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

Sir Robert Naunton, for so he was created by James I. was a man of considerable learning, and well qualified for political affairs; and his letters contain many curious facts and just observations on the characters and parties of his day. His “Fragmenta Regalia” continues to preserve his memory. This tract, printed first in 1641, 4to, contains some interesting observations on queen Elizabeth, and her principal courtiers, apparently written with impartiality; but in an uncouth and rugged style.

a learned Italian scholar and poet, was born at Venice, of a patrician family, in 1483, and was instructed in Latin and Greek at Venice and Padua, under Sabellicus and Marcus Musurus. In the Latin language and composition he acquired great facility and taste, as appeared by his subsequent productions; and also cultivated Italian poetry, in his youth, with equal success. He appears to have embarked both in military and political life. He attended his friend Livanius, the Venetian general, in some of his expeditions and one of his most elegant Latin poems was a funeral elogy on that officer. His political talents recommended him t6 the office of Venetian ambassador at the court of Charles V. when the Italian States began to take the alarm at that monarch’s apparent projects of aggrandizement. He was afterwards deputed on a similar mission to Francis I.; but too great solicitude on this occasion is supposed to have been fatal to him. After travelling with great speed to France, he had scarce paid his respects to the monarch when he was seized with a fever, at Blois, and died in 1529, in his forty-sixth year.

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.

Navagero was also distinguished for his Greek literature, and was such an admirer of Pindar that he transcribed his works more than once. He was a great encourager of the labours of Aldus Manutius, and diligently revised and corrected the texts of Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Quintilian, and especially of Cicero. Irt inscribing to Navagero, by a most interesting preface, the volume which comprizes the “Rhetorica Ciceronis,” printed at Venice in 1514, 8vo, Aldus testified the high sense which he entertained of these obligations.

, a Spanish painter, was born in 1562 at Logronno, and becoming, in his third year, both deaf and dumb, is generally known under the name of " E! Mudo.' His talent for the art was not, however, affected by this misfortune; a rapid progress in the school of Fr. Vicente soon enabled him to travel to Italy, and to form himself at Venice upon the works of Titian. After his return to Madrid, he was, 1568, nominated painter to the king, and gave a proof of his great talent by a small picture representing the baptism of Christ, still preserved in the Escurial; which is indeed the repository of his most distinguished works, especially of the celebrated Presepio, in which the principal light emanates from the Infant; the S. Hippolytus in nocturnal quest after the body of S. Lorenzo, where silence, secresy, and fear, appear personified; and what is commonly considered as his masterpiece, a Holy Family, not less noticed for the characteristic singularity of the accessories than the beauties of the groupe. To these his works at Valencia, Salamanca, and Estrella are little inferior; all distinguished by a colour which acquired him the title of the Spanish Titian. He died in 1579.

, a Spanish Dominican friar, born in Old Castile, is said to have been an eloquent preacher. He quitted Spain in 1646 on a mission to China, where he did not arrive till 1659. He was head of the mission in the province of Chekiang when the persecution arose, and was expelled with the rest of the missionaries. In 1672, he returned to Spain; and soon after went to Rome to give the pope an account of his conduct, which savoured more of the zeal of Loyola than of St. Paul. In 1678 Charles II. raised him to the archbishopric of St. Domingo, in America, where he resided till his death, in 1689. He spoke the Chinese language fluently, and no person, perhaps, understood better the affairs of China, He wrote a work entitled “Tradados Historicos, Politicos, Ethicos, y Religiosos, de la monarchia de China.” The first volume, folio, Mad. 1676, is scarce and curious, but has been inserted in Churchill’s Voyages; the second was suppressed by the inquisition, but has been so often quoted by the Jesuits, that it is thought the inquisitors gave away a few copies before they destroyed the impression; the third never was published. Navaretta is said also to have written some religious tracts in the Chinese language.

, a remarkable person of the society called Quakers, was born at Ardsley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire, about 1616. His father was a husbandman, who had some estate of his own, and gave to his son such an education as enabled him to express himself with facility in his native tongue. James married and settled in Wakefield parish about 1638; and, in 1641, became a private soldier in the parliament army, in which he was afterwards made a quarter-master under major-general Lambert, but quitted it, on account of sickness, in 1649. Being convinced of the doctrines of the people called Quakers, by the means of George Fox, in 1651, the next year he believed himself divinely required to. quit his relations and go into the West, not knowing what he was to do there; but when he came there he had it given him what to declare; and thus he continued, not knowing one day what he was to do the next; but relying on that divine aid which he believed himself to receive.

He was a man of excellent natural parts, and acquitted himself so well, both in word and writing, that many joined the society through his ministry. He came to London towards the beginning of 1655, in which city a meeting of Quakers had been established by the ministry of Edward Burrough and Francis Howgill, two eminent Quakers from Westmorland. Here Nayler preached with so much applause, that the distinction which he acquired occasioned his fall; for, some inconsiderate women setting him up in their esteem above Howgill and Burrough, went so far as to disturb them in their public preaching. These men giving to the women a deserved reproof, two of them complained of it to Nayler, who, although at the first he was backward to pass censure on his brethren, yet, at length, suffering himself to be wrought upon by the reiterated and passionate complaints of one Martha Simmons (the chief engine of the mischief), he became estranged from them, and gave ear to the flatteries of his unadvised adherents. In 1656, he suffered imprisonment at Exeter and about this time several deluded persons addressed him by letter in terms of great extravagance. He was called “the everlasting Son of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, the only begotten Son of God, the Fairest of Ten Thousand;” and during his confinement in Exeter gaol some women knelt before him and kissed his feet. About this time George Fox returning out of the West, where he had himself suffered a rigorous imprisonment, called on James Nayler in the prison at Exeter, and gave him some reproof for his defection and extravagance. This Nayler slighted, but nevertheless would have saluted Fox with a kiss; but George rejected his salutation, alleging that “he had turned against the power of God.”

Soon after his release from Exeter, we find him entering Bristol, accompanied by his wild adherents. One of them, a man, went before him bare-headed; a woman led his horse, and three others spread their scarves and handkerchiefs before him; while the company sang “holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Hosts, hosanna in the highest, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Israel.” For this Nayler and his attendants were examined by the magistrates, and he was sent to London soon after to be examined by the parliament. After referring the matter to a committee, the House resolved “that James Nayler is guilty of horrid blasphemy, and that he is a grand impostor and seducer cf the people.” Nine days after this, the business having been daily brought forward, the parliament gave the following sentence: “That James Nayler be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, in the Palace-yard, Westminster, during the space of two hours, on Thursday next, and be whipped by the hangman through the streets from Westminster to the Old Exchange, London; and then likewise be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, for the space of two hours, between the hours of eleven and one on Saturday next, in each place wearing a paper containing an inscription of his crimes; and that at the Old Exchange his tongue be bored through with a hot iron; and that he be there also stigmatized in the forehead with the letter B; and that he be afterwards sent to Bristol, and be conveyed into and through the said city on horseback, with his face backward; and there also publicly whipped the next market-day after he comes thither; and that thence he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there restrained from the society of all people and there to labour hard till he shall be released by parliament; and during that time be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and shall have no relief but what he earns by his daily labour.”

There are a few things observable in the treatment of this case. One is, that Nayler was declared to be guilty of horrid blasphemy, when it does not appear that he himself uttered any words in that transaction for which he was apprehended. Another is, the great severity of the sentence, viz. excessive whipping, two pilloryings of two hours each, boring the tongue with an hot iron, and branding the forehead; at Bristol a second whipping; and, finally, a solitary confinement with hard labour, sine die. But a third thing to be observed is, that the active persons in the business, the ranting women, received no share of the punishment, except some confinement. From these circumstances it would seem that the object of the parliament was to bring the Quakers into discredit, by letting the weight of their censure fall on Nayler, who had been so eminent among them; although letters found on him at Bristol from some of them, shewed that they disclaimed fellowship with his disorderly proceedings.

The 20th of December Nayler suffered a part of his sentence, standing two hours in the pillory and receiving at a cart’s tail 3 10 stripes. He was so much reduced, by this severity that the execution of the remainder was respited till the 27th, when he was again pilloried, bored, and stigmatized: after which he was sent to Bristol, and whipped from the middle of Thomas-street to the middle of Broadstreet, and then sent to his prison in Bridewell.

He was confined about two years; and after he was set at liberty he went to Bristol, where, in a public meeting, he made confession of his offence and fall, so as to draw tears from most of those who were present: and, restoration to humility of mind and soundness of judgment being apparent in him, he was restored to the esteem and fellowship of his friends. He quitted London finally in 1660, intending to return to his wife and children at Wakefield; but was found by a countryman one evening in a field near Holm and King’s Rippon, in Huntingdonshire, having been (as was said) robbed, and left bound. He was taken to Holm, and his cloaths shifted, on which he said, “You have refreshed my body; the Lord refresh your souls:” not long after which he died in peace, and his remains were interred inn King’s Rippon, in a burying-ground belonging to Thomas Parnel, a physician there. About two hours before his close, he spoke these words: “There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it; for, its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love, unfeigned; and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, f though none else regard it, or can own its life. It’s conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it: nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for, with the world’s joy, it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken: I have fellowship therein with them, who lived in dens and desolate places, in the earth; who through death obtained this resurrection, and eternal holy life.” Nayler’s writings were collected into an octavo volume, printed in 1716, which may still occasionally be found.

, an eminent dissenting divine, and the historian of the Puritans, was born in London, Dec. 14, 1678, and educated at Merchant-Taylors’ school, of which he was head scholar in 1697. He appears to have then declined proceeding to St. John’s, Oxford, and determined to enter as a student in a dissenting academy, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe. Three years after he removed, for the farther prosecution of his studies, to Holland, where he heard the lectures of Graevius and Burman, during two years, and afterwards passed a year at Leyden. Soon after his return to London, in 1703, he began to officiate as a preacher, and in 1706 succeeded Dr. Singleton as minister to a congregation at Loriners’ Hall. Of this congregation, which, for want of room, rmoved afterwards to a more commodious meeting in Jewinstreet, he remained pastor for thirty-six years, and was esteemed one of the most useful, laborious, and learned divines of his communion.

Although assiduous and indefatigable in the discharge of the duties attached to the ministerial office, he found leisure for writing those works which gained him much fame among the dissenters during his lifetime, and have rendered his a name of importance in our own days. His first production, which appeared in 1720, was his “History of New England; being an impartial account of the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the country, with a new map, &c.” 2 vols. 8vo. This met with a very favourable reception in America, and procured him the degree of M. A. from one of the American universities, and although perhaps less interesting in this country, contains many curious particulars of the establishment of that colony, with biographical memoirs of the principal persons in church and state.

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.

During the interval that elapsed before the appearance of the remainfng parts of his history, Mr. Neal was concerned in carrying on two courses of lectures, the one at the meeting in Berry-street, the other in that at Salter’s Hall, which have been since printed in 2 vols. 8vo each. But so much application to his public duties and private studies, at length produced a chronic disorder, which obliged him, in 1742, to resign his pastoral charge; and he died, at Bath, April 4, 1743, in the sixty fifth year of his age, to the great and lasting regret of his family and friends, by whom he was highly esteemed as a man of great probity, piety, and usefulness. His son, Nathaniel Neal, an attorney, and secretary to the Million bank, was the author of “A free and serious remonstrance to Protestant Dissenting Ministers, on occasion of the Decay of Religion,” and of some letters, in Dr. Doddridge’s collection, published by Mr. Stedman.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Soraw, a town in Lower Silesia, in 1525, where his father was a merchant. He received his early education under Henry Theodore, who was superintendant of the churches of the duchy of Lignitz. He then studied principally at Wittemberg, where, among other able men, he was instructed by Melanchthon, and became conspicuous for his critical acquaintance with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and his knowledge of the eminent authors in these respective languages. In 1549, he was invited to Northusen, an imperial town of Thuringia; and being appointed regent of the school, acquired the esteem of the senate. He was of the reformed religion, and Thomas Stangius, the last abbot of Isfeld, who was of the same sentiments, havfng, by the advice of Luther and Melanchthon, turned his abbey into a college, Neander was appointed regent, and taught there with great reputation for forty-five years, producing many able scholars. He died at Isfeld, May 6, 1595, in the seventieth year of his age.

From his works he appears to have deserved the high character he enjoyed during his life-time, and which some critics of modern times have revived. He was one of the very few in those days who turned their thoughts to the history of literature. His first publication was “Erotema Grascae Linguae, cum proefatione Philippi Melanchthonis de utilitate Grsecae linguse,” Basil, 1553, and 1565, 8vo. In a subsequent edition Neander gives a list of the works he had published, or which he had projected, and among the latter was an universal history of authors, “Pandectae variorum auctorum et scriptorum.” From the sketch he had given of the proposed contents of this work, there is great reason to regret that he did not complete it; in the second edition of his “Erotemata” he has given a specimen of what he could have done, in a dissertation on ancient libraries, on books that are lost, and on the libraries of his own time which contained the most valuable Mss. and an account of the principal Greek and Latin authors, whose works have been published, with a minuteness of description which would have reflected credit on a modern bibliographer. The last edition of his “Erotemata” was edited at Leipsic in 1589, 8vo, by his disciple, John Volland. Neander’s other works are, 2. “Graecae Linguae Tabulae,” Basil, 1564, and Wittemberg, 1581, 8vo. 3. “Linguae Hebreae Erotemata, cum veterurn Rabbinorurn testimoniis de Christo, apophthegmatibus veterum Hebreeorum et notitia de Talmude, Cabbala, &c.” Basil, 1556, 8vo, often reprinted. The preface to this work is on the same plan with that to the “Erotemata Graecae Linguae,” containing notices of the most eminent Oriental scholars, the writings of the rabbins, the editions of the Bible, &c. 4. “Aristologia Pindarica Graeco-Latina, et Sententiae novem Lyricorum,” Basil, 1556, 8vo, with prolegomena on the life of Pindar, the Greek games, &c. 5. “Aristologia GraecoLatina Euripidis; argumenta quoque singulis tragcediis praemissa sunt,” ibid. 1559, 4to. 6. “Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. This is a collection of sentences from Hesiod, Theognes, and other ancient poets, with three books of similar extracts from Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. but is by no means, as some bibliographers have called it, a new edition of the Greek Anthology. 7. “Gnomonologia Graeco-Latina, sive insigniores sententiae philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum, et historicorum, ex magno Anthologio Joannis Stobaei excerptae, et in locos supra bis centum digests,” ibid. 1558, 8vo. 8. “Opus aureum et Scholasticum,” Leipsic, 1577, or, according to Fabricius, 1575, a collection somewhat like the former, but with some entire pieces, as the poem of Comthus on the rape of Helen, that of Tryphiodorus on the destruction of Troy, and three books of Quintus Calaber, which last are translated into Latin prose by Lawrence Rhodoman, one of Neander’s pupils. 9. “Sententiae Theologicae selectiores, Græco-Latinæ,” Basil, 1557, 8vo. 10. “Catechesis parva Martini Lutheri Graeco-Latina,” &c. ibid. 1564­and 1567, 8vo. 11. “Loci communes Philosophic! Graeci,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo, a work by Volland, above-mentioned, with notes by Neander. 12. “Gnomonologia Latina ex omnibus Latinis vetustis ac probatis autoribus, recentioribus etiam aliquot, in locos communes digesta,” Leipsic, 1581, and 1590, 8vo. 13. “Phraseologia Isocratis GraecoLatina,” Basil, 1558, 8vo. 14. “Joannis Vollandi de re Poetica Graecorum libri quatuor, e noutionibus et bibliotheca Mich. Neandri collecti,” Leipsic, 1582, 1592, ancl 1613, 8vo. 15. “Argonautica, Thebaica, Troica, Ilias parva; poematia Graeca anonymi (Laur. Rhodomani) primum edita cum argumentis a Mich. Neandro,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo. Some other works have been attributed to Neander, on less certain authority, which are mentioned by Fabricius and Baillet; and more ample information respecting him may probably be found in a work which we have not seen, a life of him by Volborth, in German, published at Gottingen in 1777. There flourished about the same time with our author, a physician of the same names, who was born in 1529, and died in 1581, whose forgotten works, however, cannot easily be mistaken for those of the learned Greek professor.

, who flourished in the twelfth century, was probably born, and certainly educated at St. Alban’s abbey, of which period of his life he speaks with pleasing recollection in his poem “De Laude sapientiae Divinae.” He completed his education at Paris, and took the order of St. Augustine. He became the friend, associate, and correspondent of Peter of Blois, or Petrus Blesensis, and was afterwards abbot of Cirencester, in which office he died in 1217. He was much attached to the studious repose of the monastic life, yet he frequently travelled into Italy. His compositions are various, and, as Mr. Warton observes, crowd the department of Mss. in our public libraries. He has left numerous treatises of divinity, philosophy, and morality, and was also a poet, a philologist, and a grammarian. He wrote a tract on the mythology of the ancient poets, Esopian fables, and a system of 'grammar and rhetoric. Mr. Warton, who examined his elegiac poem “De vita motiastica,” says it contains some finished lines; but gives the highest praise to the poem already mentioned, “De divina sapientia.”

, professor of civil law at Geneva, about 1724, was created a citizen of Geneva in 1726, and died there in 1760. He published “Four letters on Ecclesiastical Discipline,” Utrecht, 1740;“A description of the Government” of the Germanic Body,“Geneva, 1742, 8vo, and a few other professional tracts. His eldest son, Louis Necker, a pupil of D'Alembert’s, became professor of mathematics at Geneva in 1757, but quitted that city for Paris, where he entered into partnership with the bankers Girardot and Haller, the son of the celebrated physician; and in 1762 settled at Marseilles, whence in 1791 he returned to Geneva. In 1747 he published” Theses de Electricitate,“4to, and wrote in the French Encyclopaedia, the articles of Forces and Friction. There is also a solution of an algebraical problem by him in the” Memoirs des savans etrangers," in the collection of the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences. He died about the end of the last century.

