” replied Piron, “Voltaire works cabinet-work, I cast in bronze.” The satirical turn of Piron kept him from a seat in the academy. “I never could make nine-and thirty people,” said he, “think as I do, still less could 1 ever think with them.” He sought, however, a species of revenge, in the epitaph which he wrote for himself:

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.”

, in Latin Plateanus, a learned French writer, was born at Angoulême in 1526. He applied with success to the study of jurisprudence, and in 1548 published a Latin paraphrase on the titles of the Imperial institutes, “De Actionibus, Exceptionibus et Interdictis,” in 4to. After this he was called to the bar of the parliament of Paris, and acquired the character of a learned, eloquent, and virtuous counsellor. Francis I. appointed him advocate of his court of aids at Paris, and he discharged the duties of that office with so much talent and integrity, that Henry II. nominated him his first president in the same court. He became, in consequence of hearing Calvin, a convert to the protestant religion in 1554, and made an open profession of it on the death of Francis II. On the breaking out of the civil war he retired to one of his houses in Picardy; but at the peace in 1562 vindicated himself before the king from the several charges which had been preferred against him. He was now appointed by the prince of Condé superintendant of the household, and accompanied his highness to the castle of Vè in the Valois, where he continued till Charles IX. granted the protestants advantageous terms of peace in 1569, that he might the more easily extirpate them. La Place, deceived by this treachery, returned to Paris, and was executing the office of president to the court of aids, when he was put to death in the most treacherous as well as barbarous manner in the general massacre of the protestants on St. Bartholomew’s day, in 1572, at the age of forty-six. His clear judgment and discrimination admirably qualified him for the office of magistrate. His chief works are, “Commentaries on the state of Religion, and of the Commonwealth, from 1556 to 1561;” “A Treatise on the right use of Moral Philosophy in connection with the Christian Doctrine;” and “A Treatise on the excellence of the Christian Man.”

, 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:

, a comic writer of ancient Rome, was born at Sarsina, a small town in Umbria, a province of Italy; his proper name was Marcus Accius he is supposed to have acquired the surname of Plautus, from having broad and ill-formed feet. His parentage seems to have been mean; and some have thought him the son of a slave. Few circumstances of his life are known; Cicero has told us in general that he was some years younger than Naevius or Ennius, and that he died the first year of the elder Cato’s censorship, when Claudius Pulcher and Lucius Portius Licinius were consuls. This was about the year of Rome 569, when Terence was about nine years old, and 184 years B. C. A. Gellius says, that Plautus was distinguished at the same time for his poetry uptm the theatre, that Cato was for his eloquence in the forum and observes elsewhere, from Varro, that he was so well paid for his plays, as to think of doubling his stock by trading in which, however, he was so unfortunate, that he lost all he had got by the Muses, and for his subsistence was reduced, in the time of a general famine, to work at the mill. How long he continued in this distress, is uncertain; but Varro adds, that the poet’s wit was his best support, and that he composed three plays during this daily drudgery.

, called the elder, to distinguish him from his nephew, was one of the most learned of the ancient Roman writers, and was born in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, about the year of Christ 23. His birth-place was Verona, as appears from his calling Catullus his countryman, who was unquestionably of that city. Tho ancient writer of his life, ascribed to Suetonius, and, after him, St. Jerom, have made him a native of Rome: father Hardouin has also taken some pains to confirm this notion, which however has not prevailed. We can more readily believe Aulus Gellius, who represents him as one of the most ingenious men of his age; and what is related of his application by his nephew the younger Pliny, is almost incredible. Yet his excessive love of study did not spoil the man of business, nor prevent him from filling the most important offices with credit. He was a procurator, or manager of the emperor’s revenue, in the provinces of Spain and Africa; and was advanced to the high dignity of augur. He had also several considerable commands in the army, and was distinguished by his courage in the field, as well as by his eloquence at the bar. His manner of life, as it is described by his nephew, exhibits a degree of industry and perseverance scarcely to be paralleled. In summer he always began his studies as soon as it was night: in winter, generally at one in the morning, but never later than two, and often at midnight. No man ever spent less time in bed; and sometimes he would, without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then pursue his studies. Before day-break, it was his custom to wait upon Vespasian, who likewise chose that season to transact business: and when he had finished the affairs which the emperor committed to his charge, he returned home again to his studies. After a slender repast at noon, he would frequently, in the summer, if he was disengaged from business, recline in the sun: during which time some author was read to him, from which he made extracts and observations. This was his constant method, whatever book he read; for it was a maxim of his, that “no book was so bad, but something might be learned from it.” When this was over, he generally went into the cold-bath, after which he took a slight refreshment of food and rest and then, as if it had been a new day, resumed his studies till supper-time, when a book was again read to him, upon which he would make some remarks as they went on. His nephew mentions a singular instance to shew how parsimonious he was of his time, and how covetous of knowledge. His reader having pronounced a word wrong, some person at the table made him repeat it: upon which, Pliny asked that person if he understood it? and when he acknowledged that he did, “Why then,” said he, “would you make him go back again we have lost, by this interruption, above ten lines.” In summer, he always rose from supper by clay-light and in winter, as soon as it was dark. Such was his way of life amidst the noise and hurry of the town but in the country his whole time was devoted to study without intermission, excepting only when he bathed, that is, was actually in the bath for during the operation of rubbing and wiping, he was employed either in hearing some book read' to him, or in dictating himself. In his journeys, he lost no time from his studies, his mind at those seasons being disengaged from all other thoughts, and a secretary or amanuensis constantly attended him in his chariot; and that he might suffer the less interruption to his studies, instead of walking, he always used a carriage in Rome. By this extraordinary application he found leisure to write a great many volumes.

, a French writer, born at Rheims, in 1688, was early distinguished by his progress in polite letters, and by his amiable character, qualities which procured him to be appointed classical professor in the university of Rheims. Some time after, he was removed to the professorship of rhetoric, and admitted into holy orders. Clermont, bishop of Laon, being made acquainted with his merit, offered him the place of director of the college of Clermont, and he was advancing the reputation of this seminary, when the peculiar opinions he held respecting some subjects which then interested the public, obliged him to leave his situation. On this, Gasville, the intendant of Rouen, appointed him tutor to his son, upon the recommendation of the celebrated Rollin. After this, he went to Paris, where he first gave lectures upon history and geography, and then acquired a considerable reputation by some works which he published I. His “Spectacle de la Nature” is generally known, having been translated into perhaps all the European languages, and was no where more popular than in England for many years. This work is written with perspicuity and elegance, and is equally instructive and agreeable; its only fault is, that the author uses too many words for his matter, which, however, is perhaps unavoidable in the dialogue form of writing. 2. 61 Histoire du Ciel,“in 2 vols. 12mo, is another work of the abbe” Pluche, a kind of mythological history of the heavens, consisting of two parts, almost independent of one another. The first, which contains some learned inquiries into the origin of the poetic heavens, and an attempt to prove that the pagan deities had not been real men, was animadverted upon by M. Silouette, in “Observations on the Abbe Pluche' s History,” &c. an account of which may be seen in the “History of the Works of the Learned” for April 1743, with notes by Warburton. 3. He wrote a tract also “De artificio linguarum,” 1735, 12mo, which he translated himself, under the title of “La Mechanique des Langues,” in which he proposes a short and easy method of learning languages, by the use of translations instead of themes or exercises. 4. “Concorde de la Geographic des differens ages,” 1764, 12mo, a posthumous work, well conceived, but executed superficially. 5. “Harmonic des Pseaumes et de PEvangile,” 1764, 12mo, a translation of the Psalms, remarkable for its fidelity and elegance, with many learned notes of reference and illustration from other parts of Scripture. Pluche had obtained the abbey of Varenne St Maur, to which he retired in 1749, and gave himself up entirely to devotion and study, which was a happy relief to him, as he lost all the pleasures of literary society, by an incurable deafness. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 20, 1761. He was a believer in all the mysteries of his church, even to an extreme; and when some free-thinkers used to express their astonishment that a man of abbé Pluche’s force of understanding could think so like the vulgar, he used to say, “I glory in this it is more reasonable to believe the word of God, than to follow the vain and uncertain lights of reason.”

In person he was of a middle stature, his hair and eyes black, his complexion fair, and his look lively and cheerful. In conversation he was free, open, and ingenuous; easily accessible and communicative to all who applied to him for advice in his peculiar province. His temper was unassuming, humble, and sincere, and his intellectual powers uniformly employed on the most useful subjects. His memory was great, and afforded him suitable advantages in the study of the learned languages. He wrote his own language with clearness and perspicuity, which form his principal recommendation as an English writer, but in his Latin a considerable degree of elegance may be perceived. His whole conduct as a divine, as a man of piety, and a minister of the church of England, was highly exemplary.

, 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.”

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.