, a celebrated statesman and financier of France, brother to the preceding Louis Necker, was born at Geneva in 1732. After such an education as might qualify him for business, he was in his fifteenth year sent to Paris, where he was employed, first in the bankinghouse of Vernet, and then in that of Thelluson, of which last he became first cashier, and afterwards a partner. Upon the death of Thelluson he established a bank of his own, in partnership with Girardot and Haller, in which, we have just noticed, his brother had a concern. In 1776, when the French finances were in a disordered state, he was appointed director, and soon after comptroller-general of that department. Besides his reputation for financial knowledge and probity, which was now at its height, he had in the reign of Louis XV. adjusted some differences subsisting between the East India company and the crown in such a manner as to obtain, what rarely occurs in such cases, the approbation of both parties. His appointment to the comptrollership of the finances was hailed as an instance of enlargement of mind and liberality of sentiment, and as honourable to the reign of Lewis XVI.; Necker being the first protestant since the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who had held any important place in the French administration. Of the wisdom of his plans, in this critical situation, various opinions have been entertained, which this is not the place to examine, but it seems generally agreed that his intentions were pure, and his conduct disinterested. He refused all emolument for his services, and advanced a large sum to government from his private property, which he never drew from the public funds. His administration was generally popular, but he had enemies at court, and alter having filled the office of minister of finance for five years, he resigned. Previously to this he had published his “Compte Rendu,” in explanation of his financial system, which was followed by a work entitled “De P Administration des Finances.” This was read and circulated with great avidity, and unhappily scattered opinions on matters of government, by which the people knew not how to profit. M. Calonne, who was his successor, made an attack, before the assembly of notables, upon the veracity of his statements. Necker drew up a reply, which he transmitted to the king, who intimated that if he would forbear making it public, he should shortly be restored to his place. This he refused, and appealed to the nation by publishing his defence, which was so displeasing to the court, that he was exiled to his country-seat at St. Ouen, at the distance of 120 miles from the capital. During his retreat he wrote his work entitled “De l'Importance des Opinions R6ligieuses,” in which he speaks of religion like one who felt its power operating on his own mind, and who was fully convinced of its importance both to individuals and society. Calonne, however, and Brienne, another minister, finding it impossible to lessen the deficiencies of the revenue, thev resigned in their turn; and in August 1788, Necker was reinstated in his former post, to the apparent satisfaction of the court, as well as to the joy of the people; but the acclamations of the latter could not banish from his mind the difficulties with which he had to struggle. He was aware that de Calonne and the archbishop of Sens had both sunk under the public distress, and the impracticability of raising the necessary supplies; and he well knew that the evil was not diminished, and unless some expedient could be hit on to re-establish public credit, he foresaw his own fate must be similar to that of his predecessors. first intentions were to recal the banished members of the parliament of Paris, and to restore that body to its functions; to replenish the treasury, which he found almost empty; and to relieve the scarcity of corn under which the kingdom, and the capital in particular, then laboured. His next plan was the convocation of the states-general, which had been already promised by the king, and which, in fact, proved the immediate fore-runner of the revolution. Necker was particularly blamed for having consented that the number of members of the tiers etat should be equal to that of the nobles and clergy united, as the nobility and clergy would very naturally insist on voting by orders, while the tiers etat would contend with equal obstinacy for a plurality of voices. The consequences were therefore exactly such as had been foreseen. When the assembly of the states opened, Necker addressed them in a studied speech that pleased no party; even the tiers etat, already taught the sentiments of democracy, resented his saying that the meeting was the effect of royal favour, instead of a right. Nor was he more successful in the plan of government which he drew up, and which the king was to recommend in a speech, for this underwent so many alterations that he absented himself when it was delivered. At this time the prevalence of the democratic party was such as to induce the king to assemble troops around Paris, which measure Necker opposed, and on July 11, 1789, was therefore ordered to quit the kingdom within twenty ­four hours. This he immediately obeyed, and went to Brussels. As soon as his absence was known, the populace assembled, destroyed the Bastille, and proceeded to such other outrages, that the king thought it necessary to recal Necker to appease their fury. He accordingly returned in triumph, but his triumph was short. The populace was no longer to be flattered with declamations on their rights, nor was Necker prepared to adopt the sentiments of the democratic leaders, while it became now his duty to propose financial expedients that were obnoxious to the people. He that had just before been hailed as the friend of the people, was now considered as an aristocrat, and his personal safety was endangered. In this dilemma he desired to resign, offering to leave, as pledges for his integrity, the money which he had advanced to government, viz. about 80,000l. sterling, and his house and furniture. His resignation being accepted, he left Paris, and in his retreat he was more than once insulted by the very people whu, but a few months before, had considered him as their saviour. Gibbon, who passed four days with him at this period, says, “I could have wished to have exhibited him as a warning to any aspiring youth possessed with the demon of ambition. With all the means of private happiness in his power, he is the most miserable of human beings; the past, the present, and the future, are equally odious to him. When I suggested some domestic amusements, he answered, with a deep tone of despair, * in the state in which I am, I can feel nothing but the blast which has overthrown me.'” Shortly after this, his mind was diverted from public disappointment by the more poignant grief of domestic calamity; his wife died, after a long illness, in which he had attended her with the most affectionate assiduity. He now had recourse to hia favourite occupation of writing, and several works of different kinds were the product of his solitary hours. His principal pieces are entitled “Sur I' Administration de M. Necker, par lui-meme;” “Reflections,” &c. which were intended to benefit the king during his captivity and trial; “Du Pouvoir Exécutif,” being an essay that contained his own ideas on the executive part of government; “Dernieres Vue’s de Politiques, et de Finance,” of which the chief object was to discuss what was the best form of government France was capable of receiving. Besides these, he published a “Course of Religious Morality,” and a novel, written at the suggestion of his daughter, entitled “The fatal Consequences of a single Fault.” Though deprived of three- fourths of his fortune, he had sufficient for all his wants, and also to indulge his benevolent disposition. He had been placed on the list of emigrants, but the directory unanimously erased his name, and when the French army entered Swisserland, he was treated by the generals with every mark of respect. His talents and conduct have been alike the subject of dispute, and perhaps the time is not yet come when the latter can. be fully understood. It is well known that all who suffered by the revolution blamed Necker as a principal cause of that event; but it may be questioned whether any talents, guided by the utmost probity and wisdom, could have averted the evils that had been prepared by so long a course of infatuation. Necker passed the latter years of his life in the rational pursuits of a philosopher and a man of sound judgment and true taste, His only daughter, who married the baron de Stael, ambassador from Sweden to France, and who has made herself known to the literary world by several publications, published some “Memoirs of the Character and Private Life of her Father,” written in a high style of panegyric.

, a philosopher and divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born at London Sept. 10, 1713. His father possessed a considerable patrimony at Hilston, in the county of Monmouth, being of the younger or catholic branch of the Needham family, but died young, leaving only a small fortune to his four children. Our author, his eldest son, studied in the English college of Douay, where he took orders, and taught rhetoric for several years, but was particularly distinguished for his knowledge of experimental philosophy.

In 1740 he was employed by his superiors on a mission to England, and had the direction of the school erected at Twyford, near Winchester, for the education of the Roman catholic youth. In 1744 he was appointed professor of philosophy in the English college at Lisbon, where, on account of his bad health, he remained only fifteen months. After his return he passed several years at London and Paris, chiefly employed in microscopical observations, and in other branches of experimental philosophy. The results of these observations and experiments were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1749, and in a volume in 12mo at Paris in 1750; and an account of them was also given by Buffon, in the first volumes of his natural history. There was an intimate connection subsisted between Mr. Needham and this illustrious French naturalist: they made their experiments and observations together; though the results and systems which they deduced from the same objects and operations were totally different.

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.”

Mr. Needham’s papers inserted in the Philosophical Transactions were, 1. Account of chalky tubulous concretions, called Malm; vol.XLII. 2. Miscroscopical observations on Worms in Smutty Corn; vol. XLII. 3. Electrical Experiments lately made at Paris; vol. XLIV. 4. Account of M. Buffon’s Mirror, which burns at 66 feet; ibid. 5. Observations upon the generation, composition, and decomposition of Animal and Vegetable substances; vol. XLV. 6. On the Discovery of Asbestos in France; vol. LI. His works printed at Paris, in French, are, 1. “New Microscopical Discoveries,” 1745. 2. “The same enlarged,” 1750. 3. “On Microscopical, and the Generation of Organized Bodies,” 1769, 2 vols. Besides these he had a considerable share in the controversy that was carried on about sixty years ago at Paris and Rome respecting the origin of the Chinese. He had seen a famous bust at Turin, on the breast and forehead of which several characters were visible, which some antiquaries supposed to be Egyptian. Mr. Needham having compared them with the characters of a Chinese dictionary in the Vatican, printed at Pekin, in 26 vols, (entitled Ching Zu Tung) perceived a striking resemblance between the two. He drew from this resemblance an argument in favour of the opinion of the late De Guignes (see de Guignes), concerning the origin of the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chinese, or rather concerning the descent of the latter from the former, and pronounced, without hesitation, that the bust was Egyptian. The process of this discovery, or rather opinion, he published in 1761, in a pamphlet entitled “De Inscriptione quadam Ægyptiaca Taurini inventa, et characteribus Ægyptiis olim et Sinis cornmunibus exarata; idolo cuidam antiquo in regia, universitate servato, ad utrasque academias, Londinensem et Fajrisiensem, rerum antiquarum investigation! praspositas, data Eptstola,” 8vo. Several others subscribed to this, opinion, but it is more generally thought that the conclusion respecting the descent of the Chinese from the Egyptians does not follow from the premises. The very candid and fair manner, however, in which Mr. Needham proceeded in his comparison of the characters on the bust tyith thos.e in the dictionary, was acknowledged in an attestation very honourable to his probity, signed by several of the, literati at Rome, and by two of our countrymen then resident there, sir Richard Lyttelton and the late duke of Grafton.

, 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.

About this time he studied physic, and, in 1645? began to practise; by which, and his political writings, he contrived to subsist, until, in consequence of some affront, he suddenly left his party; and, obtaining the favour of a royalist, was introduced into the king’s presence at Hampton-court in 1641, and, asking pardon upon his knees, readily obtained it. Being now admitted to the king’s favour, he wrote soon after another paper, entitled “Mercurius Pragmaticus;” which being equally witty with the former, as satirical against the presbyterians, and full of Joyalty, made him known and admired by the wits of that side. These papers professed to “communicate intelligence from all, touching all affairs, designs, humours, and conditions, throughout the kingdom, especially from Westminster and the head quarters.” There were two parts of them, and they came out weekly, in one sheet 4to. The first part commenced Sept. 14, 1647, and ended Jan. 9, 1643. The other part, which was entitled, “Mercurius Pragmaticus for king Charles II.” &c. began April 24, 1649, but quickly ended.

Having now rendered himself obnoxious to the popular party, he found it necessary to leave London, and for a time lay concealed at the house of Dr. Peter Heylin, at Minster-Lovel, near Burford; till, at length being discovered, he was imprisoned in Newgate, and would probably have been executed, had not iLenthal, the speaker of the house of commons, who knew him and his relations well, and Bradshaw, president of the high court of justice,' obtained his pardon. Thinking his talents useful, and caring* little whom they employed, they made such promises as easily induced him to write on the side of the independents. Needham had no scruples as to principle, and after accepting their offers, immediately published a third weekly paper, called “Mercurius Politicus,” which came out every Wednesday, in two sheets, 4to, commencing with the 9th of June 1649, and ending with 6th of June 1650, which being Thursday, he began again with Number I. from Thursday, June 6, to Thursday, June 13, 1650, beginning, “Why should not the commonwealth have a fool, as well as the king had,” &c. This paper, which contained many discourses against monarchy, and in behalf of a free state, at least, before Cromwell was made protector, was carried on without any interruption till about the middle of April 1660, when it was prohibited by an order of the council of state, and Needham fled the kingdorn, justly dreading what never was inflicted on him; for after the restoration, by means of a hired courtier of as little principle as himself, he obtained his pardon under the great seal. After this he practised physic, chiefly among the dissenters, and contrived to support himself, and keep up his fame for scurrility by some controversies with the faculty, until his death, which happened suddenly in 1678. Needham’s character may be gathered from the preceding short account. He had natural parts, not much improved by education, and wrote in that coarse and vulgar style of obloquy, which was suited to his readers, and, as we have seen in our own times, will find readers enough to reward the grossest prostitution of talents. Besides the “Mercuries 7 ' already mentioned, he published a great number of other things, the titles of which are worth transcribing, as a specimen of the style in which political controversy was then carried on 1.” A Check to the Checker of Britannicus,“&c. 1624 2, A sharp libel against his Majesty’s late message for Peace, anno 1645 in answer to which was published” The Refusers of Peace inexcusable, by his Majesty’s command,“1645; one sheet 4to. 3.” A Hue and Cry after the King, written after the King’s Defeat at Naseby, in 1645.“4.” The Case of the Kingdom, stated according to the proper interests of the several parties engaged,“&e. 'the third edition in 1647. 5.” The Levellers levelled or the Independents’ Conspiracy to root out Monarchy, an interlude,“1647. 6.” A Plea for the King and Kingdom, by way of answer to a late Remonstrance of the Army,“1648. 7.” Digitus Dei; or God’s justice upon treachery and treason, exemplified in the Life and Death of the late James duke of Hamilton,“&c. 1649. 8. The year before came out a book entitled” The manifold Practices and Attempts of the Hamiltons, &c. to get the Crown of Scotland,“1648, probably written by Needham, as the whole of it is contained in the” Digitus Dei.“9.” The Public Intelligencer,“&c. these came out weekly on Monday, but contained mostly the same matter that was in the” Political Mercuries.“10.” The Case of the Commonwealth of England stated,“&c. 1649. 11.” Discourse of the excellency of a Free State above Kingly Government,“1650, published with the former, and reprinted in 1768, by Richard Baron, a politician of the republican stamp. 12.” An Appendix added out of Claudius Salmasius’s Defensio Regis, and Mr. Hobbes’s de corpore politico.“13.” Trial of Mr. John Goodwin, at the bar of religion and right reason,“&c. 1657. In reply to this, Goodwin took occasion, in a piece entitled” The Triumviri,“to characterize our author as having a foul mouth, which Satan hath opened, '&c. 1658. 15.” Interest will not lye, &c. in refutation of c The Interest of England stated,“1659. 14.” The moderate Informer, &c. communicating the most remarkable transactions, both civil and military, in the Commonwealth of England,“&c. It commences with the 12th of May 1659, but was not carried on above two or three weeks. Needham, it seems, was dismissed from his place of writing the weekly news, in the time of Richard, by the influence of the Presbyteriaus, and John Can put in his room; yet, in spite of opposition, he carried on the writing of his” Mercuries.“16.” News from Brussels, &c. in a Letter dated 10 March, 1659;“but said to be written by our author against Charles II. and his court, and conveyed to the press by Praise-God Barebones. It was answered about a week after, in” The late News, or Message from Brussels unmasked.“17.” A short History of the English Rebellion completed, inverse,“1661; a collection of all such verses as he had printed before each of his” Mercurii Pragmatici.“To it he prefixed” The true Character of a rigid Presbyter;“and added the coat of arms of sir John Presbyter: but the * character was pot of his writing. It was reprinted in 1680, 4to. 18.” Discourse concerning Schools and School-masters,“1663. 19.” MedelaMedicinae,“&c. 1665 answered by two doctors of that faculty, fellows of the college of physicians, viz. John Twisden, in his” Medicina veterum vindtcata,“&c. and Robert Sprackling, in his” Medela Ignorantiæ.“20.” An epistolary Discourse“before” Medicina Instaurata, &c. by Edward Bolnest, M. D.“1665. 21.” A Pacquet of Advices tfnd Animadversions, &c. occasioned by a Letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country, written* By lord Shaftesbury,“1676. 22.” A second Palcquet of Advices, &c. in answer to some Considerations upon the Question whether the Parliament b& dissolved by Hs Prorogation for Fifteen Months?“and another, entitled” The Long Parliament dissolved,“written by Denzil lord Holies, but owned by his chaplain, a nonconformist, named Carey, or Carew, who was comAvitted prisoner to the Tower of London in the beginning of February, 1676. 23.” A Letter frona a person newly chosen to sit in this Parliament, to a Bencher in the Temple,“&c. 24.” A Narrative of the cause and manner of the Imprisonment of the Lords now close prisoners in the Tower of London.“Needham is said to have been encouraged to write these two Pacquets by lord Danby. 25.” Christianissimus Christianandus or Reasons for the Reduction of France to d more Christian state in Europe,“1678. 26.” A Preface to `A new idea of the Practice of Physic, written by Francis de la Boe Sylvius,'" 1675.

Our author also translated into English, Selden’s “Mare Clausum,” printed in 1652, or thereabouts, in folio; in which he foisted the name of commonwealth, instead of the kings of England, and suppressed the dedication to the king. He also added an appendix to it, concerning the sovereignty of the kings of Great Britain on the sea, entitled “Additional Evidences,” which he procured, as it is thought, of president Bradshaw. He also made comments and glosses on the book; but after the restoration the copy was corrected, and restored by J. H. gent. (James Howell), and printed in 1662, folio.

, a celebrated painter of architecture, was born, as is supposed, at Antwerp, in 1570, and was a disciple of Henry Stenwyck. His favourite objects were views of the interior of churches, convents, splendid halls, &c. Of these he described the rich decorations, and every member of the architecture, with uncommon neatness of pencilling, but with such attention to the most minute parts, as must have required a vast deal of patience, and has indeed in some cases made them objects of wonder rather than of imitation. The columns, capitals, or the ornamental paiatings of the churches he represents, are all marked with the utmost precision, and finished with an exquisite touch, and a light clean pencil. It is said, however, that he sometimes took liberties with the originals by introducing objects that he thought improved them to the eye. Tins was making a pleasing picture, but was a violation of truth. As he designed figures but indifferently, other artists assisted him in these, particularly Velvet Breughel and Tenters. He died in 1651, aged eighty-one, leaving a son, called The Young, who painted the same subjects, but with inferior skill.

, a landscape painter, was born at Amsterdam in 1619, and is well known to the connoisseurs in painting, by a peculiarity of style, and also by the handling and transparence of his landscapes. His subjects are views of villages, or the huts of fishermen, oiv the banks of rivers and canals, by moon -light, generally finished 2 with a remarkable neatness of pencilling. His touch rsextremely light, free, and clean, and his imitation of nature true; particularly in the lustre of his skies about the moon, and the reflection of the beams of that luminary on the surface of the waller. His figures are usually well designed, and their actions and attitudes are well adapted to their employments and occupations. In all parts of Europe his pictures are still in good esteem, but are seldom found uninjured, owing to the simplicity of his manner, and his painting very thin. This artist died in 1683, leaving a son, Eglon Hendrick Vender Neer, who was born at Amsterdam in 1643. He was at first a pupil to his father, and afterwards of Jacob Vanloo. He had an extensive talent, and executed subjects drawn from various branches of the art, with an equal degree of merit. His portraits, in large and small, are well coloured, and touched with spirit and delicacy; in history he designed with correctness, and composed with ingenuity; his conversations have the manner, the breadth, and the finish, of Terburg; his landscape is varied and well chosen, but too much loaded, and too anxiously discriminated in the fore-grounds. The portrait of this artist, painted by himself, and inscribed “Eglon Hendric Vander Neer f. 1696,” has a place in the gallery of Florence. He died in 1703, aged sixty.

, a celebrated bishop of the catholics in Holland, known by the title of bishop of Castoria, was born at Gorcum in 1626. He entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, and, having finished his plan of education there, went to be professor of philosophy at Saumur, then of divinity at Mechlin, and was afterwards archdeacon of Utrecht, and apostolical provincial. James de la Torre, archbishop of Utrecht, being dead, M. de Neercassel was elected in his place by the chapter of that city; but, Alexander VII. preferring M. Catz, dean of the chapter of Harlem, they agreed between them, as a means to preserve peace, that M. Catz should govern the diocese of Harlem under the title of archbishop of Philippi, and M. de Neercassel that of Utrecht, under that of bishop of Castoria. This agreement being approved by the nuncio of Brussels, they were both consecrated in the same day at Cologn, September 9, 1662; but, M. Catz dying a year after, M. de Neercassel remained sole bishop of all the catholics in Holland, of which there were above four hundred thousand. He governed them with great prudence, and, after having discharged the duties of his office in the most exemplary manner, died June 8, 1686, aged sixty, in consequence of the fatigues attending the visitation of his churches. This prelate left three tracts in Latin, the first “On reading of the Holy Scriptures;” to which he has added a dissertation “On the Interpretation of Scripture;” the second “On the worship of the Saints and the Holy Virgin;” the third, enticed “Amor Prerii tens.” This last is a treatise on the necessity of the love of God in the sacrament of penitence. The two first have been translated into French by M. le Roy, abbot of Haute- Fontaine, 2 vols. 8vo, and the third by Peter Gilbert, a Parisian, 1741, 3 vols. 12mo. The best Latin edition of “Amor Pcenitens” is that of 1684, 2 vols. 8vo; the second part of the Appendix, which is in this edition, was written by M. Arnauld, and only approved by M. de Neercassel. The above three tracts having some expressions which were thought to favour the errors of Jansenius, an attempt was made to get the “Amor Prenitens” condemned at Rome but pope Innocent XL to whom the application was addressed, declared that “the book contained sound doctrine, and the author was a holy man.”