, an Italian poet and a man of letters, was born of a noble family at Verona in 1731. He became an early proficient in classical literature, particularly the Greek, of which he was enthusiastically fond, and attained an excellent style. At this period the marquis Maffei and other eminent literary characters were resident at Verpna, in whose society the talents of Pompei received the most advantageous cultivation. He was first known as an author by “Canzoni Pastorali,” in two vols. 8vo. Able critics spoke in the highest terms of these pieces, on account of their sweetness and elegance it was thought by some good judges that they were never surpassed by any productions of the kind. He next translated some of the Idylls of Theocritus and Moschus, in which he exhibited a very happy selection of Italian words, corresponding with the Greek. The next object of his attention was dramatic poetry, in the higher departments of which the Italians were at that time very deficient, and he published in 1763 and 1770, his tragedies of “Hypermestra” and “Callirhoe,” which were represented with great success in several cities of the Venetian state. He now employed several years on a translation of “Plutarch’s Lives,” which appeared in 1774 in four vols. 4to. This work gave him considerable reputation as a prose writer and scholar, and it ranks among the very best classical versions in the Italian language. In 1778 he published two volumes of “Nuove Canzoni Pastorali” he also published poetical versions of the “Hero and Leander of Musjeus” of the “Hymns of Callimachus;” “A hundred Greek Epigrams” and the “Epistles of Ovid.” He was a member of some of the academies, and he served his native city in the capacities of secretary to the tribunal of public safety, and to the academy of painting. He died at Verona in 1790, at the age of fifty-nine, and his memory was honoured by various public testimonies, and by the erection of his bust in one of the squares of the city. He was highly respected and esteemed, as well for his morals as for his literary talents, and his fame was not limited to the confines of Italy. An edition of his works was published after his death in six vols. 8vo.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

, bishop of Bergen, who was born in 1698, at Aarhuus, in Denmark, and died in 1764, wrote several works respecting the history and geography of that kingdom; one of which, his “History of Norway,” was translated into English in 1755. His other publications are less known in this country. He must be distinguished from another Danish writer of both his names, author of a Danish grammar, a collection of epigrams and other articles of Latin poetry. He was born in 1616, and died in 1678.

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.

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.

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 zealous and learned Jesuit, was born in 1675, at Vendees, near Caen, and after pursuing his theological studies at Paris, in 1708, he was nominated to the chair of rhetoric in the college of Louis le Grand, which he filled with great diligence, success, and reputation, for thirty-three years, and formed many pupils that did honour to the instructions of their master. He died in 1741, at the age of sixty-six. His writings are numerous, chiefly in the Latin language there are two “Collections of Harangues,” published in 1735 and 1747 also six Latin tragedies and five Latin comedies. He was also author of several fugitive pieces in prose and verse. He had a brother, Charles Gabriel, who died in 1770, at the age of 85, a considerable writer, but known principally for a work entitled “Nouvelles Liieraires de Caen,” in 3 vols. 8vo, being a collection of pieces in prose and verse, written by the academicians of that city, and also for “Forty-four Dissertations on different subjects,” read before the academy of Caen, of which he was a member more than thirty years.

From this time, instead of lectures, it is said he turned his thoughts to publication; but before this, he had been a contributor to some of the literary journals, of articles which displayed his critical acumen. In the 3d vol. of Maty’s Review, he published a criticism on Schutz’s JEschylus“, dated from Trinity college, May 29, 1783. His other criticisms in that Review are, Brunck’s Aristophanes, vol. IV. Hermesianax, by Weston, vol. V. Huntingford’s Apology for” his Monostrophics, vol. VI. He also furnished Mr. Maty with a transcript of the letters of Bentley and Le Cierc, vol, IX. p. 253. He was an occasional contributor to the Monthly Review, the Gentleman’s Magazine, and, it is believed, to other publications. The account of Robertson’s Parian Chronicle, inthe Monthly Review, was written by him; and the review of Knight’s Essay on the Greek Alphabet, January 1. 1794, has, from internal evidence, been given to him. Of the ironical defence of Sir John Hawkinses Life of Johnson he was unquestionably the writer: this was comprised in three humourous letters inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1787, under the signature of Sundry Whereof. Some letters upon the contested verse, 1 John, v. 7, appeared subsequently in the same work; which at lengtn caused the publication of his letters to Archdeacon Travis, in which he is thought by many to have completely invalidated the authority of that much-disputed text. Not long after he had taken his first degree, it was in the contemplation of the syndics of the university press at Cambridge to publish Æschylus, with Stanley’s commentaries, in ms. in the public library of that university. Mr. Porson offered to undertake the work, if allowed to conduct it according to his own ideas of the duty of an editor but this offer was rejected, and in a manner so discouraging, that we are told it in a great measure operated, for a short period, to extinguish in him that ardent love of fame which is, generally speaking, the concomitant of learning and the emanation of genius. We shall find hereafter how much he had at heart the elucidation of this very difficult author, and in the mean time he was not reluctant to employ his pen in similar undertakings. In 1785, when Nicholson, the bookseller of Cambridge, was preparing a new edition of Xenophon’s ft Anabasis," he prevailed upon Mr. Porson to furnish him with some assistance, which he accordingly did to the extent of twenty-eight pages of addenda, which, although avowedly written in hatete, attest the hand of a master. In the year 1787, he communicated to the delegates of the Clarendon press some notes upon Toup’s Emendations on Suidas, which appeared with that important work in 1790. These notes were probably composed by him at the request of his friend Mr. Tyrwhitt; a gentleman of whose learning and genius he had the highest opinion, and not only used to mention the talents and acuteness of Mr. T. with approbation, but with reverence.

, a writer of reputation on subjects of trade and commerce, was slightly mentioned in our last edition, but without any particulars of his life; nor have we yet many to communicate. He was bora about the year 1707 but where, of what parents, or how educated, we have not discovered. In the introductory discourse to his work entitled “Great Britain’s true System,” he informs us, that nature having given him a very tender and weak constitution, he studiously declined and avoided, as much as he could, every degree of public life, as being inconsistent with, and indeed destructive of, that small snare of health which he had several years enjoyed, and which his studies had not mended and yet he preferred the studious life, as being more independent, He complains, however, of want of encouragement; and “humbly hopes that some people will be candid and ingenuous enough to think that he has a right to be treated upon a footing something different from that of an upstart idle schemist or projector, who has never given proof of any talents that might deserve the public regard and attention.” Whether this complaint was redressed, we know not. He died Sept. 17, 1767, and probably not in very opulent circumstances, as he was buried in Old-street church-yard. The coffin, at his own request, was filled with unslacked lime. His death was sudden, as he always wished it might be.

This treatise was afterwards translated into French, Dutch, and Latin. The Latin version was made by several hands. One edition was all or most translated by Mr. Thomas Gilbert, of Edmund Hall, in Oxford, and printed at Amsterdam 1677, in 8vo; part of the Latin translation is inserted in the second part of the fourth volume of Pool’s “Synopsis Criticorum.” Our author’s treatise was attacked by Mr. Lambert Morehouse, minister of Prestwood, near Kilmington, who asserts, that 25 is not the true, but propinque root of 666. Mr. Potter wrote a Reply to him. Mr. Morehouse gave a manuscript copy of this dispute to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Sarum, in 1668. Our author, while he was very young, had a good talent at drawing and painting, and the founder’s picture in the hall of Trinity college is of his copying. He had likewise an excellent genius for mechanics, and made several inventions for raising of water, and water-engines; which being communicated to the Royal Society, about the time of its first establishment, were highly approved of, and he was admitted a member of that society. Mr. Wood likewise observes, that about 1640, “he entertained the notion of curing diseases by transfusion of blood out of one man into another; the hint whereof came into his head from Ovid’s story of Medea and Jason; which matter he communicating to the Royal Society about the time of its first erection, it was entered into their books. But this way of transfusion having (as it is said) been mentioned long before by Andr. Libavius, our author Potter (vfrho I dare say never saw that writer) is not to be the first inventor of that notion, nor Dr. Richard Lewen, but rather an advancer.” He became blind before his death, and died at Kilmington about April 1678, and was buried in the chancel of the church there. His memory was preserved in Trinity college until 1670 by a dial, which he constructed and placed on the north side of the old quadrangle, but there is now another in its room. There are many anecdotes of him in the Aubrey Mss. but none perhaps more worth transcribing than the following. “The last time I saw him,” says Aubrey, “I asked him why he did not get some cousin or kinsman to be with him, and look to him now in his great age? He answered me, that he had tried that way, and found it not so well; for they did begrudge what he spent, that it was too much, and went from them, whereas his servants (strangers) were kind to him, and took care of him.” Aubrey adds, that in the “troublesome times it was his happiness never to be sequestered. He was once maliciously informed against to the committee a* Wells (a thing very common in those times); but when he came before them, one of them (I have forgot his name) gave him a pint of wine, and gave him great praise, and bade him go home, and fear nothing.” He seems to have wanted only opportunities of conversing more frequently with his learned contemporaries to have made a distinguished figure in the infancy of the Royal Society.