, one of the bravest, and the most successful navai commander that 'ever appeared in the world, the fourth son of the rev. Edmund Nelson, rector of Burnham- Thorpe, in the county of Norfolk, was born in the parsonage-house of that parish, September 29, 1758. His father’s progenitors were originally settled at Hilsborough, where, in addition to a small hereditary estate, they possessed the patronage of the living, which our hero’s grandfather enjoyed for several years. His father married, in May 1749, Catherine, daughter of Maurice Suckling, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, whose grandmother had been sister to sir Robert Walpole, earl of Orford. By this lady he had eight sons and three daughters. Horatio, so called after the late earl of Orford, was placed at the high-school of Norwich, whence he was removed to NorthWalsham, both within the precincts of his native county. In his twelfth year, the dispute having taken place between the courts of St. James’s and Madrid, relative to the possession of the Falkland Islands, an armament was immediately ordered, and captain Maurice Suckling, his maternal uncle, having obtained a ship, young Nelson was, at his own earnest request, placed on his quarter-deck as a midshipman, on board the Raisonable, of 64 guns. But in consequence of the dispute being terminated, and capt. Suckling being appointed to a guard-ship in the Medway, Nelson was sent a voyage to the West Indies, and on his return he was received by his uncle on board the Triumph, then lying at Chatham, in the month of July 1772. It was observed, however, that although his voyage to the East Indies had given him a good practical knowledge of seamanship, he had acquired an absolute horror of the royal navy and it was with some difficulty that captain Suckling was enabled to reconcile him to the service; but an inherent ardour, coupled with an unabating spirit of enterprize, and utter scorn of danger, made him at length ambitious to partake in every scene where knowledge was to be obtained or glory earned.

An opportunity of this kind soon presented itself, and appeared admirably calculated to satiate that romantic taste for adventure which, from the earliest periods of his life, seemed at once to fill and to agitate the bosom of our youthful hero. When captain Phipps, afterwards lord Mulgrave, sailed June 2d, 1773, towards the North Pole, on board the Racehorse, captain Lutwidge commanded another bomb-vessel called the Carcass, both of which had been fitted out on purpose to ascertain to what degree of latitude it was possible to penetrate. On board the latter of these vessels Mr. Nelson was admitted with great difficulty, and in consequence of his own pressing solicitation, in the humble capacity of a cockswain; for, in consequence of an order from the admiralty, boys were not permitted to be received on board.

After passing Shetland, they came in sight of Spitsbergen, and afterwards proceeded to Moffen Island, beyond which they discovered seven otbef isles, situate in 81 deg. 21 min. When they had sailed a little further North, they became suddenly fast wedged in the ice, on the 31st of July so that the passage by which the ships had entered was suddenly and completely blocked up, while a strong current set in to the Eastward. In th*s critical situation they remained five whole days, during which period their destruction appeared inevitable; but the young hero, instead of being depressed, actuated by that filial love, and passion for enterprise, which were ever uppermost in his breast, ventured on the ice during a fine moon-light, with another daring ship-mate, and went in pursuit of a bear, but failed in the attempt, after being brought into the most imminent danger. On being interrogated somewhat roughly by his commander, as to what motive he could have for hunting a bear, he replied, “That he wished to obtain the skin for his father.”

Soon after his return, his uncle recommended him to captain Farmer of the Seahorse, of 20 guns, then going to India, in a squadron under sir Edward Hughes. In this ship he was rated as a midshipman; but in India he caught one of those malignant diseases so frequently fatal to European habits, which totally deprived him of the use of his limbs, and nearly brought him to the grave.

In 1778 he was appointed to the Bristol, and rose by seniority to be first lieutenant. In the course of the succeeding year, (June 11, 1779,) he obtained the rank of post- captain, on which occasion he was appointed to the command of the Hinchinbroke. Having sailed in this vessel for the West Indies, he repaired to Port Royal in the island of Jamaica; and an attack upon that island being expected, on the part of count D'Estaing’s fleet and army, Nelson was intrusted, both by the admiral and general, with the command of the batteries at Port-Royal, the most; important post in the whole island. A plan was next formed for taking fort San Juan, on the river St. John, in the gulf of Mexico; and captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the naval department. His business was to have ended when he had convoyed the forces, about 500 men, from Jamaica to the Spanish main; but it was found, that not a man of the whole party had ever been up the rjver: he therefore, with his usual intrepidity, quitted his ship, and superintended the transporting of the troops, in boats, 100 miles up a river which, since the time of the Buccaneers, none but Spaniards had ever navigated. Of all the services in which he had been engaged, this was the most perilous. It was the latter end of the dry season: the river was low, full of shoals, and sandy beaches; and the men were often obliged to quit the boats, and drag them through shallow channels, in which the natives went before to explore. This labour, and that of forcing the rapids, w,ere chiefly sustained by the sailors, who, for seven or eight hours during the day, were exposed to a burning sun, and at night to heavy dews. On the 9th of April they arrived at a small island, called St. Bartholomew, which commanded the river in a rapid and difficult part, and was defended by a battery mounting nine or ten swivelsNelson, putting himself at the head of a few sailors, leaped on the beach, and captain Despard, since executed for high treason, having gallantly supported him, they defeated the Spaniards with their own guns. Two days afterwards, having come in, sight of the castle of San Juan, they began to besiege it on the 13th, and it surrendered on the 24th. But all that this victory procured them was a cessation from toil: no supplies were found, and the castle itself was worse than a prison. The hovels, which were used as an hospital, were surrounded with putrid hides; and when orders were obtained from the commander in chief to build one, the sickness arising from the climate had become so general, that there were no hands to work at it. The rains continued, with few intervals, from April to October, when they abandoned their conquest; and it was then reckoned that of 1800 who were sent to different posts upon this scheme, only 380 returned. Nelson narrowly escaped. His advice had been to carry the castle by assault; instead of which, eleven days were spent in the formalities of a siege. He returned before its surrender, exhausted with fatigue, and suffering under a dysentery, by which his health became visibly impaired; but he fortunately received an appointment to the Janus of 44 guns, in which he reached Jamaica in such a state of sickness, that although much was done to remove it, he was soon compelled to return to England, in the Lion, commanded by the hon. William Cornwallis, through whose attention a complete recovery was effected.

In August 1781, captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the Albemarle of 28 guns, and sent into the North seas. During this voyage he gained a considerable knowledge of the Danish coast, and its soundings, which afterwards proved of great importance to his country. On his return he was ordered to Quebec with a convoy, under the command of captain Thomas Pringle. From Quebec he sailed with a convoy to New York, in October 1782, where he joined the fleet under sir Samuel Hood, and became acquainted with prince William-Henry, now duke of Clarence, who was at that time serving as a midshipman in the Barfleur. His highness, after a description, rather ludicrous, of his dress and manner, said, that even at this time there was something irresistibly pleasing in his address and conversation, and an enthusiasm, when speaking on professional subjects, which shewed that he was no common being. In November, captain Nelson sailed with sir Samuel Hood to the West Indies, where he continued actively employed till the peace.

After his arrival in England, in 1783, he went on a trip to France, but returned in the spring of 1784, and was appointed to the command of the Boreas frigate of 28 guns, ordered to the Leeward Islands. While here, he showed the utmost zeal and activity in protecting the commerce of Great Britain, at that time menaced by a misunderstanding with the Americans, respecting their right to trade with the West India Islands. His conduct on this occasion occupies a considerable space in the work from which we borrow our information, but may be omitted without injury in a sketch that must necessarily be confined to his greater actions. It is to be regretted, however, that his services on. this occasion were overlooked and neglected, for which he harboured a resentment that soon after appeared.

From July 1786, till June 1787, captain Nelson continued at the Leeward Islands, when at length he sailed for England. He had, during his stay in this quarter of the world, became acquainted with Mrs. Nisbet, the widow of Dr. Nisbet of the island of Nevis, then only in her eighteenth year, and married her on the 11th of March 1787, prince VVilliam- Henry standing father on the occasion. On his return to England, the Boreas frigate was for nearly five months kept at the Nore, as a slop and receiving ship; a circumstance that roused the indignation of its commander, and without scarcely ever quitting the ship, he was observed to carry on the duty with a strict but sullen attention. When orders were received for his ship to be paid off at Sheerness, he expressed his joy to the senior officer in the Medway, saying, “It is my determination never again to set my foot on board a king’s ship. Immediately after my arrival in town, I shall wait on the first lord of the admiralty, and resign my commission.” The officer, finding it in vain to reason with him against this resolution in the present state of his feelings, used his secret interference with the first lord of the admiralty to save Nelson from taking a step so injurious to himself, and which would ultimately have been so mischievous to his country. Lord Howe took the hint, sent for captain Nelson, and having had a long conversation with him, desired that he might, on the first levee-day, have the honour of presenting him to his majesty. This was a wise measure, for he was most graciously received at court, and his resentment was effectually removed. He now retired, to enjoy the pleasures of domestic happiness at the parsonage-house at Burnham Thorpe, which his father gave him as a place of residence. But the affair of the American captures was not terminated: he had, while amusing himself in his little farm, a notification that he was again to be sued for damages to the amount of 20,000l. This circumstance, as unexpected as it was unjust, excited his astonishment and indignation. “This affront,” he exclaimed, “I did not deserve; but I will no longer be trifled with. I will write immediately to the Treasury, and if government will not support me, I am resolved to leave the country.” He accordingly informed the treasury, that unless a satisfactory answer were sent to him by return of post, he would immediately take refuge in France: an answer, however, was returned by Mr. (now the right hon. George) Rose, that he would assuredly be supported.

On the commencement of the late eventful war, he was delighted with the appointment to the Agamemnon of 64 guns, bestowed on him in Jan. 1793, and was very soon after placed under the orders of lord Hood, then appointed to command in the Mediterranean, who always placed such confidence in captain Nelson, as manifested the high opinion which he entertained not only of his courage, but of his talents and ability to execute the arduous services with which he was entrusted. If batteries were to be attacked, if ships were to be cut out of their harbours, if the hazardous landing of troops was to be effected, or difficult passages to be explored, we invariably find Nelson foremost on the occasion, with his brave officers, and the gallant crew of the Agamemnon. During the time that Nelson had the command of the Agamemnon, and previously ta the commencement of hostilities with Spain, he put into Cadiz to water; and on beholding the Spanish fleet, exclaimed, “These ships are certainly the finest in the world. Thank God! the Spaniards cannot build men, as they do ships!” It was observed in the Mediterranean, that before captain Nelson quitted his old ship, he had not only fairly worn her out, there not being a mast, yard, sail, nor any part of the rigging, but was obliged to be repaired, the whole being cut to pieces with shot, but had exhausted himself and his ship’s company. At Toulon, and the celebrated victories achieved at Bastia and Calvi, lord Hood bore ample testimony to the skill and unremitting exertions of captain Nelson, “which,” said his lordship, “I cannot sufficiently applaud.” During the memorable siege of Bastia, he superintended the disembarkation of the troops and stores, and commanded a brigade of seamen, who served on shore at the batteries. Lord Hood had submitted to general Dundas, and afterwards to his successor D‘Aubert, a plan for the reduction of Bastia; but he could obtain only a few artillery-men, and began the siege with less than 1200 soldiers, artillery-men, and marines, and 250 sailors. With these, which Nelson said were ’“few, but of the right sort,” a landing was effected on the 4th of April, under colonel Villetes and Nelson, who had obtained from the army the title of brigadier. The sailors dragged the guns up the heights, which was a work that could probably have been accomplished only by British seamen, and the soldiers behaved with the same spirit. The siege continued nearly seven weeks, and on the 19th of May a treaty of capitulation was begun; and 1000 regulars, 1500 national guards, and a large body of national troops, laid down their arms to 1000 soldiers and marines, and 200 seamen. The siege of Calvi was carried on by general Stuart, and Nelson had less responsibility here than at Bastia, but the business was equally arduous; “I trust,” said he to lord Hood, “it will not be forgotten, that twenty-five pieces of cannon have been dragged to the different batteries, and mounted, and all, but three, fought by seamen.” It was at this siege of Calvi, that he lost an eye, and yet his name did not appear, in the Gazette, among the wounded. Of this neglect he could not help complaining, and on one occasion said, “they have not done me justice but never mind: I'll have a Gazette of my own;” and on another occasion, with a more direct attempt to prophesy, he wrote to Mrs. Nelson, “One day or other I will have a long Gazette to myself. I feel that such an opportunity will be given me. I cannot, if I am in the field of glory, be kept out of sight.”

During the month of December 1796, being now raised to the rank of commodore by sir John Jervis, he hoisted his broad pendant on board La Minerve frigate, captain George Cockburne, and was dispatched with that ship and La Blanche to Porto Ferrajo, to bring the naval stores left thereto Gibraltar; and on his passage thither captured a Spanish frigate, La Sabina, of 40 guns and 286 men. In this action the captured ship had 164 men killed and wounded, and lost the mizen, main, and fore-masts; and La Minerve had seven men killed, 34 wounded, and all her masts shot through. Commodore Nelson’s letter, on this occasion, to the admiral, sir John Jervis, has been justly regarded as a noble example of a generous and modest spirit, for he assumes no merit to himself, but gives all to the captain, his officers, and crew.

In Feb. 1797, he fell in with the Spanish fleet, but was enabled to escape from them and join admiral sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent, on the 13th of that month, in time to communicate intelligence relative to the state and force of the Spanish fleet, and to shift his pendant on board his former ship, the Captain, 74 guns. Before sunset, the signal was made to prepare for action. At daybreak, the enemy were in sight The British force consisted of two ships of 100 guns each, two of 98, two of 90, eight of 74, and one of 64, with four frigates, a sloop, and a cutter. The Spaniards had one ship of 136 guns, six of 112 guns each, two of 84, and-eighteen of 74 guns, with ten frigates. The disproportion was very great, but sir John Jervis, following the new system of naval tactics, determined to break the line of the enemy; and before the Spanish admiral could form a regular order of battle, of which he seemed very desirous, sir John, by carrying a press of sail, caine up with them, passed through the fleet, then tacked, and thus cut off nine of their ships from the main body. These, in their turn, attempted to form on their larboard trick, either with a design of passing through the British line, or to the leeward of it, and thus rejoining their friends. One of the nine only succeeded; the others were so warmly received, that they took to flight, and did not appear in action till the close. The admiral was now enabled to direct his whole attention to the enemy’s main body, still superior to his whole fleet. He made signal to tack in succession. Nelson, whose station was in the rear of the British line, perceiving that the Spanish fleet was bearing up before the wind, with an intention of forming their line, joining their separated ships, or flying; determined to prevent either of these schemes from taking effect, and accordingly, without a moment’s hesitation, disobeyed the signal, and ordered his ship to be wore. This at once brought him into action with seven of the largest ships of the enemy’s fleet, among which were the Santissima of 136 guns, and two others of 112. Captain Trowbridge, in tihe Culloden, nobly supported him; and the Blenheim, captain Frederick, came to their assistance. The Salvador del Mundo and the San Isidore dropped astern, and were fired into by the Excellent, captain Collingwood, to whom the latter struck. “But Collingwood,” says Nelson, “disdaining the parade of taking possession of beaten enemies, most gallantly pushed up with every sail set, to save his old friend and mess-mate, who was to all appearance in a very critical situation.” The Captain was at this moment fired upon by three first rates, and the San Nicholas and a 74 were within pistol-shot. The Blenheim was a -head, and the Culloden crippled a-stern. Collingwood ranged, passed within ten feet of the San Nicholas, and giving her a most tremendous broadside, pushed on for the Santissima Trinidad. At this time the Captain had lost her fore-topmast, had not a sail, shroud, or rope left, her wheel was shot away, and thus left incapable of farther service in the line or the chase; her noble commander, Nelson, instantly resolved on a bold and decisive measure, and determined, whatever might be the event, to attempt Jhis opponent sword in hand; and directed captain Miller to put the helm a-star-board, and the boarders were summoned, This gentleman, the commodore’s captain, (who was afterwards in the battle of the Nile, where he gained great honour, and was slain in the Theseus, under sir Sidney Smith), so judiciously directed the course of his ship, that he laid her aboard the star-board quarter of the Spanish 84; her spritsail-yard passing over the enemy’s poop, and hooking in her mizen shrouds: when the word to board being given, the officers and seamen, destined for this perilous duty, headed by lieutenant (now sir Edward) Berry (who was afterwards lord Nelson’s captain in the Vanguard, in the battle of the Nile), together with the detachment of the 69th regiment, commanded by lieutenant Pearson, then doing duty on board the Captain, passed with rapidity on board the enemy’s ship, and in a short time the San Nicholas was in possession of her intrepid assailants. The commodore’s ardour would not permit him to remain an inactive spectator of this scene. He was aware that the attempt was hazardous, and he thought his presence might animate his brave companions, and contribute to the success of this bold enterprise. He^ therefore, as if by tnagic impulse, accompanied the party in this attack; passing from the fore-chains of his own ship into the enemy’s quarter-gallery, and thence through the cabin to the quarter-deck, where he arrived in time to receive the sword of the dying commander, who had been mortally wounded by the boarders. The English were at this time in possession of every part of the ship, and a fire of musketry opened upon them from the stern-gallery of the San Josef. Two alternatives now presented themselves, to quit the prize, or instantly to board the three-decker; and, confident in the bravery of his seamen, he determined on the latter. Directing, therefore, an additional number of men to be sent from the Captain on board the San Nicholas, Nelson headed himself the assailants in this new attack, exclaiming, “Westminster-abbey, or a glorious victory” Success in a few minutes, and with little loss, crowned the enterprise. For a moment, commodore Nelson could scarcely persuade himself of this second instance of good fortune; he, therefore, ordered the Spanish commandant, who had the rank of brigadier, to assemble the officers on the quarter-deck, and means to be taken instantly for communicating to the crew the surrender of the ship. All the officers immediately appeared, and the commodore had the surrender of the San Josef duly confirmed, by each of them delivering his sword. On this occasion Nelson had received only a few bruises. The Spaniards had still eighteen or twenty ships, which had suffered little or no injury; but they did not think right to renew the battle. As soon as the action was discontinued, Nelson went on board the admiral’s ship, who received him on the quarterdeck, took him in his arms, and said he could not sufficiently thank him. Before the news of the action had arrived in England, Nelson had been advanced to the rank of rear-admiral; and now for his gallantry, on the 14th of February, he received the insignia of the Bath, and the gold medal from his sovereign. He was also presented with the freedom of the city of London in a gold box.

In April 1797, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag as rear admiral of the blue, and was detached to bring down the garrison of Porto-Ferraio, and on May 28 he shifted his flag from the Captain to the Theseus, and was appointed to the command of the inner squadron at the blockade of Cadiz. During this service, his personal courage was, if possible, more conspicuous than at any other period of his former history. In the attack on the Spanish gun-boats, July 3, 1797, he was boarded in his barge, with only its usual complement of ten men and the coxswain, accompanied by captain Freemantle. The commander of the Spanish gun-boats, Don Miguel Tregovia, in a barge rowed by 26 oars, having 3O men, including officers, made a most desperate effort tooverpower sir Horatio Nelson and his brave companions; but after a long and doubtful conflict, the whole of the Spaniards were either killed or wounded, and Nelson brought off the launch. On the 15th of July, he was detached with a small squadron to make an attack on the town of Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, where it was imagined a Manilla ship had landed an immense treasure. The rear-admiral, on his arrival before the town, lost no time in directing 1000 men, including marines, to be prepared for landing from the ships, under the direction of captains Trowbridge, Hood, Thomson, Freemantle, Bowen, Miller, and Waller, who volunteered their services. The boats of the squadron being manned, the landing was effected in the night, and th party were in full possession of Santa Cruz in about seven hours; but, finding it impracticable to storm the citadel, they prepared for their retreat, which was allowed by the Spaniards unmolested, agreeably to the stipulations made with captain Trowbridge. It was on this occasion that our gallant hero, in stepping out of the boat, received a shot through the right elbow, which rendered amputation necessary.