In the beginning of 1708, he succeeded Dr. Jane as regius professor of divinity, and canon of Christ Church, who brought him back to Oxford. This promotion he owed to the interest of the celebrated duke of Marlborougb, and to the opinion held concerning him that he was a Whig; whereas Dr. Smalridge, whom the other party wished to succeed in the professorship and canonry, had distinguished himself by opposition to the whig-measures of the court. In point of qualification these divines might be equal, and Dr. Potter certainly, both as a scholar and divine, was liable to no objection. It was probably to the same interest that he owed his promotion, in April 1715, to the see of Oxford. Just before he was made bishop he published, what had occupied his attention a very considerable time, his splendid and elaborate edition of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, 2 vols. fol. Gr. and Lat. an edition, says Harwood, “worthy of the celebrity of the place where it was published, and the erudition of the very learned prelate, who has so happily illustrated this miscellaneous writer.” In this he has given an entire new version of the “Cohortations,” and intended to have done the same for the “Stromata,” but was prevented by the duties of his professorship. In his preface he intreats the reader’s candour as to some typographical errors, he being afflicted during part of the printing by a complaint in his eyes, which obliged him to trust the correction of the press to others.

He left behind him the character of a prelate of distinguished piety and learning, strictly orthodox in respect to the established doctrines of the church of England, and a zealous and vigilant guardian of her interests. He was a great advocate for regularity, order, and oeconomy, but he supported the dignity of his high office of archbishop, in a manner which was by some attributed to a haughtiness of temper. Whiston is his principal accuser, in this respect, but allowances must be made for that writer’s prejudices, especially when we find that among the heaviest charges he brings against the archbishop is his having the Athanasian Creed read in his chapel. He had a numerous family of children, of whom three daughters and two sons survived him. One of his daughters, Mrs. Sayer, died in 1771.

The preceding sketch is taken from an advertisement prefixed to a volume of his “Discourses on various subjects,” published by his friend Dr. Thomas Balguy “which Discourses,” says the editor, “are not published for the credit of the writer, but for the benefit of his readers; especially that class of readers, for whom they were chiefly intended, the younger students in divinity. The author’s reputation,” he adds, “stands on a much wider bottom: a whole life uniformly devoted to the interests of sound philosophy and true religion.”

A letter of Mr. Markland’s having been published in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” reflecting on Dr. Powell as if he had died rich in consequence of accumulation, and had been saving of his money to the last, produced a satisfactory defence of him from a member of St. John’s college, part of which it is but justice to Dr. Powell’s memory to copy. “It is true,” says this writer, “that Dr. Powell died in very affluent circumstances but the greatest part of his fortune was left to him in 1759 by Mr. Reynolds, a relation of his mother, and the remainder was the wellearned fruits of his labours in educating his pupils while tutor. During the ten years he was master, he lived in great splendour and magnificence, and had considerably diminished his private fortune before his death. When it was determined to rebuild the first court, he generously made a present of 500l. to the society to several undergraduates he occasionally gave sums of money, and to others he allowed annual stipends to enable them to complete their studies: at his own expence he bestowed prizes upon those who distinguished themselves at the public examinations. By his will, which had been made a considerable time before his death, he bequeathed 1000l. to his friend Dr, Balguy to six 'actual fellows, to ten who had been fellows, and to four who had only been of the college, 100l. each; and to four fellows his books.”

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, is said to have been born of a good family, at St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, Dec. 25, 1749. He was ed located at Felstead, in Essex, and was originally brought up to the church. This, however, he appears to have quitted for the stage, which he attempted in London, in 1774, with very little success. After his failure in this attempt, he subsisted chiefly by writing. He also was for some time a bookseller at Bath, where, and at other places, he occasionally delivered lectures on the English language. For many years after his appearance on the stage, he assumed the name of Courtney Melmoth, which likewise is prefixed to most of his publications. As. an author, he was very prolific. The first of his productions which attracted the notice of the public, was “The Tears of Genius, occasioned by the Death of Dr. Goldsmith, 1774,” whose poetical works he endeavoured, and not always unsuccessfully, to make the model of his own. His poem of “Sympathy” was perhaps his best, and has passed through many editions, and is characterized by feeling, energy, and beauty. His first novel, entitled “Liberal Opinions upon Animals, Man, and Providence,” 1775, &c was published in detached volumes, which were eagerly perused as they successively appeared. His “Shenstone Green,” “Emma Corbett,” “The Pupil of Pleasure, or the New System (Lord Chesterfield’s) illustrated,” had likewise a temporary popularity. His other novel of any note was entitled “Family Secrets,” 1797, 5 vols. 12mo, but had not the success of the former. His dramatic productions were, a tragedy, “The Fair Circassian,” taken from Hawkesworth’s “Almoran and Harriet,” which required all the support of himself and friends, in the newspapers, to render it palatable for a few nights. His other dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dram, were so little successful as to be soon forgot.