He was now obliged to go to England for medical advice, where honours awaited him sufficient to recover his accustomed spirit, and he received assurance from his surgeons, more gratifying than all, that he would soon be fit for active service. Letters were addressed to him by the first lord of the Admiralty, the earl Spencer, and by his steady friend the duke of Clarence, to congratulate him on his return. The freedom of the cities of London and Bristol was conferred upon him; he was invested with the order of the Bath, and on his first appearance at court, his majesty received him in the most gracious and tender manner, expressing his sorrow at the loss which the noble admiral had sustained, and at his impaired state of health, which might deprive the country of his future services. “May it please your majesty,” replied the admiral, “I can never think that a loss, which the performance of my duty has occasioned; and so long as 1 have a foot to stand on, I will combat for my king and country.” Among other marks of national gratitude, it was intended to bestow a pension of 1000l. a year on him, and etiquette requiring that he should give in a memorial of his services, previous to such a grant, he accordingly presented the following, which, like the general course of his wonderful life, has no parallel in naval history:

In April 1798, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag in the Vanguard, and as soon as he had rejoined earl St. Vincent, he was dispatched to the Mediterranean, that he might ascertain the object of the great expedition fitting out at Toulon. He sailed with a small squadron from Gibraltar, on the 9th of May, to watch this armament. On the 22 d, a sudden storm in the gulph of Lyons carried away all the top-masts of the Vanguard; the fore-mast went into three pieces, and the bow-sprit was sprung. Captain (afterwards sir Alexander) Ball took the ship in tow, to carry her into St. Pietros, Sardinia. Nelson, apprehensive that this attempt might endanger both vessels, ordered him to cast off; but that excellent officer, possessing a spirit very like that of his commander, replied that he was confident he could save the Vanguard, and by God’s help he would do it. Previously to this, there had been a coolness between these brave seamen but from that moment, Nelson became fully sensibje of the extraordinary merit of captain Ball, and a sincere friendship subsisted between them during the remainder of their lives. Being compelled to refit, the delay enabled him to secure his junction with the reinforcement which lord St. Vincent had sent to join him, under commodore Trowbridge. That officer brought with him no instructions to Nelson, as to the course he was to steer, nor any positive account of the enemy’s destination every thing was left to his own judgment. The first news was, that they had surprised Malta. He formed a plan for attacking them while at Gozo; but on the 22d, intelligence reached him that they had left that island on the 16th, the day after their arrival. He then pursued them to Egypt, but he could not learn any thing of them during his voyage; and when he reached Alexandria, the enemy were not there. He then shaped his course for the coast of Caramania, and steered from thence along the southern side of Candia, carrying a press of sail both night and day, with a contrary wind. Irritated that they should have eluded his vigilance, the tediousness of the night made him impatient, and the officer of the watch was repeatedly called upon to declare the hour, and convince his admiral, who measured time by his own eagerness, that it was not yet break of day. “It would have been my delight,” said he, “to have tried Bonaparte on a wind.” Baffled in his pursuit, Nelson returned to Sicily, took in stores at Syracuse, and then made for the Morea. There, on the 28th of July, he learnt that the French had been seen about a month before, steering to the south-east from Candia. He resolved to return, and immediately, with every sail set, stood again for the coast of Egypt. On the 1st of August, they came in sight of Alexandria; and at four in the afternoon, captain Hood, in the Zealous, made signal for the French fleet. For several preceding days, the admiral had scarcely taken either food or sleep: he now ordered his dinner to be served, while preparations were making for battle; and when his officers rose from, table, and went to their separate stations, he said to them, “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster- abbey.” It has never been explained, why Bonaparte, having effected his landing, should not have ordered the fleet to return. It is, however, certain, that it was detained by his express command; though after the death of Brueys, he accused 4iim of having lingered there, contrary to his received orders. That admiral, not being able to enter the port of Alexandria, had moored his fleet in Aboukir bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being as close as possible to a shoal on the north-west, and the rest of the fleet forming a kind of curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means on the south-west. The French admiral had the advantage of numbers in ships, in guns, and in men: he had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying 1196 guns, and 11,230 men; whereas the English had the same number of ships of the line, and one 50 gun ship, carrying 1012 guns, and 8068 men. They had, however, Nelson for chief-in-command, who, in all cases, was a mighty host in himself. During the whole cruize, it had been Nelson’s practice, whenever circumstances would admit of it, to have his captains on board the Vanguard, and fully explain to them his own ideas of the best modes of attack, whatever might be the situation of the enemy. His officers, therefore, were well acquainted with his principles of tactics and such was his confidence in their abilities and zeal, that the only plan arranged, in case they should find the French at anchor, was for the ships to form as most convenient for their mutual support, and to anchor by the stern. When he had fully explained his intended plan, captain Berry exclaimed with transport, “If we succeed, what will the world say” “There is no if.” replied the admiral “that we shall succeed is most certain: who may live to tell the story is a very different question.”

The position of the enemy presented the most formidable obstacles, but the admiral viewed these with the eye of a seaman determined on an attack; and it instantly struck him, that where there was room for an enemy’s ship to swing, there was room for one of ours to anchor. No further signal was necessary than those which had already been made. The admiral’s designs were as fully known to his whole squadron, as was his determination to conquer or perish in the attempt. The action commenced at sunset, at half past 6 o'clock, with an ardour that cannot be described. The Goliath, captain Foley, and the Zealous, captain Hood, received the first fire from the enemy. It was received with silence. On board every one of the British ships, the crew were employed aloft in furling sails, and below in tending the braces, and making ready for anchoring; a wretched sight for the French, who, with all their advantages, were on that element upon which escape was impossible. Their admiral, Brueys, was a brate and able man, yet he had, in a private letter, boasted that the English had* missed him, “because, not rinding themselves superior in numbers, they did not think it prudent to try their strength with him.” The moment was now come in which he was to be fatally undeceived. The shores of the bay of Aboukir were soon lined with spectators, who beheld the approach of the English, and the awful conflict of the hostile fleets, in silent astonishment. The two first ships of the French line were dismasted within a quarter of an hour after the action, and the others suffered so severely, that victory was even now regarded as certain. The third, the fourth, and the fifth, were taken possession^ of at half past eight. In the mean time, Nelson had received a severe wound on the head from a piece of iron, called a langridge shot; the skin of his forehead, being cut with it at right angles, hung down over his face. A great effusion of blood followed; but, as the surgeon pronounced there was no immediate danger, Nelson, who had retired to the cabin and was beginning to write his dispatches, appeared again on the quarter-deck, and the French ship the Orient being on fire, gave orders that boats should be sent to the relief of her men. Her commander Brueys was dead of his wounds, and the ship soon after blew up. The firing recommenced with the ships to the lee-ward of the centre, and continued until three in the morning. At day-break, the two rear-ships of the enemy were the only ships of the line that had their colours flying, and immediately stood out to sea, with two frigates The Zealous pursued, but as there was no other ship in a condition to support her, she was recalled. These, however, were all that escaped; and the victory was the most complete and glorious in the annals of naval history, uniting indeed, as was said in the House of Commons, all those qualities by which other victories had been most distinguished.

Congratulations, rewards, and honours of every kind were now showered upon the gallant admiral, by all the foreign princes and powers to which this splendid conquest was beneficial. At home he was created baron Nile of the Nile, and of Burnham Thorpe, with a pension of 2000l. for his own life., One peculiar feature in Nelson’s character was a consciousness of the importance of his services, and a habit of forming an exact estimate of what they were worth according to the accustomed scale of national rewards. He was not therefore satisfied with this barony, because he conceived that the superior peerages given to sir John Jervis and admiral Duncan, were given for services less decisive and important than he had performed.

He went on however in his career, and it is to be deeply regretted that the proceeding which immediately followed, has been thought to detract from the glories of his former life. He now set sail for Sicily, and on his arrival at Naples, was received as a deliverer by their majesties and the whole kingdom. But soon after the subjects of that monarch, discontented at his conduct, and supported by the French, drove him from his capital, after which they established, or rather proclaimed, “The Parthenopean Republic.” The zeal of cardinal Ruffo, however, who successfully mingled the character of a soldier with that of a priest, proved signally efficacious towards the restoration of the exiled monarch. Having marched to Naples at the head of a body of Calabrians, he obliged “the patriots,” as they were termed, who were in possession of all the forts, to capitulate; and to this treaty the English, Turkish, and Russian commanders acceded. On the appearance of lord Nelson, however, Ferdinand publicly disavowed “the authority of cardinal Ruffo to treat with subjects in rebellion,” and the capitulation was accordingly violated, with the exception of the prisoners in Castella Mare alone, which had surrendered to the English squadron under commodore Foote. For this part of lord Nelson’s conduct much has been pleaded, but the general opinion was that it could not be justified.

After the appointment of lord Keith to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, lord Nelson made preparations to return, and proceeding in company with sir William and lady Hamilton, to Trieste, he travelled through Germany to Hamburgh, every where received with distinguished honours. He embarked at Cuxhaven, and landed at Yarmouth on the sixth of November 1800, after an absence from his native country of three years. In the following January he received orders to embark again, and it was during this short interval that he formally separated from lady Nelson. Some of his last words to her were, “I call God to witness, that there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.” He was now raised to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, and soon after hoisted his flag on board the San Josef of 112 guns, his own prize at the battle of cape St. Vincent. About this time the emperor Paul of Russia had renewed the northern confederacy, the express and avowed object of which was to set limits to the naval supremacy of England. A resolution being taken by the English cabinet to attempt its dissolution, a formidable fleet was fitted out for the North Seas, under sir Hyde Parker, in which lord Nelson consented to go second in command. Having shifted his flag to the St. George of 98 guns, he sailed with the fleet in the month of March, and on the 30th of that same month he led the way through the Sound, which was passed without any loss. But the battle of Copenhagen gave occasion for an equal display of lord Nelson’s talents as that of the Nile. The Danes were well prepared for defence. Upwards of two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted upon the crown batteries at the entrance of the harbour, and a line of twenty-five two-deckers, frigates, and floating batteries, was moored across its mouth. An attack being determined upon, the conduct of it was entrusted to lord Nelson; the action was fought on the second of April; Nelson had with him twelve ships of the line, with all the frigates and small craft, the remainder of the fleet was with the commander in chief, about four miles off. The combat which succeeded was one of the most terrible on record. Nelson himself said, that of all the engagements in which he had borne a part, it was the most terrible. It began at ten in the morning, and at one victory had not declared itself. A shot through the main-mast knocked a few splinters about the admiral “It is warm work,” said he, “and this may be the last day to any of us in a moment; but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands.” Just at this moment sir Hyde Parker made signal for the action to cease. It was reported to him, but he continued pacing the deck, and appeared to take no notice of it. The signal-lieutenant asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it.” Presently he called to know if the signal for close action was still hoisted, and being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so.” About two o'clock, great part of the Danish line had ceased to fire, and the victory was complete, yet it was difficult to take possession of the vanquished ships, on account of the fire from the shore, which was still kept up. At this critical period, with great presence of mind, he sent the following note to the crown prince of Denmark “Lord Nelson has directions to spare Denmark when no longer resisting but, if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, lord Nelson must be obliged to set on fire all the floating-batteries he has taken, without having the power of saving the brave Danes who had defended them.” This immediately produced a treaty, which ended the dispute, and annihilated the northern confederacy. For this service lord Nelson was raised to the rank of a viscount. His last effort, in this war, was an attack on the preparations making at Boulogne, for the invasion of England; but, after the loss of many brave men on our side, the enterprize proved unsuccessful, from the situation of the harbour.

During the peace which followed, he retired to an estate lately purchased by himself, at Merton in Surrey; but no sooner was this short peace dissolved, than his lordship was called upon to take the command of the ships in the Mediterranean. He accordingly repaired thither, on board the Victory, May 20, 1303, and formed the blockade of Toulon with a powerful squadron. Notwithstanding all the vigilance employed, a fleet escaped out of this port on the 30th of March, 1805, and shortly after formed a junction with the Cadiz-squadron, sir John Orde being obliged to retire before such a superiority in point of numbers. The gallant Nelson no sooner received intelligence of this event, than he followed the enemy to the West-Indies; and such was the terror of his name, that they returned without effecting any thing worthy of mention, and got into port after running the gauntlet through sir Robert Calder’s squadron. The enemy having thus again eluded his pursuit, he returned almost inconsolable to England; and hearing that the French had joined the fleet from Ferrol, and had got safe to Cadiz, he again offered his services, which were readily accepted by the first lord of the admiralty, who gave him a list of the navy, and bade him choose his own officers. He accordingly reached Portsmouth, after an absence of only twenty-five days; and such was his impatience to be at the scene of action, that, although a strong wind blew against him, he worked down channel, and, after a rough passage, arrived off Cadiz, on his birth-day, Sept. 29, on which day the French admiral, Villeneuve, received orders to put to sea the first opportunity. In point of preparation the two fleets were supposed to be on an equality; but in respect to force, the French were the stronger in the proportion of nearly three to two, they having thirty-four ships of the line of 74 guns, and under lord Nelson there were but twenty-four of the same rank: in frigates they out-numbered him in a similar proportion. Early in the month of October, lord Nelson received information which led him to imagine the enemy would soon put to sea. He had already arranged a plan, according to which he determined to fight. He was aware of the mischief of too many signals, and was resolved never to distract the attention of his fleet on the day of action by a great number of them. On the 4th of October he assembled the admirals and captains of the fleet into the cabin of his ship, the Victory, and laid before them a new and simple mode of attack. Every man comprehended his method in a moment, and felt certain that it must succeed. It proved irresistible.

Lord Nelson did not remain directly off Cadiz with his fleet, or even within sight of the port. His object was to induce the enemy to come out; with this view he stationed his fleet in the following manner. TheEuryalus frigate was within half a mile of the mouth of the harbour to watch the enemy’s movements, and to give the earliest intelligence. At a still greater distance he had seven or eight sail of the line. He himself remained off Cape St. Mary with the rest of the fleet, and a line of frigates extended and communicated between him and the seven or eight sail off Cadiz. The advantage of this plan was, that he could receive ample supplies and reinforcements off Cape St. Mary, without the enemy being informed of it, and thus they always remained ignorant of the real force under his command: Villeneuve had also been misled by an American, who declared that Nelson could not possibly be with the fleet, as he had seen him in London but a few days before. Relying on this, the highest compliment they could pay Nelson, and on their own superiority, they put to sea on the 19th, and on the 21st lord Nelson intercepted them off Cape Trafalgar, about sixty miles east of Cadiz. When his lordship found, that by his manoeuvres, he had placed the enemy in such a situation that they could not avoid an engagement, he displayed much animation, and his usual confidence of victory. “Now,” said he, “they cannot escape us; I think we may make sure of twenty of them; I shall probably lose a leg, but that will be purchasing a victory cheaply.” He appears, however, to have had more gloomy presages, for on this morning he wrote a prayer in his journal, and solemnly bequeathed lady Hamilton, as a legacy, to his king and country. He left also to the beneficence of his country his adopted daughter, desiring that in future she would use his name only. “These,” said he, “are the only favours I ask of my king and country at this moment, when I am going to fight their battle.” He had put on the coat which he always wore in action, and kept for that purpose with a degree of veneration: it bore the insignia of all his orders. “In honour,” said he, “Igained them, and in honour I will die with them.” The last order which his lordship gave, previously to action, was short, but comprehensive, “England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty,” which was received with a shout of applause throughout the whole fleet. “Now,” said the admiral, “I can do no more we must trust to the great Disposer of all events, and the justice of our cause. I thank God for this opportunity of doing my duty.” It had been represented to him so strongly, both by captain Blackwood, and his own captain, Hardy, how advantageous it would be for him to keep out of the action as long as possible, that he consented that the Temeraire, which was then sailing abreast of the Victory, should be ordered to pass a-head, and the Leviathan also. They could not possibly do this if the Victory continued to carry all her sail; and yet so far was Nelson from shortening sail, that he seemed to take pleasure in baffling the advice to which he could not but assent. He had determined himself to fight the Santissima Trinidada; and it is worthy of remark, that he gained the highest honour in grappling with this ship in the action off Cape St. Vincent. She was the largest ship in the world, carried 136 guns, and had four decks. The Victory did not fire a single shot till she was close along-side the Trinidada, and had already lost 50 men in killed and wounded. Lord Nelson ordered his ship to be lashed to his rival, and in this labour the commander of the Trinidada ordered his men also to assist. For four hours the conflict which ensued was tremendous. The Victory ran on board the Redoubtable, which, firing her broad-sides into the English flag-ship, instantly let down her lower deck ports, for fear of being boarded through them. Captain Harvey, in the Temeraire, fell on board the Redoubtable on the other side; another ship, in like manner, was on board the Temeraire, so that these four ships, in the heat of battle, formed as compact a tier as if they had been moored together, their heads lying all the same way. The lieutenants of the Victory immediately depressed their guns, and fired with a diminished charge, lest the shot should pass through and injure the Temeraire: and because there was danger that the enemy’s ship might take fire from the guns of the lower-deck, whose muzzles touched her side when they were run out, the fireman of each gun stood ready with a bucket of water, which, as soon as the gun was discharged, he dashed at the hole made in her sides by the shot. In the prayer to which we have already alluded, and which Nelson wrote before the action, he desires that humanity, after victory, might distinguish the British fleet. Setting an example himself, he twice gave orders to cease firing upon the Redoubtable, supposing she had struck, because her great guns were silent; and as she carried no flag, there were no means of ascertaining the fact. From this ship, whose destruction was twice delayed by his wish to spare the vanquished, he received his dealt. Captain Hardy, on perceiving frequent showers of musket-balls fired on the Victory’s quarter-deck, requested lord Nelson to take off the insignia by which he was exposed, as a mark, to the sharp shooters placed in the main-round-top of the enemy’s ships. He answered, he would when he had time but paid no farther attention to his safety. In a minute afterwards, his secretary, Mr. Scott, who stood near him, was killed. A musket-ball entered his head, and he fell dead instantly. Captain Adair of the marines endeavoured to remove the mangled body, but it had attracted the notice of the admiral, who said, “Is that poor Scott who is gone?” Afterwards, whilst he was conversing with captain Hardy, on the quarter-deck, during the shower of musket-balls and raking fire that was kept up by the enemy, a doubleheaded shot came across the poop and killed eight of the marines. In a few minutes, a shot struck the fore-bracebits on the quarter-deck, and passing between lord Nelson and captain Hardy, drove some splinters from the bits about them, and bruised captain Hardy’s foot. They mutually looked at each other, when Nelson, whom no danger could affect, smiled and said, “It is too warm work, Hardy, to last.” The Redoubtable had, for some time, commenced a heavy fire of musketry from her tops, which, like those of the enemy’s other ships, were filled with riflemen. The Victory, however, became enveloped in smoke, except at intervals, when it partially dispersed, and, owing to the want of wind, was surrounded with the enemy’s ships.

The last scene was now approaching. At fifteen minutes past one, and a quarter of an hour before the Redoubtable struck, lord Nelson and captain Hardy were observed to be walking near the middle of the quarter-deck: the admiral had just commended the manner in which one of his ships near him was fought, captain Hardy advanced from him to give some necessary directions, and he was in the act of turning near the hatch-way, with his face towards the stern, when a musket-ball struck him on the left-shoulder, and entering through the epaulet, passed through the spine, and lodged in the muscles of the back, towards the rightside. Nelson instantly fell with his face on the deck, in the very place that was covered with the blood of his secretary, Mr. Scott. Captain Hardy, on turning round, saw the sergeant of marines, Seeker, with two seamen, raising him from the deck “Hardy,” said his lordship, “I believe they have done it at last; my back-bone is shot through.”

Some of the crew immediately bore the admiral to the cock-pit, and on his observing that the tiller ropes, which were shot away early in the action, had not been replaced, he calmly desired a midshipman to remind capt. Hardy of it, and to request that new ones might be immediately rove. He then covered his face and stars with his handkerchief, that he might be less observed by his men. Being placed on a pallet in the midshipman’s birth on the larboard side, Mr. Beatty, the surgeon, was called, and his lordship’s cloaths were taken off, that the direction of the ball might be the better ascertained. “You can be of no use to me, Beatty,” said lord Nelson, “go and attend those whose lives can be preserved.” When the surgeon had executed his melancholy office, had expressed the general feeling that prevailed on the occasion, and had again been urged by the admiral to go and attend to his duty, he reluctantly obeyed, but continued to return at intervals. As the blood flowed internally from the wound, the lower cavity of the body gradually filled: lord Nelson therefore constantly desired Mr. Burke to raise him, and complaining of an excessive thirst, was supplied by Mr. Scott (the chaplain) with lemonade. In this state of suffering, with nothing but havoc and death and misery around him, his mind continued intent on the great object that was always before him, his duty to his country: he therefore anxiously inquired for capt. Hardy, to know whether the annihilation of the enemy might be depended on; and it being upwards of an hour before that officer could leave the deck, lord Nelson suspected he was dead, and could not easily be persuaded that it was otherwise. The crew of the Victory were now heard to cheer, when lieutenant Pasco, who lay wounded near him, said that one of their opponents had struck. A gleam of joy lighted up the countenance of Nelson; and as the crew repeated their cheers, and marked the progress of his victory, his satisfaction visibly increased. Mr. Bulkley, the captain’s aid de camp, then came below, and in a low voice communicated to the surgeon the particular circumstances which had detained capt. Hardy. The excessive heat of the cockpit, from the numbers of the dead and wounded, increased the faintness of the dying admiral, and his sight became dim “Who brought the message?” said he feebly. “Bulkley, my lord.” “It is his voice,” said Nelson, “remember me, Bulkley, to your father.” Capt. Hardy soon afterwards came down from the deck, and anxiously strove to conceal the feelings with which he had been struggling. “How goes the day with us, Hardy?” “Ten ships, my lord, have struck.” “But none of ours, I hope.” “There is no fear, my dear lord, of that. Five of their van have tacked, and shewn an intention of bearing down upon us; but I have called some of our fresh ships round the Victory, and have no doubt of your complete success.” Captain Hardy then found himself unable any longer to suppress the yearnings of a brave and affectionate heart, and hurried away for a time to conceal the bitterness of his sorrow.

The firing continued, and the cheers of the men were occasionally heard amidst its repeated peals. With a wish to support his spirits, that were in some degree shaken by having seen the friend he so sincerely regarded, and from the increased pain under which he had to endure the agonies of excessive thirst, and the great difficulty of respiration, Mr. Burke said, “I still hope, my lord, you will carry this glorious news home.” “Don't talk nonsense,” replied the admiral, “one would, indeed, like to live a little longer, but I know it to be impossible: God’s will be done, I have performed my duty, and I devoutly thank him for it.” A wounded seaman was lying near him on a pallet, waiting for amputation, and in the bustle that prevailed was hurt by some person passing by: Nelson, weak as he was, indignantly turned his head, and with his usual authority reprimanded the man for not having more humanity. Sometime afterwards he was again visited by the surgeon; “I find,” said he, “something rising in my breast, which tells me I shall soon be gone. God be praised that I have done my duty. My pain is so severe that I devoutly wish to be released.”

When the firing from the Victory had in some measure ceased, and the glorious result of the day was accomplished, capt. Hardy immediately visited the dying chief, and reported the entire number that had struck: “God be praised, Hardy I bring the fleet to an anchor.” Capt. Hardy was returning to the deck, when the admiral called him back, and begged him to come near. Lord Nelson then delivered his last injunctions, and desired that his body might be carried home to be buried, unless his sovereign should otherwise desire it, by the bones of his father and mother. He then took capt. Hardy by the hand, and observing, that he would most probably not see him again alive, the dying hero desired his brave associate to kiss him, that he might seal their long friendship with that affection which pledged sincerity in death. Capt. Hardy stood for a few minutes over the body of him he so truly regarded, in silent agony, and then kneeling down again, kissed his forehead. “Who is that?” said Nelson. “It is Hardy, my lord.” “God bless you, Hardy,” replied Nelson, feebly; and afterwards added, “I wish I had not left the deck, I shall soon be gone:” his voice then gradually became inarticulate, with an evident increase of pain; when, after a feeble struggle, these last words were distinctly heard, “I have done my duty, I praise God for it.” Having said this, he turned his face towards Mr. Burke, on whose arm he had been supported, and expired without a groan, Oct. 21, 1805, in the forty-seventh year of his age.

Perhaps, in no country, have higher public honours been paid to the memory of a public benefactor than those that were justly and enthusiastically given to lord Nelson. His body was brought home for interment; it was exhibited for several days in the proudest state at Greenwich; from thence it was conveyed to Westminster; and finally buried in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, Jan. 8, 1806. The funeral, made at the public expence, was the most solemn and magnificent spectacle ever beheld in this country, and was duly honoured by the presence of seven of the sons of his majesty, and a vast number of naval officers, peers, and commoners. Honours and rewards were munificently bestowed on his relations, and an earldom was perpetuated in the family of Nelson, of which his brother was the first possessor. A monument was afterwards voted by parliament, and many of the principal cities and towns of the united kingdom have voted a similar memorial of his unparalleled merit.

, a learned and pious English gentleman, was born June 22, 1656, at London. He was the son of Mr. John Nelson, a considerable Turkey merchant of that city, by Delicia his wife, sister of sir Gabriel Roberts, also a London merchant. His father dying when he was but two years old, he was committed to the care of his mother, and her brother sir Gabriel, who was appointed his guardian. His first education was at St. Paul’s school, London; but, after some time, his mother wishing to have him more under her eye, took him home to her house at Dryfield, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, and procured the learned Dr. George Bull, then rector of Suddington in that neighbourhood, to be his tutor. As soon as he was fit for the university, he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge, first as pensioner, and afterwards was admitted a fellow commoner. It is not improbable, that Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Tillotson was consulted on this occasion, as he was intimately acquainted with the guardian, sir Gabriel Roberts: however, it is certain that Mr. Nelson was early known to that eminent divine, and very much esteemed by him.

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.”

This misfortune touched her husband very nearly, and he employed not only his own pen, but those of his friends Tillotson and Hickes, to recover her. Tillotson addressed a, long letter to her on the subject; and Hickes, on her account, published le A Collection of his Letters," which passed between him and a popish priest in 1675, 8vo; in which is inserted, p. 328, a letter to an English priest of the Romish communion at Rome, written by Mr. Nelson for his lady’s use. But all proved ineffectual, and she continued in the communion of the church of Rome till her death, in 1705. She was a person of considerable talents and sense. Dr. Tillotson particularly laments her case on that account; and even seems not to be entirely free from all apprehensions of the influence she might have upon her husband in this important affair. But Nelson’s religion was too much the result of his learning and reason to be shaken by his love, which was equally steady and inviolable. Her change of religion made no change in his affections for her; and, when she relapsed into such a bad state of health as required her to go to drink the waters at Aix, he attended her thither in 1688; and being dissatisfied with the prospect of the revolution, and the removal of James II. from the crown, he proceeded to Italy a second time with his lady, and her son and daughter by her former husband. He returned through Germany to the Hague, where he stayed some time with lord Dursley, who was married to his wife’s sister.

From the Hague he arrived in England in 1691, confirmed in his dislike of the change of government. He had, while abroad, shewn his regard for king James by holding a correspondence with the earl of Melfort, his majesty’s ambassador to the pope, after the revolution; and now declared himself a nonjuror, and left the communion of the church of England, although, we think, without being fully decided. He had, indeed, consulted Tillotson, and followed his opinion, who thought it no better than a trick, detestable in any thing, and especially in religion, to join in prayers where there was any petition which was held to be sinful. On this subject, however, we shall soon find that Nelson changed his opinion. The friendship between him and Tillotson remained the same; and the good archbishop expired in his friend’s arms in 1694, after which Nelson was very instrumental in procuring Mrs. Tillotson’s pension from the crown to be augmented from 400l. to 600l. per annum. Mr. Nelson’s new character unavoidably threw him into new connections, among whom was Mr. Kettlewel), who had resigned his living at Coleshill in Warwickshire, on account of the new oaths, and afterwards resided in London. This pious and learned divine was of his opinion as to leaving the communion of the established church; yet persuaded him to engage in the general service of piety and devotion; observing to him, that he was very able to compose excellent books of that kind, which too would be apt to do more good, as coming from a layman. This recomdation was highly agreeable to Mr. Nelson; and indeed it was their agreement in this, rather than in state-principles, that first made Kettleweli admire our author, who, in return, is said to have encouraged Kettleweli to proceed in that soft and gentle manner, in which he excelled, in managing the nonjurors’ controversy; and animated him besides to begin and prosecute some things for the public good, which otherwise would not have seen the light. Mr. Kettlewell died in 1695, and left Mr. Nelson his sole executor and trustee in consequence of which he published his posthumous piece entitled “An Office for Prisoners,” &c. in 1697. He also published five other of his friend’s posthumous pieces, and furnished the chief materials for the account of his life afterwards.

At th'e same time he engaged zealously in every public scheme for propagating the faith, and promoting the practice of true Christianity, both at home and abroad; and was eminently active in forwarding the building, repairing, and endowing churches, and establishing charity-schools, then a matter of very great importance in counteracting the seductions of the popish party. Nelson, we have remarked, was not fully decided in quitting the communion of the church of England; and upon the death of Dr. Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, in the end of 1709, he returned to it again. Dr. Lloyd was the last survivor of the deprived bishops, except Dr. Kenn, by whose advice Mr. Nelson was determined in this point. It had been a case in view some time, and had been warmly argued on both sides, whether the continuance of their separation from the church should be schismatical or no; and our author had some conferences upon it with Dr. Hickes, who was for perpetuating the nonjuring church, and charging the schism upon the church established .

Mr. Nelson’s tutor, Dr. George Bull, bishop of St. David’s, dying before the expiration of this year, he was easily prevailed upon, by that prelate’s son, to draw up an account of his father’s life and writings. He had maintained a long and intimate friendship with the bishop, which gave him an opportunity of being acquainted with his solid and substantial worth; had frequently sate at his feet, as he was a preacher, and as often felt the force of those distinguishing talents which enabled him to shine in the pulpit. But, above all, he had preserved a grateful remembrance of those advantages, which he had received, from him in his education and he spared no pains to embalm his memory. The life was published in 1713. He had, for some time, laboured under an asthma and dropsy in the breast; and the distemper grew to such a height soon after the publication of that work, that, for the benefit of the air, he retired at length to his cousin’s, Mrs. Wolf, daughter of sir Gabriel Roberts, a widow, who lived at Kensington, where he expired Jan. 16, 1714-15, aged fifty-nine .

He was interred in the cemetery of St. George’s chapel, now a parochial church, in Lamb’s-Conduit Fields, where a monument is erected to his memory, with a long and elegant Latin inscription, written by bishop Smalridge. He was the first person buried in this cemetery and being done to reconcile others to the place, who had taken an insurmountable prejudice against it, it had the desired effect. He published several works of piety, and left his whole estate to pious and charitable uses, particularly to charity-schools. A good portrait of him was given by Mr. Nichols, in 1779, to the Company of Stationers, and is placed in the parlour of their public hall. After the death of sir Berkeley Lucy, Mr. Nelson’s library was sold by auction in 1760, together with that of sir Berkeley, forming, united, a most extraordinary assemblage of devotion and infidelity. Several of Mr. Nelson’s original letters, highly characteristic of his benevolence, may be seen ia the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.”

His publications were, 1. “Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture; or, the Protestant’s Answer to the Seeker’s Request, 1688.” This was at the same time that his lady engaged on the popish side of the controversy. 2. “A. Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, 1704,” 8vo, and large impressions of it several times since. 3. “A Letter on Church Government, in answer to a pamphlet entitled The Principles of the Protestant Reformation,” 1705, 8vo. 4. “Great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice,” &c. 1707, 8vo. Dr. Waterland observes, that, in this piece, our author, after Dr. Hickes, embraced the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the symbols of the eucharist, which was first stated among the protestants in 1635, by the famous Mede, and, having slept for some years, was revived by Dr. Hickes, in 1697. Waterland’s Christian Sacrifice explained,“&c. p. 37, 42d. edit. 1738, 8vo. 5.” The Practice of true Devotion, &c. with an office for the Communion,“1708, 8vo. 6.” Life of Bishop Bull,“&c. 1713, 8vo. 7.” Letter to Dr. Samuel Clarke,“prefixed to” The Scripture doctrine of the most holy and undivided Trinity vindicated against the misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke,“1713, 8vo. To this Clarke returned an answer; in which he highly extols Mr. Nelson’s courtesy and candour; which he had likewise experienced in a private conference with him upon this subject. 8.” An Address to Persons of Quality and Estate,“&c. 1715, 8vo. 9.” The whole Duty of a Christian, by way of question and answer, designed for the use of the charity-schools in and about London.“10. Thomas a Kempis’s Christian Exercise.” 11.“The archbishop of Cambray (Fenelon’s) Pastoral Letter.” 12. “Bishop Bull’s important points of Primitive Christianity maintained” and other posthumous pieces of that learned prelate.

, a Latin poet, was born at Carthage, and flourished about the year 281, under the emperor Carus, and his sons Carinus and Numerian; the last of whom was so fond of poetry, that he contested the glory with Nemesianus, who had written a poem upon fishing and maritime affairs. We have still remaining a poem of our author, but in an imperfect state, called “Cynegeticon,” and four eclogues; they were published by Paulus Manutius in 1538; by Berthelet in 1613, and at Leyden, in 1653, with the notes of Janus Vlitias. Giraldi hath preserved a fragment of Nemesianus, which was communicated to him by Sannazarius; to whom we are obliged for all our poet’s works: for, having found them written in Gothic characters, he procured them to be put into the Roman, and then sent them to Paulus Manutius. Although this poem has acquired some reputation, it is greatly inferior to those of Oppian and Gratian upon the same subject; yet Nemesianus’s style is natural, and not without some degree of elegance. Such was the reputation of this poem in the eighth century, that it was read among the classics in the public schools, particularly in the time of Charlemagne, as appears from a letter of the celebrated Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, to his nephew, of Laon. There was another poet of the same name and century, who wrote a piece termed “Ixeutica,” published in the “Poetse Rei Venaticae,” but of far inferior merit.

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.

, an ancient British historian, abbot of Bangor, is generally said to have flourished about the year 620, and to have taken refuge at Chester, at the time of the massacre of the monks at that monastery. This, however, has been controverted by Lloyd, who says that he flourished about the beginning of the ninth century; and bishop Nicolson says, that from his own book he appears to have written in that century. He was author of several works, but the only one remaining is his “Historia Britonum,” or “Eulogium Britanniæ,” which has been printed in Gale’s Hist. Brit. Scrip. Oxon. 1691. Great part of this work is supposed to have been compiled, or perhaps transcribed, from the history of one Elborus or Elvodugus. There, is a ms. of it in the Cottonian library, in the British Museum.

, a Latin historian, flourished in the time of Julius Caesar, and lived, according to St. Jerome, to the sixth year of Augustus, about the year of Rome 716. He was an Italian, if we may credit Catullus, and born at Hostilia, a small town in the territory of Verona, in Cisalpine Gaul. Ausonius, however, will have it that he was born in the Gauls; and they may both be in. the right, provided that, under the name of Gaul, is comprehended Gallia Cisalpina, which is in Italy. Leander Alberti thinks Nepos’s country was Verona; and he is sure that he was born either in that city or neighbourhood. He was the intimate friend of Cicero and Atticus, and wrote the lives of the Greek historians, as he himself attests in that of Dion, speaking of Philistus. What he says in the lives of Cato and Hannibal, proves, that he had also written the lives of the Latin captains and historians. He wrote some other excellent works, which are lost.

All that we have left of his at present is, “The Lives of the illustrious Greek and Roman Captains” which were a long time ascribed to Æmilius Probus, who published them, as it is said, under his own name, to insinuate himself into the favour of the emperor Theodosius; but, in the course of time, the fraud was discovered. The first edition, under the name of JEmilius Probus, was that at Venice, 1471, fol. Since that the most valued editions are that of Aldus, 1522, 12mo; Longolius, 1543, 8vo Lambinus, 1569, 4to Bosius, 1657 and 1675, 8vo the Variorum, of 1675, 8vo at Oxford, 1697, 8vo of Staverenus, 1773, 8vo ofHeusinger, 1747, 8vo of Fischer, 1806, 8vo and of Oxford, 1803, 8vo.

, founder of the congregation of priests of the Oratory in Italy, was born July 23, 1515, of a noble family at Florence. His piety and zeal acquired him uncommon reputation. He died at Rome, 1595, aged eighty, and was canonized by pope Gregory XV. 1622. The congregation founded by St. Philip de Neri was confirmed, 1574, by pope Gregory XIII. and took the name of the Oratory, because the original assemblies, which gave rise to its establishment, were held in an oratory of St. Jerome’s church at Rome but it differs from the congregation of the Oratory founded by cardinal de Berulle, in France. Its members take no vows; their general governs but three years; their office is to deliver such instructions every day in their church as are suited to all capacities. Each institution has produced great numbers of men who have been celebrated for their learning, and services to the Romish church. It was at St. Philip de Neri’s solicitation that cardinal Baronius, who had entered his congregation, wrote his Ecclesiastical Annals.

, a celebrated historian, was born at Florence in 1485, of one of the most conspicuous families of that city, mentioned by Dante, in the fifteenth canto ic Del Paradiso," where, speaking of the parsimony of the Florentines, he gives two instances of it in two of the most illustrious families of his days, the Nerli and the Vecchi:

We are informed, by Florentine historians, that this family had borne the highest posts of the state from the year 900, when it was raised, with five others, to the dignity of Famiglia Cavalleresca, by the famous Ugo, marquis of Tuscany. The education of Philip de Nerli was superintended by Benedetto, a disciple of Politian; and in his youth he formed an intimacy with the most distinguished scholars of Florence. In the beginning of duke Alexander’s government, in 1532, he was chosen among the first to be of the quarantotto, or forty-eight magistrates, who were afterwards called senators. He governed the chief cities of Tuscany, in quality of commissary, which title is bestowed only upon senators; and the opinion which Alexander entertained of his judgment, made him be always employed upon public affairs, and nothing important was transacted without his concurrence. From this intimacy with political events, we may suppose him enabled to transmit to posterity the secret springs which gave them birth. He was a great favourite, and nearly related to the family of Medicis, which created him some enemies. He died at Florence, Jan. 17, 1556. His “Commentari de Fatti Civili,” containing the affairs transacted in the city of Florence from 1215 to 1537, were printed in folio, at Augsburg, in 1728, by Settimanni. As the author every where betrays his partiality to the Medici, they may be advantageously compared with Nardi’s history of the same period, who was equally hostile to that family.