, an English dramatic writer, who flourished in the earlier part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was first M. A. and fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, and afterwards created a doctor of civil law, and master of Trinity-hall in the same university, over which he presided about fourteen years, and died in 1598. In 1564, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Cambridge, this gentleman acted so admirably well in the Latin tragedy of Dido, composed by John Ritvvise, one of the fellows of King’s college, and disputed so agreeably before her majesty, that as a testimonial of her approbation, she be* stowed a pension of twenty pounds per annum upon him; nor was she less pleased with him on hearing his disputations with Mr. Cartwright, and called him “her scholar,” and gave him her band to kiss. The circumstance of the pension Mr. Steevens supposes to have been ridiculed by Shakspeare in the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” at the conclusion of act the fourth. On the 6th of Sept. 1566, when the Oxonian Muses, in their turn, were honoured with a visit from their royal mistress, Preston, with eight more Cantabrigians, were incorporated masters of arts in the university of Oxford. Mr. Preston wrote one dramatic piece, in the old metre, entitled “A Lamentable Tragedy full of pleasant Mirth, conteyning the Life of Cambises King of Percia, from the beginning of his Kingdome unto his Death, his one good Deed of Execution after the many wicked Deeds and tyrannous Murders committed by and through him, and last of all, his odious Death by God’s Justice appointed, doon on such Order as folio weth.” This performance Langbaine informs us, Shakspeare meant to ridicule, when, in his play of Henry IV. part i. act 2. he makes Falstaff talk of speaking “in king Cambyses’ vein.” In proof of which conjecture, he has given his readers as a quotation from the beginning of the play, a speech of king Cambyses himself.

, in Latin Pricæus, a learned writer, originally of a Welsh family, was born in 1600 at London. He was brought up at Westminster-school, whence in, 1617 he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford. He made >grcat proficiency in learning, and was esteemed one of the ablest critics of his day, but espoused the Roman catholic religion which for some time he appears to have concealed. On leaving college he was entertained in the earl of Arundel’s family, with which he travelled into Italy, and there was made doctor of law?. On his return to England, he became acquainted with the earl of Strafford, who 'being pleased with his talents and learning, took him with him to Ireland, where he likewise became acquainted with archbishop Usher, and was one of his correspondents, their biblical studies forming a bond of union. When his noble patron was prosecuted, Dr. Price shared in his misfortunes, and returned to England in 1640. During the rebellion he endeavoured to support the royal cause by his pen, and wrote several pamphlets, for which he was imprisoned for a considerable time. After his release he went abroad, and took up his residence in Florence, where the grand duke made him superintendant of his museum, which was then One of the finest in Europe. By the interest of this prince, he was appointed Greek professor at Pisa, and filled that office with great reputation. Resigning it, however, probably owing to bad health, he went to Venice, with a view to publish Hesychius’s Lexicon, but not succeeding in the design, he went to Rome, and was entertained by cardinal Francis Barberini. When advanced in years, he retired to St. Augustine’s convent at Rome, where he died in 1676, aged seventy-six. His works are 1. “Notoe et observationes in apologiam L. Apuleii Madaurensis, philosophi Platonici,” Paris, 1635, 4to. These are to be found in the Gouda edition of Apuleius, 1650, 8vo, but the original is very scarce. 2. “Matthaeus, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustratus,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 3. “Annotationes in epist. Jacobi,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 4. “Acta Apostolorum, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustrata,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. 5. “Index Scriptorum, qui in Hesychii Graeco vocabulario laudantur, confectus et alphabetico ordine dispositus,” 1668. See Schrevelius’s Lexicon at the end. 6. “Comment, in varios Novi Test. Hbros,” inserted in the 5th vol. of the “Critici Sacri.” Dr. Price is praised by Sarravius, in his letters by archbishop Usher on St. Ignatius’s epistles by Heinsius, in an epistle to Carlo Dati by Selden more than once, in the second book “de Synedriis Ebraeorum” by Vossius, in his “Harmonia Evangelica” by Morus, in his notes on the New Testament by Redi, in his treatise on the Generation of Insects but especially by Axenius on Phaedrus.

, an eminent dissenting minister and political writer, was born Feb. 23, 1723, at Tynton, in the parish of Langeinor, in Glamorganshire. His father, who was many years minister of a dissenting congregation at Bridgend in the same county, intended him for trade, but gave him a good education, in the course of which, however, he became dissatisfied with his son’s departure from his own views of religion, which were Calvinistic. He died in 1739, while his son was a scholar at a seminary at Talgarth, and a scholar of more than ordinary thinking. In 1740 we are told that he first engaged in studying Butler’s “Analogy,” a work which never ceased to be the subject of his praise and admiration. In his eighteenth year, by the advice of his paternal uncle, the rev, Samuel Price, who officiated as co-pastor with the celebrated Dr. Watts, he was removed to a dissenting academy in London, founded by Mr. Coward, and of which Mr. Eames was at that time the principal tutor, where he devoted his whole time with “ardour and delight” as he used to say, to the study of mathematics, philosophy, and theology. On completing his course of education, he was removed, by the recommendation of his uncle, to Stoke Newington, and resided there for near thirteen years, in the family of a Mr. Streatfield, as his chaplain and companion.