, was the youngest son of lord-president Nesbit, of Dirlton, and born at Edinburgh in 1672. He was educated for the law; but his genius led him to the study of antiquities, in which he made very great proficiency, as appears from his excellent book on heraldry, which has never yet been exceeded by any treatise on the same subject in the English language. It was published at Edinburgh, 2 vols. fol. 1722 42, and has been reprinted there within these few years. He wrote “A Vindication of Scottish Antiquities,” which is now ill ms. in the advocates’ library at Edinburgh, and published “Heraldical Essay on additional figures and marks of Cadency,” 1702, 8vo and “An Essay on the ancient and modern use of Armories,” Lond. 1718, 4to. He died at Dirlton, 1725, aged fifty-six.

, a non-conformist divine of considerable learning, was born at North Cowes, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Dec. 26, 1621. He was educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge, where he resided seven years, and appears to have taken orders, as he preached soon after in various parts of his native county, and in 1650 succeeded Dr. Winter in the valuable living of Cottingham, near Hull. He appears also to have been for some years a lecturer at Leeds. In 1662 he was ejected for non-conformity, and after preaching occasionally in Yorkshire, for which he incurred the penalties of the law, he removed to London in 1675, and there preached privately for thirty years, to a congregation in Salisbury-court, Fleet-street. He died on his birth-day, Dec. 26, 1705, aged eighty-four, and was interred in the dissenters’ burying-ground, Bunhill Fields. He published a considerable variety of small treatises, mostly of the practical, and some of the controversial kind, the latter against popery and Arminianism; but the work for which he is best known, is his “History and Mystery of the Old and New Testament, logically discussed, and theologically improved,” 1690,4 vols. fol. To this Matthew Henry, in compiling his “Exposition,” is thought to owe considerable obligations. The style is indifferent, but, as Granger allows, “the reader will find some things well worth his notice.”

was born in 1056, at Bielzier; and, in his twenty-ninth year, assumed a monastic habit, and took the name of Nestor. At Kiof he made a considerable proficiency in the Greek language, but seems to have formed his style and manner rather from Byzantine historians, Cedrenus, Zona' as, and Syncellus, than from the ancient classics. The time of Nestor’s death is not ascertained; but he is supposed to have lived to an advanced age, and to have died about 1115. His great work is his “Chronicle;” to which he has prefixed an introduction, which, after a short sketch of the early state of the world, taken from the Byzantine writers, contains a geographical description of Russia and the adjacent countries; an account of the Sclavonian nations, their manners, their emigrations from the banks of the Danube, their dispersion, and settlement in several countries, in which their descendants are now established. He then enters upon a chronological series of the Russian annals, from the year 858 to about 1113. His style is simple and unadorned, such as suits a mere recorder of facts but his chronological exactness, though it renders his narrative dry and tedious, contributes to ascertain the aera and authenticity of the events which he relates. It is remarkable, that an author of such importance, whose name frequently occurs in the early Russian books, should have remained in obscurity above 600 years; and been scarcely known to his modern countrymen, the origin and actions of whose ancestors he records with such circumstantial exactness. A copy of his “Chronicle” was given, in 1668, by prince Radzivil, to the library of Konigsburgh, where it lay unnoticed until Peter the Great, in his passage through that town, ordered a transcript of it to be sent to Petersburg. But it still was not known as the performance of Nestor; for, when Muller, in 1732, published the first part of a German translation, he mentioned it as the work of the abbot Theodosius of Kiof; an error, which arose from the following circumstance: the ingenious editor, not being at that time sufficiently acquainted with the Sclavonian tongue, employed an interpreter, who, by mistaking a letter in the title, supposed it to have been written by a person whose name was Theodosius. This ridiculous blunder was soon circulated, and copied by many foreign writers, even long after it had been candidly acknowledged and corrected by Muller.

Nestor was successively followed by three annalists; the first was Sylvester, abbot of the convent of St. Michael at Kiof, and bishop of Perislaf, who died in 1123; he commences his “Chronicle” from 1115, only two years posterior to that of Nestor, and continues it to 1123; from which period a monk, whose name has not been delivered down to posterity, carries the history to 1157 and another, equally unknown, to 1203. With respect to these performances, Mr. Muller informs us, “the labours of Nestor, and his three continuators, have produced a connected series of the Russian history so complete, that no nation can boast a similar treasure for so long and unbroken a period.” We may add, likewise, from the same authority, that these annals record much fewer prodigies and monkish legends than others which have issued from the cloister in times so unenlightened.

, one of the contributors to the restoration of classical learning, was a native of Novara, a lawyer, and of the Minorite order. He flourished in the fifteenth century, but no particulars of his life are upon record. He dedicated his lexicon, or vocabulary of the Latin tongue, in a copy of verses addressed to the duke Ludovicus Sforza, which are printed by Mr. Roscoe in the Appendix, No. XX. to his Life of Leo X. This work was first printed under the title of “Onomasticon,” at Milan, in 1483, fol. an edition of great rarity and price; but such was its importance to the study of the Latin language in that age, that it was reprinted four times, in 1488, 1496, 1502, and 1507. This last, printed at Strasburgh, contains some pieces by the author, “de octo partibus orationis,” “de compositione eleganti,” and “de syllabarum quantitate.” He quotes as authorities a great many of his learned contemporaries and predecessors.

, from whom the sect of the Nestorians derive their name, was born in Germanica, a city of Syria, in the fifth century. He was educated and baptized at Antioch, and soon after the latter ceremony withdrew himself to a monastery in the suburbs of that city. When he had received the order of priesthood, and began to preach, he acquired so much celebrity by his eloquence and unspotted life, that in the year 429 the emperor Theodosius appointed him to the bishopric of Constantinople, at that time the second see in the Christian church. He had not been long in this office before he began to manifest an extraordinary zeal for the extirpation of heretics, and not above five days after his consecration, attempted to demolish the church in which the Arians secretly held their assemblies. In this attempt he succeeded so far, that the Brians, grown desperate, set fire to the church themselves, and with it burnt some adjoining houses. This fire excited great commotions in the city, and Nestorius was ever afterwards called an incendiary. From the Arians he turned against the Novatians, but was interrupted in this attack by the emperor. He then began to persecute those Christians of Asia, Lydia, and Caria, who celebrated the feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moon; and for this unimportant deviation from the catholic practice, many of these people were murdered by his agents at Miletum and at Sardis. The time, however, was now come when he was to suffer by a similar spirit, for holding the opinion that “the virgin Mary cannot with propriety be called the mother of God.” The people being accustomed to hear this expression, were much inflamed against their bishop, as if his meaning had been that Jesus was a mere man. For this he was condemned in the council of Ephesus, deprived of his see, banished to Tarsus in the year 435, whence he led a wandering life, until death, in the year 439, released him from farther persecution. He appears to have been unjustly condemned, as he maintained in express terms, that the Word was united to the human nature in Jesus Christ in the most strict and intimate sense possible; that these two natures, in this state of union, make but one Christ, and one person; that the properties of the Divine and human natures may both be attributed to this person; and that Jesus Christ may be said to have been born of a virgin, to have suffered and died: but he never would admit that God could be said to have been born, to have suffered, or to have died. He was not, however, heard in his own defence, nor allowed to explain his doctrine. The zealous Cyril of Alexandria (see Cyril) was one of his greatest enemies, and Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis^ one of the chief promoters of his doctrines, and the co-founder of the sect. In the tenth century the Nestorians in Chaldsea, whence they are sometimes called Chaldaeans, extended their spiritual conquest beyond mount Imaus, and introduced the Christian religion into Tartary, properly so called, and especially into that country called Karit, and bordering on the northern part of China. The prince f that country, whom the Nestorians converted to the Christian faith, assumed, according to the vulgar tradition, the name of John, after his baptism, to which he added the surname of Presbyter, from a principle of modesty; whence it is said, his successors were each of them called Prester John, until the time of Jenghis Khan. But Mosheim observes, that the famous Prester John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before the conclusion of the eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a body of Christians, that the missionaries of Rome were industrious in their endeavours to reduce them under the papal yoke. Innocent IV. in 1246, and Nicolas IV. in 1278, used their utmost efforts for this purpose, but without success. Till the time of pope Julius III. the Nestorians acknowledged but one patriarch, who resided first at Bagdat, and afterwards at Mousul; but a division arising among them in 1551, the patriarchate became divided, at least for a time, and a new patriarch was consecrated by that pope, whose successors fixed their residence in the city of Ormus, in the mountainous part of Persia, where they still continue distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down as the seventeenth century, these patriarchs persevered in their communion with the church of Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it. The great Nestorian pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a hostile eye on this little patriarch, have, since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of Mousul. Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a great part of Asia, and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also the Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is observed, to the honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices that have infected the Greek and Latin churches* About the middle of the seventeenth century the Romish missionaries gained over to their communion a small number of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church, the patriarchs or bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbekir, and all assume the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless, the Nestorians in general persevere, to our own times, in their refusal to enter into the communion of the Romish church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and alluring offers that have been made by the pope’s legate to conquer their inflexible constancy.

, an eminent painter, was born in 1639, at Prague in Bohemia. His father dying in the Polish service, in which he was an engineer, his mother was constrained, on account of the catholic religion, which she professed, to depart suddenly from Prague with her three sons, of whom Gaspard was the youngest* At some leagues from the town she stopped at a castle, which wafc afterwards besieged; and Gaspard’s two brothers were famished to death. The mother, apprehensive of the same fate, found means to escape in the night-time out of the castle, and with her son in her amis reached Arnheim, ifo Guelderland, where she met with some relief to support herself and breed op her son. A physician, named Tutkens, a man of wealth and humanity, became the patron of Netscher, and put him to school, with the view of educating him to his own profession; but Netscher’s decided turn for the art he afterwards practised, induced his patron to place him with a glazier to learn to draw, this being the only person at Arnheim who could give him any instructions. As soon as tie had iearned all this man could teach, he went to Deventer, to a painter, whose name was Gerhard Terburg, an able artist, and burgomaster of the town, under whom he acquired a great command of his pencil and, going to Holland, worked there a long time for the picture-merchants, who, abusing his easiness, paid him very little for his pieces, which they sold at a good price.

The subjects he chose, when his talents were matured, were generally conversation-pieces, with figures selected from among the better ranks of his countrymen. These, while he touched and finished them with great neatness, he treated with a breadth unknown till then among the Flemish painters. He finished all the parts of his pictures with great perfection, and the most characteristic imitation of nature. The rich siik and sattin dresses of his figures, the gold and silver utensils, carpets, &c. &c. which he introduced in his compositions, are exquisitely wrought, and with uncommon brilliancy and lustre. He painted many portraits of a small size, but they exhibit too much of the restraint which belongs to portrait painting. He was invited to England by sir William Temple, and recommended to the king, Charles II. bat did not stay long here. Vertue mentions five of his pictures; one, a lady and dog, with his name to it: another of a lady, her hands joined, oval, on copper; the third, lord Berkeley of Stratton, his lady, and a servant, in one piece, dated 1676. The others, lord Orford says, were small ovals, on copper, of king William and queen Mary, painted just before the Revolution, which, however, is impossible, as Netscher died four years before that event. These must have been the production of his son, Theodore. Gaspard died in 1684.

, his son, was his father’s pupil from his earliest years, and at the age of nine was accounted a very extraordinary performer. In his eighteenth year, he was solicited by count D'Arvaux to go to Paris, where he was greatly admired and encouraged. His principal occupation there, where he continued for twenty years, was painting the portraits of the principal persons about the court, for which he was very highly applauded and handsomely rewarded; but the taste they were executed with is by no means of the highest class, nor do the minds of his subjects seem much to have engaged his thoughts. He died in 1732, at the age of 71.

, another son of Gaspard, who was born at the Hague in 1670, also practised the art of painting under the tuition of his father, whose works he carefully studied and though he never was able to equal them, yet he arrived at no mean degree of skill in his profession. His principal practice was in portraiture, in which he was much encouraged; but being of an infirm habit of constitution, he was much interrupted in his labours, and died in 1722, at the age of fifty-two.

, 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 eminent chemist, the son of an apothecary, was born at Zullichau, in the duchy of Crossen, July 11, 1682. Caspar was educated under his father, and commenced practice at Unruhstadt, in Poland; but after a short residence there, he went to Berlin in 1705, and was employed several years as traveller for the pharmaceutic establishment of the king of Prussia. In consequence of the ability which he manifested in the performance of this duty, the king sent him to prosecute his studies at the university of Halle, and subsequently defrayed the expences of a journey, for the purpose of acquiring chemical information. He commenced this chemical tour in 1711 by visiting the mines of Germany and thence went to Holland, where he profited by the instructions of the celebrated Boerhaave. He then visited England, and while here had the misfortune to lose his royal patron, Frederick I., by death. His talents and character, however, soon afforded him relief from this temporary embarrassment for, on his return to the continent he was detained at Franeker by Cyprianus, who employed him in the execution of many chemical experiments; and he was at the same time invited to Berlin. At that time, however, he preferred accompanying George I., king of England, to Hanover, whither he went in 1716. He subsequently visited Berlin, for the purpose of settling some private affairs, where he obtained the friendship of Stahl, through whose influence at court he was again sent on a tour of chemical investigation, through England, France, and Italy, where he was introduced to all the celebrated chemists of the day. On his return to Berlin, he was appointed apothecary to the court and in 1723, when the king instituted the Royal College of Medicine and Surgery, he was nominated professor of practical chemistry, and was elected a member of that body in the following year. In 1725, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society of London; and in 1727, was honoured with the degree of M. D. by the university of Halle. In the course of the same year, he travelled through Silesia and Moravia to Vienna; and on his return through Bohemia he visited the baths of Tb'plitz, and examined the mines, in passing by the way of Dresden and Freyberg, with all the attention of a chemical philosopher.

Neumann likewise obtained other honours, which were due to his scientific character; having been elected a member of the academy Naturae Curiosorum in 1728, and of the Institute of Bologna in 1734. The king also conferred on him the dignity of aulic counsellor. He died at Berlin October 20, 1737, and left several memoirs, which were published in the collections of the societies of which he was a member, and some separate treatises, relating to chemical subjects; especially dissertations on the qualities of the fixed alkalis of camphor, castor, amber, opium, alcohol, &c. His “Chemical Works, abridged and methodized,” were published in English by Dr. Lewis in 1759, 4to, with large additions.

, an English divine, was born at Wotton, in the parish of Stanton Lacy, near Lud'low in Shropshire, in 1694, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1714. He appears then to have left college, and became schoolmaster of Spalding, and minor-canon of Peterborough, where he was a joint-founder of “The Gentleman’s Society,” and became its secretary. He was afterwards prebendary of Lincoln, archdeacon of Huntingdon in 1747, and rector of Alwalton in Huntingdonshire, where he died Feb. 3, 1757, aged sixty-three. There is an inscription to his memory against the West wall of the North transept, in which he is styled D. D. In 1727, he communicated to the Spalding Society “An Essay on the invention of Printing and our first Printers,” and bishop Rennet’s donation of books to Peterborough cathedral. In the first leaf of the catalogue (3 vols. in folio, written neatly in the bishop’s own hand) is this motto “Upon the dung-­hill was found a pearl. Index librorurn aliquot vetustiss. quos in commune bonum congessit W. K. dec. Petriburg. 1712.” These books are kept with dean Lockyer’s, in the library of Lady-chapel, behind the high altar, in deal presses, open to the vergers and sextons. In a late repair of this church, which is one of the noblest monuments of our early architecture, this benefactor’s tomb-stone was thrust and half-covered behind the altar, and nothing marks the place of his interment. Mr. Neve was chaplain to, and patronised by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, and published one sermon, being his first visitation-sermon, entitled “Teaching with Authority;” the text Matth. vii. 28, 29. Dr. Neve bore an excellent character for learning and personal worth. He married, for his second wife, Christina, a daughter of the rev. Mr. Greene, of Drinkstone, near Bury, Suffolk, and sister to lady Davers of Rushbrook. His son Timothy was born at Spalding, Oct. 12, 1724, and was elected scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. 1744; and in 1747 was elected fellow. In 1753, he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1758, and on being presented by the college to the rectory of Geddington in Oxfordshire, resigned his fellowship in 1762. He was also presented by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the rectory of Middleton Btoney, in the same county. On the death of Dr. Randolph (father to the late bishop of London), in 1783, he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, at Oxford, and was installed prebendary of Worcester in April of that year. He was early a member of the Literary Society of Spalding. He died at Oxford Jan. 1, 1798, aged seventy-four, leaving a wife and two daughters.

Dr. Neve was an able divine and scholar, and had long filled his station with credit to himself and the university, of which he remained a member more than sixty years. In private life, the probity, integrity, and unaffected simplicity of his manners, endeared him to his family and friends, and rendered him sincerely regretted by all who knew him. He had accumulated a very considerable collection of books, particularly curious pamphlets, which were dispersed after his death. Most of them contain ms notes by him, which we have often found of great value. His publications were not numerous, but highly creditable to his talents. Among them was a sermon, on Act-Sunday, July 8, 1759, entitled “The Comparative Blessings of Christianity,” the text Ephes. iv. 8. “Animadversions on Philips’s Life of Cardinal Pole, Oxford, 1766,” 8vo. “Eight Sermons preached at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury,” 1781, 8vo and after his death appeared “Seventeen Sermons on various subjects,” 1798, 8vo, published by subscription for his family.

, 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.

Nevile published the Cambridge verses on the death of sir Philip Sidney, in 1587, and projected a translation of Livy, but never completed it. Another work of his is entitled “Apologia ad Walliae proceres,” Lond. 1576, 4to. Doubtless an apology for the passage abovementioned, which had given offence. He also translated, or rather paraphrased, the “CEdipus,” in his sixteenth year, as part of a translation of Seneca’s tragedies translated by Studley, Nuce, Hey wood, &c. and printed in 1581. Warton says, that notwithstanding the translator’s youth, it is by far the most spirited and elegant version of the whole collection, and that it is to be regretted that he did not undertake all the rest. He died Oct. 4, 1614, and was buried in the cathedral at Canterbury.

, dean of Canterbury, and an eminent benefactor to Trinity college, Cambridge, brother to the preceding, was born in Canterbury, to which city his father, who had spent his younger days at court, had, in his declining years, retired. He entered early at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which he was elected a fellow in November 1570. In 1580, he was senior proctor of the university, and in 1582 was presented to the mastership of Magdalen -college by the then patron of that office, Thomas lord Howard, first earl of Suffolk. In 1587, the queen, to whom he was chaplain, conferred on him the second prebend in the church of Ely, at which time he was also rector of Doddington cum Marchj in the isle of Ely. In 158S, he was elected vice-chancellor of the University, but relinquished the office, in the following year, to Dr. Preston, master of Trinity-hall. While he presided in this station, he took the degree of D. D. During his being vice-chancellor, it is only recorded, that he had occasion to repress the freedoms which two of the university preachers took when speaking in their sermons of the established church.

In 1590, Dr. Nevile was promoted by her majesty to the deanery of Peterborough. In 1592, he joined with the other deans and prebendaries of the late erected churches in a resolution to solicit an act of parliament for the confirmation of their rights. It was necessary, indeed, to check the designs of those who pretended that their revenues arose from concealed lands, and that, therefore, they belonged to the crown: and in resisting these vexations they were supported by archbishop Whitgift. In February 1593, Dr. Nevile quitted the mastership of Magdalen, in consequence of being promoted by her majesty to that of Trinity-college, and in March 1594, resigned the rectory of Doddington, on being presented to that of Teversham near Cambridge.