Dr. Prideaux was naturally of a very strong, robust constitution; which enabled him to pursue his studies with great assiduity; and notwithstanding his close application, and sedentary manner of life, enjoyed great vigour both of body and mind for many years together, till afflicted by the stone. Although we have few particulars of his course of study at Oxford, it is evident that he must have been an early and hard student, and had accumulated a great fund of Oriental learning, and an intimate acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. His parts were very good, rather solid than lively: his judgment excellent: as a writer he is clear, strong, intelligent, and learned, without any pomp of language, or ostentation of eloquence. His conversation resembled his style, being learned and instructive, but with a conciseness of expression on many occasions, which, to those who were not well acquainted with him, had sometimes the appearance of rusticity. In his manner of life, he was regular and temperate, being seldom out of his bed after ten at night, and he generally rose to his studies before five in the morning. His disposition was sincere and candid. He generally spoke his mind with freedom and boldness, and was not easily diverted from pursuing what he thought right. To those who differed from him in opinion, he always behaved with great candour. In party principles he was rather inclined to what was called Low-church; but in his adherence to the establishment, in performing all the duties annexed to liis preferments, in enjoining a like attention upon all vvith whom he had influence, and in his dislike of schism and schismatics, no man was more inflexible. He had at one time flattered himself that a few alterations in the liturgy might tend to bring back the dissenters to the church; but he lived to see, what we have lived to see more clearly, that a few alterations would not answer the purpose. For most of these particulars we are indebted to an excellent Life of Dr. Prideaux, which appeared in October 1748, “with several tracts and letters of his upon various subjects, never before published.”

In the same year, he was invited to become a tutor in languages in the academy at Warrington; and here he first began to acquire reputation as a writer in various branches of literature. Several of his works had relation to his office in the academy, which, besides philosophy, included lectures on history and general policy. A visit to London having introduced him to the acquaintance of Dr. Franklin, Dr. Watson, Dr. Price, and Mr. Canton, he was encouraged by them to execute a plan he had already begun, of writing a “History of Electricity,” which accordingly appeared in 1767. It is rather carelessly and hastily exeecuted, but must have been of advantage to the science. Almost the whole of his historical facts are taken from the Philosophical Transactions but at the end he gives a number of original experiments of his own. The most important of all his electrical discoveries, was, that charcoal is a conductor of electricity, and so good a conductor that it vies even with the metals themselves. This publication went through several editions, was translated into foreign languages, and procured him the honour of being elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, as one of his biographers says; but his election took place the year before; and about the same time the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws.

The success of his “History of Electricity” induced him to adopt the design of treating on other sciences, in the same historical manner and at Leeds he occupied himself in preparing “The History and present state of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light, and Colours.” The expences necessary in composing such a work obliged him to issue proposals for publishing it by subscription and it appeared in 1772, in one very large volume 4to. The sale of this work by no means corresponded with the expectations formal from the number of names given in as subscribers it has been said, not one-third part of the number paid for, or demanded the book when it was published. One of his biographers says that it failed, chiefly because it was impossible to give adequate notions of many parts of the theory of optics without a more accurate acquaintance with mathematics than common readers can be supposed to possess. Perhaps too, the writer himself was scarcely competent to explain the abstruser parts of this science.

April 14, 1752, Dr. Pringle married Charlotte, the second daughter of Dr. Oliver, an eminent physician at Bath, and who had long been at the head of his profession in that city. This connection did not last long, the lady dying in the space of a few years. Nearly about the time of his marriage, Dr. Pringle gave to the public the first edition of his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” It was reprinted in the year following, with some additions. To the third edition, which was greatly improved from the further experience the author had gained by attending the camps, for three seasons, in England, an Appendix was annexed, in answer to some remarks that professor De Haen, of Vienna, and M. Gaber, of Turin, had made on the work. A similar attention was paid to the improvement of the treatise, in every subsequent edition. The work is divided into three parts; the first of which, being principally historical, may be read with pleasure by every gentleman. The latter parts lie more within the province of physicians, who are the best judges of the merit of the performance and to its merit the most decisive and ample testimonies have been given. It hath gone through seven editions at home and abroad it has been translated into the Fretich, German, and Italian languages. Scarcely any medical writer hath mentioned it without some tribute of applause. Ludwig, in the second volume of his “Commentarii de Rebus in Scientia Naturali et Medicina gestis,” speaks of it highly; and gives an account of it, which comprehends sixteen pages. The celebrated and eminent baron Haller, in his “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” with a particular reference to the treatise we are speaking of, styles the author “Vir illustris de omnibus bonis artibus bene meritus.” It is allowed to be a classical book in the physical line; and has placed the writer of it in a rank with the famous Sydenham. Like Sydenham, too, he has become eminent, not by the quantity, but the value of his productions and has afforded a happy instance of the great and deserved fame which may sometimes arise from a single performance. The reputation that Dr. Pringle gained by his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army,” was not of a kind which is ever likely to diminish. The utility of it, however, was of still greater importance than its reputation. From the time that he was appointed a physician to the army, it seems to have been his grand object to lessen, as far as lay in his power, the calamities of war; nor was he without considerable success in his noble and benevolent design. By the instructions received from this book, the late general Melville, who united with his military abilities the spirit of philosophy, and the spirit of humanity, was enabled, when governor of the Neutral Islands, to be singularly useful. By taking care to have his men always lodged in large, open, and airy apartments, and by never letting his forces remain long enough in swampy places, to be injured by the noxious air of such places, the general was the happy instrument of saving the lives of seven hundred soldiers. In 1753, Dr. Pringle was chosen one of the council of the Royal Society. Though he had not for some years been called abroad, he still held his place of physician to the army and, in the war that began in 1755, attended the camps in England during three seasons. This enabled him, from further experience, to correct some of his former observations, and to give adc,Htional perfection to the third edition of his great work. In 1758, he entirely quitted the service of the army; and being now determined to fix wholly in London, he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, July 5, in the same year. The reason why this matter was so long delayed might probably be, his not having hrtherto come to a final resolution with regard to his settlement in the metropolis. After the accession of king George III. to the throne of Great Britain, Dr. Pringle was appointed, in 1761, physician to the queen’s household and this honour was succeeded, by his being constituted, in 1763, physician extraordinary to her majesty. In April in the same year, he had been chosen a member of the Academy of Sciences at Haarlem and, June following, he was elected a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London. In the succeeding November, he was returned on the ballot, a second time, one of the council of the Royal Society; and, in 1764, on the decease of Dr. Wollaston, he was made physician in ordinary to the queen. In Feb. 1766, he was elected a foreign member, in the physical line, of the Royal Society of Sciences at Gottingen; and, on the 5th of June in that year, his majesty was graciously pleased to testify his sense of Dr. Pringle' s abilities and merit, by raising him to the dignity of a baronet of Great Britain. In July 1768, sir John Pringie was appointed physician in ordinary to her late royal highness the princess dowager of Wales to which office a salary was annexed of lOOl. a-year. In 1770, he was chosen, a third time, into the council of the Royal Society as he was, likewise, a fourth time, for 1772.

Prior had been the enemy of Dryden some years before the revolution, and had the hardihood to represent that great writer as a miserable poetaster, in an anonymous satire on which, probably, says Malone, he did not reflect with much satisfaction, when he became a tory. Prior, however, never published any satire but this, and one on “The modern Poets,” which he wrote in 1687 or 1688. From his “Heads of a Treatise upon Learning,” a manuscript formerly in the possession of the duchess dowager of Portland, it appears, that he abstained from this dangerous exercise of his talents, on prudential considerations. In this same ms. he thus speaks of himself: “As to my own part, I felt this (poetical) impulse very soon, and shall continue to feel it as long as I can think. I remember nothing farther in life, than that I made verses. I chose Guy of Warwick for my first hero and killed Colborn, the giant, before I was big enough for Westminster. But I had two accidents in youth which hindered me from being quite possessed with the muse. I was bred in a college where prose was more in fashion than verse and as soon as I had taken my first degree, was sent the king’s secretary to the Hague. There I had enough to do in studying my French and Dutch, and altering my Terentian and original style into that of articles and conventions. So that poetry, which by the bent of my mind might have become the business of my life, was, by the happiness of my education, only the amusement of it; and in this, too, from the prospect of some little fortune to be made, and friendship to be cultivated with the great men, I did not launch much into satire; which, however agreeable at present to the writers or encouragers of it, does in time do neither of them good: considering the uncertainty of fortune, and the various changes of ministry, and that every man, as he resents, may punish in his turn of greatness; and that in England a man is less safe as to politics, than he is in a bark upon the coast, in regard to the change of the wind, and the danger of shipwreck.” By these prudential maxims, Prior appears to have been guided through the greater part of his life.