In 1595, he was concerned in the controversy, which originated at Cambridge, from the public declaration of William Barret, fellow of Caius college, against the doctrine of predestination, and falling from grace. On these points the general persuasion being then favourable to the system of Calvin, Barret was called before some of the heads, and compelled to retract his opinions. The dispute, however, which was referred by both parties to archbishop Whitgift, occasioned the well-known conference of divines at Lambeth, where they agreed on certain propositions, in conformity to Calvin’s principles, commonly called the Lambeth articles. Dr. Nevil, and his brethren, soon after had to complain of Dr. Baro, lady Margaret’s professor of divinity, for maintaining some doctrines respecting universal salvation, diametrically opposite to those of the Lambeth articles in consequence of which he was removed from his station in the university. (See Baro).

The character of Nevile was now held in such estimation by queen Elizabeth, that, on the death of Dr. Rogers, she promoted him to the deanery of Canterbury, in which he was installed June 28, 1597. On her majesty’s death, he was sent by archbishop Whitgift into Scotland to address her successor, in the name of all the clergy, with assurances of their loyalty and affection. He was also commissioned to inquire what commands his majesty had to enjoin as to causes ecclesiastical; and, at the same time, to recommend the church of England to his favour and protection. To this message James returned an answer, declaring, that he would maintain the government of the church as Elizabeth left it. The king afterwards, when on a visit to Cambridge, in 1615, was entertained at Trinity-college, by Dr. Nevile, who was then much enfeebled by the palsy, and did not long survive the royal visit. He died at Cambridge May 2, 1615, advanced in life, but his age we have not been able to ascertain.

By his munificence to Trinity-college, Dr. Nevile has secured to himself the gratitude and admiration of posterity. He expended more than 3000l. in rebuilding that fine quadrangle, which to this day retains the name of Nevil’s-eourt. He was also a contributor to the library of that college, and a benefactor to East-bridge hospital in his native city. He was not less a generous patron of many scholars who became the ornaments of the succeeding age. He was buried in Canterbury-cathedral, in the ancient chantry in the South aile, which he had fitted up as the burial-place of his family, and which was afterwards called NeviPs chapel. Here he placed a monument to the memory of his father, mother, and uncle; and another was erected to himself: but in 1787, when the cathedral was new paved, the chapel itself was removed, and the monuments, in taking down, almost entirely destroyed. The inscription to the dean only remains, and is placed between two mutilated figures of himself and his elder brother Alexander, in the chapel of the Virgin Mary.

, 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.

, commonly known by his Latin name of Gul. Neubrigensis, an early English historian, was born at Bridlington in Yorkshire, in the first year of king Stephen’s reign, 1136, and educated in the abbey of Newborough, of which he became a member. Besides the name of Neubrigensis, which he derived from his abbey, we find him called Parvus, or “Little;” but whether this was a surname or nickname, is somewhat dubious. Tanner notices him under the name of Petyt; and Nicolson says, that his true surname was Little; and that he calls himself Petit, or Parvus. Hearne allows that others called him so but does not remember where he styles himself so. Mr. Denne thinks it remarkable, that with allusion to himself, he twice uses the word “Parvitas,” thereby insinuating how little qualified he was to discharge the office of a historiographer, or to hastily form a judgment of the actions of so great a man as Becket.

, M. A. son of a worthy clergy, man in Herefordshire, and great grandson, by his mother’s side, to the famous Spenser, was born in 1675, and was, for some time, educated at Corpus Christi college, Oxford; but we do not find his name among the Graduates. He was afterwards chaplain to the second duke of Richmond, and rector of Stopham in Sussex, in 1734, when he published a translation of “Velleius Paterculus.” For some time before this he lived at Hackney, in rather distressed circumstances. So early as 1718, he was author of an excellent poem, under the title of “Bibliotheca,” which is preserved in the third volume of Nichols’s “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems,” and on which Dr. Warton thinks Pope must have formed his goddess Dulness, in the “Dunciad.” Besides the many productions of Dr. Newcomb reprinted in that collection, he was author of several poems of merit; particularly of “The last Judgment of Men and AngeU, in twelve books, after the manner of Milton,” 1723, folio, adorned with a fine metzotinto portrait; of another, “To her late majesty queen Anne, upon the Peace of Utrecht;” “An Ode to the memory of Mr. Rowe;” and another, “To the memory of the countess of Berkeley.” He also translated several of Addison’s Latin poems, and Philips’s “Ode to Mr. St. John.”

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.

, author of that very valuable work the “Repertorium Londinense,” deserves some notice, although we have been able to recover very few particulars of him. We have, however, on his own authority, that he was one of the proctors general of the court of arches, from Trinity term 1668. He probably was the “Richard Newcourt, gent.” who assisted in publishing “An exact Delineation of London,” &c. in 1658, and if so, was of Somerton, in the county of Somerset. He was for twenty-seven years principal registrar of the diocese of Canterbury, and notary public, and generally resided in Doctors’ Commons, but died at Greenwich in February 1716, considerably advanced in life, if the preceding dates are correct. His “Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense,” was published in 2 vols. fol.; the first in 1708, and the second in 1710. It would be quite unnecessary to enlarge on the merits of this most useful work.

, of Arbury in Warwickshire, an elegant scholar, and an eminent benefactor to the university of Oxford, was born May 30, 1719. He was the seventh and youngest son of sir Richard Newdigate, bart. by his second lady Elizabeth, daughter of sir Roger Twisden, bart. In his sixteenth year he succeeded, in title and estate, his elder brother, sir Edward. Sir Roger was at that time a king’s scholar at Westminster school, where by his own choice he continued three years, and then entered of University college, Oxford. Here he was created M. A. in May 1738, and afterwards set out on one of those continental tours which his classical knowledge and fine taste enabled him to turn to the best advantage, by accumulating a vast collection of monumental antiquities, and drawings of ancient ruins, buildings, statues, &c. Of these last there are two ample folios in his library at Arbury, the produce of his indefatigable and accurate pencil. He also brought home some curious antique marbles and vases of exquisite workmanship (some of which are engraved in Piranesi, where his name occurs several times), casts from the most admired statues at Rome and Florence, and copies of many celebrated paintings, particularly a fine one of the famous Transfiguration, by Raphael, which adorns the magnificent saloon at Arbury.

Shortly after his return in 1742, he was unanimously elected knight of the shire for the county of Middlesex; but, in the next parliament he was, on lord Cornbury’s being called up to the house of peers, elected in 1751 to succeed him as representative for the university of Oxford, an honour which few men knew better how to appreciate. In no place, and on no occasion, is the purity of election more sacredly guarded than in the choice of members to represent that university, where to make declarations, to canvass, to treat, or even to be seen within the limits of the university during a vacancy, would be, in any candidate, almost a forfeiture of favour. In the case of our worthy baronet, he remained ignorant of being proposed and elected, until he received a letter from the vicechancellor, Dr. Browne, master of University college, by one of the esquire beadles. In the same independent manner he was re-elected in 1754, 1761, 1768, and 1774, during which last year, he was in Italy. On the dissolution of parliament in 1780, being advanced in years, and desirous of repose, he solicited his dismission, retired from public life, and was succeeded by sir William Dolben. He died at his seat at Arbury, Nov. 25, 1806, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

Although he retired from public life in 178O, his ample and richly-stored library appears to have afforded him sufficient employment, and he preserved his critical taste and acumen to almost the last period of his life. Among his employments, not many years before his death, was anexamination of Whitaker’s account of Hannibal’s passage over the Alps. He had himself twice crossed these stupendous mountains, and was much dissatisfied with some parts of the route which Whitaker had assigned to Hannibal, particularly where that author leads him from Lyons to Geneva (every step, as sir Roger said, out of his way) and therefore he drew up a succinct account of the march of the Carthaginian, conducting him from Lyons up the river to Seissel, thence to Martigni, and so to the great St. Bernard, and to Aouste (Auguste) of which in his own tour he had many drawings. Such had been his early application, and such his powers of memory, that the best classics seemed as familiar to him when he was past fourscore, as if just come from Oxford or Westminster. But these were not his only studies. He was well acquainted with theology, particularly the writings of our elder divines, and was himself a man of a devout habit, and unremitting in; religious duties. One of his latest works was the composing of a “Harmony of the Gospels,” divided into short sections; but he never considered these works as more than the amusements of retired life, and they were consequently seen only by his frieads, am,png whom were Drs; Winchester and Townson, and the present worthy archdeacon Churton, to whose pen we owe the mos^ valuable part of this sketch.

To the university of Oxford he was a steady friend and frequent benefactor. The admired cast of the Florentine boar in Queen’s college library, the Florentine museum, and other books in the library of University college, Piranesi’s works in the Bodleian, and those exquisite spe r cimens of ancient sculpture, the Candelabra in the Radciiffe library (which cost 1800/,) were some of his donations. In 1755 he was honoured by the countess dowager of Pomfret (who was aunt to the first lady Newdigate) with a commission to intimate to the university her ladyship’s intention of presenting them with what are now called the Arundelian marbles. In 1805 sir Roger made an offer to the university of the sum of 2000l. for the purpose of removing them to the Radcliffe library, but some unexpected difficulties were started at that time, which prevented the plan from being executed, although it is to be hoped, it is not finally abandoned. He gave also 1000l. to be vested in the public funds, in the name of the vice-chancellor and the master of University college, for the time being, in trust, part of it to go for art annual prize for English verses on ancient sculpture, painting, and architecture, and the remainder to accumulate as a fund towards the amendment of the lodgings of the master of University college. His charitable benefactions in the neighbourhood of his estate were extensive, and have proved highly advantageous, in ameliorating the state of the poor, and furnishing them with education and the means of industry. But we must refer. to our authority for these and other interesting particulars of this worthy baronet.

, a Dutch author, was the son of a carpenter at Dimmermeer, near Amsterdam, and was born in 1764. In his childhood he evinced extraordinary proofs of genius, and at the age of ten years produced some excellent pieces of poetry, and was, even then, able to solve problems in mathematics without having had any instruction from a master. The Batavian government appointed him one of the commissioners of longitude, and he was successively professor of mathematics and philosophy at Utrecht and Amsterdam. He died in 1794. He was author of several works, among which may be mentioned the following: 1. Poems in the Dutch language; 2. A tract on the means of enlightening a People; 3. On the general utility of the Mathematics; 4. Of the System of Lavoisier; and 5. A treatise on Navigation. To these may be added treatises on the form of the globe on the course of comets, and the uncertainty of their return and on the method of ascertaining the latitude at sea.

, an eminent English mathematician and divine, the grandson of John Newton, of Axmouth, in Devonshire, and the son of Humphrey Newton of Oundle, in Northamptonshire, was born at Oundle in 1622, and was entered a commoner of St. Edmund’s hall, Oxford, in 1637. He took the degree of B. A. in 1641; and the year following, was created master, in precedence to several gentlemen that belonged to the king and court, then residing in the university, on account of his distinguished talents in the higher branches of science. His genius being inclined to astronomy and the mathematics, he made great proficiency in these sciences, which he found of service during the times of the usurpation, when he continued stedfest to his legal sovereign. After the restoration he was created D. D. at Oxford, Sept. 1661, was made one of the king’s chaplains, and rector of Ross, in Herefordshire, in the place of Mr. John Toombes, ejected for non-conformity. He held this living till his death, which happened at Ross, Dec. 25, 1678. Mr. Wood gives him the character of a capricious and humoursome person; but whatever may be in this, his writings are sufficient monuments of his genius and skill in the mathematics. These are, 1. “Astronomia Britannica, &c. in three parts,” 1656, 4to. 2. “Help to Calculation; with tables of declination, ascension, &c.” 1657, 4to. 3. “Trigonometria Britannica, in two books,” 1658, folio one composed by our author, and the other translated from the Latin of Henry Gellibrand. 4, “Chiliades centum Logarithmorum,” printed with, 5. “Geometrical Trigonometry,” 1659. 6. “Mathematical Elements, three parts,” 1660, 4to. 7. “A perpetual Diary, or Almanac,” 1662. 8. “Description of the use of the Carpenter’s Rule,” 1667. 9. “Ephemerides, shewing the Interest and Rate of Money at six per cent.” &c. 1667. 10. “Chiliades centum Logarithmorum, et tabula partium proportionalium,” 1667. 11. “The Rule of Interest, or the case of Decimal Fractions, &c. part II.” 1668, 8vo. 12. “School-Pastime for young Children,” &c. 1669, 8vo. 13. “Art of practical Gauging,” &c. 1669, 14. “Introduction to the art of Rhetoric,” 1671. 15. “The art of Natural Arithmetic, in whole numbers, and fractions vulgar and decimal,” 1671, 8vo. 16. “The English Academy,” 1677, 8vo. 17. “Cosmography.” 18. “Introduction to Astronomy.” 19. “Introduction to Geography,” 1678, 8vo.

, an English clergyman, whose extraordinary history has long been before the public, was born in London, July 24, 1725. His father was many years master of a ship in the Mediterranean trade, and in 1748 went out as governor of York Fort, in Hudson’s Bay, where he died in 1750. His mother, who died when he was only seven years old, had given him such religious instruction as suited his capacity, which was apt and good. By school education he profited little. He appears indeed to have been at a school at Stratford, in Essex, about two years, and acquired some knowledge of the L&tin, but his master’s method being too precipitate, he soon lost all he had learned. At the age of eleven he was taken to sea by his father, and before 1742 had made several voyages, at considerable intervals, which were chiefly spent in the country, excepting a few months in his fifteenth year, when he was placed with a very advantageous prospect at Alicant, where, as he says, “he might have done well, if he had behaved well.” For about two years something like religious reformation appeared in him, but he adds, “it was a poor religion, and only tended to make him gloomy, stupid, unsocial, and useless;” and from this he was seduced into the contrary extreme, by perusing some of the writings of Shaftesbury, which he found in a petty shop at Middleburgh, in Holland. In 1742, when his father proposed to leave off going to sea, he endeavoured to provide his son with a situation, and an eligible one occurred of his going to Jamaica; but happening to meet with the lady who became afterwards his wife, he abhorred the thought of living from her at such a distance as Jamaica, and that perhaps for four or five years, and therefore absented himself on a visit to Kent, until the ship sailed without him. His father, though highly displeased, became reconciled, and in a little time Mr. Newton sailed with a friend of his father’s to Venice. In this voyage, being a common sailor, and exposed to the company of some profligate comrades, he began to relax from the regularity which he had preserved in a certain degree, for more than two years; and in this and his subsequent voyages, represents himself as extremely thoughtless, vi-r cious, and abandoned. The consequences of this conduct led to those adventures which he has so interestingly de-r tailed in his life, published in 1764, and to which we must refer as to a work that does not admit of a satisfactory abridgment. If his vices were great, his sufferings seem also to have amounted to the extremes of misery and disgrace; but at length, about 1747, he was rescued by his father from this state of wretchedness, and in 1748, appears to have been for the first time awakened to a proper sense of his past life, which gradually improved into a real reformation. After this he was employed in ships concerned in the African slave-trade, and acquired that knowledge which many years afterwards enabled him to contribute, by his evidenoe before parliament, to the abo-i lition of that detestable traffic.

It is remarkable, that in all his miseries and wretchedness, and even when most profligate and apparently thoughtless in his conduct on board of ship, he preserved an anxiety to learn, and at his leisure hours, acquired a considerable knowledge of the mathematics. In his later voyages, he endeavoured to revive his acquaintance with the Latin language. How scanty his means were, appears from his own account. “He had seen an imitation of one of Horace’s odes in a magazine, and wished to be able to read that poet, but had no other help than an old English translation, with Castalio’s Latin Bible. He had the DeU phin edition of Horace, and by comparing the odes with the interpretation, and tracing such words as he understood from place to place by the index, together with what assistance he could get from the Latin Bible, he thus, by dint of hard industry, made some progress. He not only understood the sense of many odes, and some of the epistles, but” I began,“he says,” 4o relish the beauties of the composition; acquired a spice of what Mr. Law calls classical enthusiasm; and, indeed, by this means, I had Horace more ad unguem, than some who are masters of the Latin tongue. For my helps were so few, that I generally had the passage fixed in my memory before I could fully understand its meaning." In a future voyage, which he commenced from Liverpool in August 1750^ as commander, he made still greater progress in Latin; providing himself with a dictionary, and adding to Horace, Juvenal, Livy, Caesar, &c. His conduct in all respects was now become regular. He allotted about eight hours for sleep and meals, eight hours for exercise and devotion, and eight hours to his books. In a Guinea trader, such a life perhaps has no parallel.

At length a variety of circumstances concurred to wean him from the sea, and after having been for some time placed in a situation as tidewaiter at Liverpool, he applied with great diligence to his studies, and acquired a competent knowledge of the sacred languages, with a view to take orders in the church. In 1758 he had received a title to a curacy, but on application to the archbishop of York, Dr. Gilbert, was refused ordination, as it appeared that he had been guilty of some irregularities, such as preaching in dissenting meetings, or other places, without ordination of any kind. In April 1764, however, by dint of strong recommendation, and a professed attachment, which he ever most carefully preserved, to the doctrines and discipline of the church, he was ordained by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the curacy of Olney, and admitted into priest’s orders in June 1765. The living of Olney was at this time held by the celebrated angler, Moses Brown (see his article), a man who maintained the same evangelical sentiments as Mr. Newton, but had been under pecuniary difficulties, and was glad to accept the chaplaincy of Morden college, Blackheath, leaving the charge of his flock at Olney to Mr. Newton, who remained here for sixteen years.

At Olney Mr. Newton became acquainted with two gentlemen whose friendship gave an important interest to his future life, the benevolent John Thornton, esq. and William Cowper, the celebrated poet. The farmer, conceiving a high idea of the integrity and usefulness of Mr. Newton in this parish, determined to allow him a certain sum (200l. a year) with which he wished him to keep open house for such as were worthy of entertainment, and to help the poor and needy. Mr. Newton reckoned that he had received of Mr. Thornton upwards of 3000l. in this way during his residence atOlney, a sum which, however great, will not surprize those who knew the extent of Mr. Thornton’s liberality. His intimacy with Cowper forms one of the most interesting periods of that poet’s life. To what is said in our account of Cowper (vol. X. p. 405, &c.) we have only to regret in this place that much information has been lost to the public by the suppression of Mr. Newton’s letters to his afflicted friend. These letters must have been in Cowper’s possession; but what became of them after his death has never been explained. Had they appeared, they probably would have established beyond all power of contradiction, that no part of Cowper’s deplorable melancholy was attributable to his connection with Mr. Newton, or with men of his principles. Mr. Newton was himself a man of remarkable cheerfulness of disposition, and had a particular talent in administering consolation to those whose uneasiness arose from religious affections, nor was he easily mistaken in separating real concern from affectation. It appears that Mr. Newton was once in possession of a life of Cowper, written by himself, at the calmest period of his life; some facts from this have been communicated to the public by his biographer, but more remains, which we have been told would have thrown additional light on Mr. Cowper’s remarkable history.

In 1779 Mr. Newton was removed from Olney to be rector of the united parishes of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, on the presentation of his steady friend Mr. Thornton, and continued his labours in this place during life. Few men had more the art of attracting friendship; and his congregation, which increased every day, became attached to him in a degree which time has not yet. abated. One trait in his character added much to his usefulness; his benevolence was most extensive; his house was open to the afflicted of every description; gratitude appears to have been his predominant virtue; he never for a moment forgot the wretched state from which Providence had raised him, and this thankfulness continually operated in endeavour! to relieve the wants of others. He never knew how to refuse applications from the distressed, and his sympathy often drew such nearer him than a man more studious of domestic quiet would have wished. However liberal in affording an asylum to poor persons of whom he had a good opinion, he was, like Dr. Johnson, often the only person in his house who exhibited a contented mind and a thankful heart. Among his other services of no small importance, was his kind patronage of young men intended for the church. Some of these he had frequently about him, and assisted them either from his own scanty means, or by recommending them to his opulent friends, with whom Mr. Newton’s recommendations were decisive. It may now be mentioned, that the world owes the character and services of the late Dr. Claudius Buchapan to Mr. Newton, as will appear more particularly when the life of that gentleman shall be exhibited to the world. The early part of it was almost as unpromising as that of Mr. Newton himself.

Mr. Newton died Dec. 31, 1807, and was buried in the rector’s vault of his church. His faculties experienced some decay during the last two or three years, but his conversation at times exhibited his usual powers, and that original turn of thinking and expression which, in his former days, rendered his company equally pleasant and edifying. In 1750 he married Mary, the daughter of Mr. George Cattet, of Chatham, in Kent, who died in 1790, but had no issue by her. His principal works, of which a complete edition was published soon after his death, consist of sermons, preached and published at various times; the narrative of his life, published in 1764; “Review of Ecclesiastical History,” on the plan which Mr. Milner afterwards pursued; “Hymns,” some of which are by Cowper; “Cardiphonia;” and the “Messiah,” a series of sermons on the words of the celebrated oratorio. His “Life” was written by the late rev. Richard Cecil, and is published in 12mo. To this we owe the above sketch.

, the most splendid genius that has yet adorned human nature, and by universal consent placed at the head of mathematics and of science, was born on Christmas-day, O. S. 1642, at Woolsthorpe, in the parish of Colsterworth, in the county of Lincoln. When born he was so little, that his mother used to say he might have been put into a quart mug, and so unlikely to live, that two women who were sent to lady Pakenham’s, at North Witham, for something for him, did not expect to find him alive at their return. He was born near three months after the death of his father, who was descended from the eldest branch of the family of sir John Newton, bart. and was lord of the manor of Woolsthorpe. The family came originally from Newton, in the county of Lancaster, from which, probably, they took their name. His mother was Hannah Ayscough, of an ancient and honourable family in the county of Lincoln. She was married a second time to the rev. Barnabas Smith, rector of North Witham, a rich old bachelor, and had by him a son and two daughters. Previously, however, to her marriage, she settled some land upon Isaac. He went to two little day-schools at Skillington and Stoke till he was twelve years old, when he was sent to the great school at Grantham, under Mr. Stokes, who had the character of being a very good schoolmaster. While at Grantham he boarded in the house of Mr. Clark, an apothecary, whose brother was at that time usher of the school.

Here he soon gave proofs of a surprizing genius, and astonished his acquaintances by his mechanical contrivances. Instead of playing among other boys, he always busied himself in making curiosities, and models of wood of different kinds. For this purpose he got little saws, hatchets, hammers, and all sorts of tools, which he knew how to use with great dexterity. He even went so far as to make a wooden clock. A new windmill was set up about this time near Grantham in the way to Gunnerby. Young Newton’s imitating genius was excited, and by frequently prying into the fabric of it, as they were making it, he contrived to make a very perfect model, which was considered at least equal to the workmanship of the original, This sometimes he set upon the house-top where he lodged, and clothing it with sails, the wind readily turned it. He put a mouse into this machine, which he called his miller, and he contrived matters so that the mouse would turn round the mill whenever he thought proper. He used to joke too about the miller eating the corn that was put into the mill. Another of his contrivances was a water-clock, which he made out of a box that he begged from the Brother of his landlord’s wife. It was about four feet in height, and of a proportional breadth. There was a dial-plate at top with figures for the hours. The index was turned by a piece of wood which either fell or rose by water dropping. This stood in the room where he lay, and he took care every morning to supply it with its proper quantity of water.

These fancies sometimes engrossed so much of his thoughts that he was apt to neglect his book, and dull boys were now and then put over him in his form. But this made him redouble his pains to overtake them, and such was his capacity that he could soon do it, and outstrip them when he pleased: and this was taken notice of by his master. He used himself to relate that he was very negligent at school, and very low in it till the boy above him gave him a kick which put him to great pain. Not content with having threshed his adversary, Isaac could not rest till he had got before him in the school, and from that time he continued rising until he was head-boy. Still, no disappointments of the above kind could induce him to lay aside his mechanical inventions; but during holidays, and every moment allotted to play, he employed himself in knocking and hammering in his lodging-room, pursuing the strong bent of his inclination, not only in things serious, but in ludicrous contrivances, calculated to please his school-fellows as well as himself; as, for example, paper kites, which he first introduced at Grantham, and of which he took pains to find out their proper proportion and figures, and the proper place for fixing the string to them. He made lanterns of paper crimpled, which he used to go to school by in winter mornings with a candle, and he tied them to the tails of his kites in a dark night, which at first frightened the country people exceedingly, who took his candles for comets. He was no less diligent in observing the motion of the sun, especially in the yard of the house where he lived, against the wall and roof, wherein he drove pegs, to mark the hours and half hours made by the shade. These, by some years’ observation, he made so exact that any body knew what o'clock it was by Isaac’s dial, as they usually called it.

His turn for drawing, which he acquired without any assistance, was equally remarkable with his mechanical inventions. He filled his whole room with pictures of his own making, copied partly from prints, and partly from the life. Among others were portraits of several of the kings, of Dr. Donne, and of Mr. Stokes, his schoolmaster. He informed Mr. Conduitt, his nephew, that he had also a facility in making verses. This is the more remarkable, as he had been heard to express a contempt for poetry. Hence it is probable, that the following lines, which he wrote under the portrait of Charles I. were of his own composition. They were given by Dr. Stukely, from Mrs, Vincent, who repeated them from memory:

If Newton wrote these lines, it must be remembered that they were written when he was only a boy at school.

Mrs. Vincent was neice to the wife of sir Isaac’s landlord at Grantham, and lived with him in the same house. According to her account, he very seldom joined with his school-fellows in their boyish amusements, but chose rather to be at home, even among the girls, and would frequently make little tables, cupboards, and other utensils, for her and her play-fellows to set their babies and trinkets in. She mentioned likewise a cart, which he made with four wheels, in which he would sit, and by turning a windlass about, make it carry him round the house wherever he pleased. He is said to have contracted an attachment to Mrs. Vincent, whose maiden name was Storey, and would have married her, but being himself a fellow of a college, with hardly any other income, and she having little or no fortune of her own, he judged it imprudent to enter into any matrimonial connection. But he continued to visit her as long as he lived, after her marriage, and repeatedly supplied her with money when she wanted it.

During all this time the mother of sir Isaac lived at North Witham, with her second husband; but, upon his death, she returned to Woolsthorpe, and in order to save expences as much as she could, she recalled her son from school, in order to make him serviceable at Woolsthorpe, in managing th farm and country business. Here he was employed in superintending the tillage, grazing, and harvest; and he was frequently sent on Saturdays to Grantham market, with com and other commodities to sell, and to carry home what necessaries were proper to he bought at a market town for a family; but, on account of his youth, his mother used to send a trusty old servant along with him, to put him in the way of business. Their inn was at the Saracen’s head, in West-gate, where, as soon as they had put up their horses, Isaac generally left the man to manage the marketing, and, retiring to Mr. Clark’s garret, where he used to lodge, entertained himself with a parcel of old books till it was time to go home again; or else he would stop by the way, between home and Grantham, and lie under a hedge studying, till the man went to town and did the business, and called upon him in his way back. When at home, if his mother ordered him into the fields to look after the sheep, the corn, or upon any other rural employment, it went on very heavily under his management. His chief delight was to sit under a tree with a book in his hands, or to busy himself with his knife in cutting wood for models of somewhat or other that struck his fancy, or he would get to a stream and make mill-wheels. This conduct of her son induced his mother to send him to Grantham school again for nine months; and then to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted June 3, 1660, and where he was soon noticed by Dr. Isaac Barrow, who perceived his talents, and contracted a great friendship for him. The progress of his studies here was of no common kind. He always informed himself beforehand of the books which his tutor intended to read, and when he came to the lectures he found he knew more of them than his tutor himself. The first books which he read for that purpose were Saunderson’s Logic, and Kepler’s Optics. A desire to know whether there was any thing in judicial astrology, first put him upon studying mathematics. He discovered the emptiness of that study as soon as he erected a figure; for which purpose he made use of two or three problems in Euclid, which he turned to by means of an index. He did not then read the rest, looking upon it as a book containing only plain and obvious things. This neglect of the ancient mathematicians, we are told by Dr. Pemberton, he afterwards regretted. The modern books which he read gave his mind, as he conceived, a wrong bias, vitiated his taste, and prevented him from attaining that elegance of demonstration which he admired in the ancients. The first mathematical book that he read was Des Cartes’s Geometry, and he made himself master of it by dint of genius and application, without going through the usual steps, or having the assistance of any person. His next book was the “Arithmetic of Infinites,” by Dr. Wallis. On these books he wrote comments as he read them, and reaped a rich harvest of discoveries, or more properly, indeed, made almost all his mathematical discoveries as he proceeded in their perusal.

In 1664 he bought a prism, as appears by some of his own accounts of expences at Cambridge, to try some experiments upon Des Cartes’s doctrine of colours, and soon satisfied himself that that philosopher’s hypothesis was destitute of foundation; and the further prosecution of the subject satisfied him respecting the real nature of light and colours. He soon after drew up an account of his doctrine, which was published in the Philosophical Transactions, and unfortunately gave origin to a controversy between him and some foreign opticians, which produced an unhappy effect on his mind, and prevented him from publishing his mathematical discoveries, as he had originally intended. He communicated them, however, to Dr. Barrow, who sent an account of them to Collins and Oldenburg, and by that means they came to be known to the members of the royal society. He laid the foundation of all his discoveries before he was twenty-four years of age.

In contemplating his genius, it becomes a doubt which of these endowments had the greatest share, sagacity, penetration, strength, or diligence; and, after all, the mark that seems most to distinguish it is, that he himself made the justest estimation of it, declaring, that, if he had done the world any service, it was due to nothing but industry and patient thought; that he kept the subject under consideration constantly before him, and waited till the first dawning opened gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light. And hence no doubt arose that unusual kind of horror which he had for all disputes a steady unbroken attention, free from those frequent recoilings inseparably incident to others, was his peculiar felicity; he knew it, and he knew the value of it. No wonder then that controversy was looked on as his bane, when some objections, hastily made to his discoveries concerning light and colours, induced him to lay aside the design he had of publishing his optic lectures; we find him reflecting on that dispute, into which he was unavoidably drawn thereby, in these terms: “I blamed my own imprudence for parting with so real a blessing as my quiet to run after a shadow.” It is true, this shadow, as Fontenelle observes, did not escape him afterwards, nor did it cost him that quiet which he so much valued, but proved as much a real happiness to him as his quiet itself; yet this was a happiness of his own making; he took a resolution, from these disputes, not to publish any more about that theory, till he had put it above the reach of controversy, by the exactest experiments, and the strictest demonstrations; and, accordingly, it has never been called in question since.

In 1665, when he retired to his ownestate on account of the plague, the idea of his system of gravitation first occurred to him in consequence of seeing an apple fall from a tree. This remarkable apple-tree is still remaining, and is usually shown to strangers as a curiosity. At that time, not being in possession of any accurate measure of the earth’s surface, he estimated the force of gravity erroneously, and found, in consequence, that it was not capable alone of retaining the moon in her orbit. This induced him to dismiss his hypothesis at that time as erroneous. But afterwards, when Picard had measured a degree of the earth’s surface with tolerable accuracy, he was enabled to make a more precise estimate, and found that the force of gravity exactly accounted for the moon’s motion in her orbit. He applied his doctrine to the planets and the whole solar system, and found it to account, in a satisfactory manner, for the whole phenomena of the motions of these bodies.

In 1664 he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1667 he was elected fellow of Trinity college. The following year he took his master’s degree, and in 1669 Dr. Barrow resigned his mathematical professorship to him. In 1671 he was elected fellow of the royal society. It has been asserted that at this time he was so poor that he was obliged to apply to the society for a dispensation from the usual contribution df a shilling a week, which all the fellows of the society regularly paid. But this, in the opinion of his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow, seems doubtful. Bis estates, for he had two, were worth about 80l. a year, which, added to his fellowship and professorship, mast have been sufficient for such a trifling expence. He had indeed his mother and her family to support, but when we consider the expence of living at this time, Mr. Newton, with about 200^ a year, his probable income, could not be reckoned a poor man. In 1675 he had a dispensation from king Charles II. to retain his fellowship without taking orders. In 1687 he was chosen one of the delegates to represent the university of Cambridge, before the high commission court, to answer far their refusing to admit father Francis master of arts upon king James’s mandamus, without his taking the oaths prescribed by the statutes; and was greatly instrumental in persuading his colleagues to persist in the maintenance of their rights and privileges. So strenuous indeed was the defence which he made, that James, infatuated as he was at this time, thought proper to drop his pretensions. In 1688 he was chosen by the university of Cambridge, member of the convention parliament, and was again chosen in 1701. In 1696, the earl of Halifax, at that time Mr. Montague, and chancellor of the exchequer, who was a great patron of the learned, wrote to him that he had prevailed on the king to make him warden of the mint, a place worth five or six hundred pounds a year, and which Mr. Montague stated would not require more attendance than he could spare. In this office he did signal service in the great re-coinage which took place soon after, and is said to have saved the nation 80,000l. In 1699 he was made master and worker of the mint, in which situation he continued until his death, and behaved himself with an universal character of integrity and disinterestedness. He had frequent opportunities of employing his skill in mathematics and chemistry, particularly in his “Table of Assay of Foreign Coins,” which is printed at the end of Dr. Arbuthnot’s book of coins.

In 1701 he made Mr. Whiston his deputy professor of mathematics at Cambridge; and gave him all the salary from that time, though he did not absolutely resign the professorship till 1703, in which year he was chosen president of the royal society, and continued to fill that honourable situation till the time of his death. On April 16, 1705, he was knighted by queen Anne, at Trinity college lodge, Cambridge.

While at the university, he spent the greatest part of his time in his closet, and when he was tired with the severer studies of philosophy, his relief and amusement was going to some other study, as history, chronology, divinity, chemistry; all which he examined with the greatest attention, as appears by the many papers which he left behind him on those subjects. After his coming to London , all the time he could spare from his business, and from the civilities of life, in which he was scrupulously exact and complaisant, was employed in the same way; and he was hardly ever alone without a pen in his hand, and a book before him: and in all the studies which he undertook, he had a perseverance and patience equal to his sagacity and invention. His niece, afterwards married to Mr. Conduitt, who succeeded him as master of the mint, lived with him about twenty years during his residence in London. He always lived in a very handsome, generous manner, though without ostentation or vanity always hospitable, and, upon proper occasions, he gave splendid entertainments. He was generous and charitable without bounds; and he used to say that they who gave away nothing till they died, never gave. This, perhaps, was one reason why he never made a will. Scarcely any man of his circumstances ever gave away so much during his own life-time, in alms, in encouraging ingenuity and learning, and to his relations nor, upon all occasions, showed a greater contempt of his own money, or a more scrupulous frugality of that which belonged to the public, or to any society he was entrusted for. He refused pensions and additional employments that were offered him; he was: highly honoured and respected in all reigns, and under all administrations, even by those whom he opposed y for in every situation he shewed an inflexible attachment to the cause of liberty, and to the constitution of Great Britain. George II. and queen Caroline shewed him particular marks of their favour and esteem, and often conversed with him for hours together. The queen in particular, used to take delight in his company, and was accustomed to congratulate herself that she lived in the same country, and at the same time, with so illustrious a person. Yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary honours that were paid him, he had so humble an opinion of himself, that he had no relish for the applause which he received. In Spence’s “Anecdotes” we are told, that when Ramsay was one day complimenting him on his discoveries in philosophy, he answered, “Alas! I am only like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of the great ocean of truth.” He was so little vain and desirous of glory from any of his works, that he would have let others run away with the credit of those inventions which have done so much honour to human nature, if his friends and countrymen had not been more jealous than he was of his own glory, and the honour of his country. He was exceedingly courteous and affable, even to the lowest, and never despised any man for want of capacity: but always expressed freely his resentment against immorality or impiety. He not only shewed a great and constant regard to religion in general, as well by an exemplary life, as in all his writings, but was also a firm believer in revealed religion, with one exception, an important one indeed, that his sentiments on the doctrine of the Trinity by no means coincided with what are generally held. He left many papers behind him on religious subjects, which Dr. Horsley, who examined them, declined publishing, probably on account of the opinions which we have just hinted. Sir Isaac had such a mildness of temper that a melancholy story would often draw tears from him, and he was exceedingly shocked at any act of cruelty to man or beast; mercy to both being the topic that he loved to dwell upon. An innate modesty and simplicity showed itself in all his actions and expressions. His whole life was one continued series of labour, patiejrce, charity, generosity, temperance, piety, goodness, and every other virtue, without a mixture of any known vice whatsoever.

Fontenelle, after detailing these circumstances, observes, that “he was not distinguished from other men by any singularity, either natural or affected;” and Dr. Johnson considered it as an eminent instance of Newton’s superiority to the rest of mankind, “that he was able to separate knowledge from those weaknesses by which knowledge is generally disgraced: that he was able to excel in science and wisdom, without purchasing them by the neglect of little things: and that he stood alone merely because he had left the rest of mankind behind him, not because he deviated from the beaten track.”

He was blessed with a very happy and vigorous constitution he was of a middle stature, and rather plump in his latter years: he had a very lively and piercing eye.: a comely and gracious aspect, and a fine head of hair, as white as silver, without any baldness. To the time of his last illness he had the bloom and colour of a young man. He never wore spectacles, nor lost more than one tooth till the day of his death. About five years before his death, he was troubled with an incontinence of urine, and sometimes with a stillicidium, both of which continued to afflict him, more or less, according to the motion to which he was exposed. On this account he sold his chariot, and went always in a chair: and he gave up dining abroad, or with much company at home. He eat little flesh, and lived chiefly upon broth, vegetables, and fruit, of which he always eat heartily. In August, 1724, he voided, without any pain, a stone about the size of a pea, which came away in two pieces: one some days after the other. In January 1725, he had a violent cough and inflammation of the lungs, upon which he was persuaded, with considerable difficulty, to take a house in Kensington, where he had, in his eighty-fourth year, a fit of the gout, for the second time, having had a slight attack of it some years before. This fit left him in better health than he had enjoyed for several years. In the winter of 1725, he wanted to resign his situation as master of the mint to his nephew, Mr Conduitt, hut this gentleman would not permit his resignation, but offered to conduct the whole business in his place, and for about a year before his death sir Isaac hardly ever went to the Mint, trusting entirely to the management of his nephew.

On Tuesday, Feb. 28, 1727, he went to town, in order to attend a meeting of the Royal Society. Next day Mr. Conduitt paid him a visit, and found him apparently in better health than he had enjoyed for several years. Sir Isaac was sensible of it himself, and told his nephew, smiling, that he had slept the Sunday before from eleven at night till eight in the morning, without waking. But his fatigue in attending the Society, and in paying and receiving visits, brought his old complaint violently upon him . Dr. Mead and Mr. Cheselden were carried out to Kensington to see him, by Mr. Conduitt. They immediately pronounced his disease to be the stone in the bladder, and gave no hopes of his recovery. The stone was probably removed from the place where it lay quiet, by the great motion and fatigue of his last journey to London, From this time he had violent fits of pain, with scarcely any intermission: and though the drops of sweat ran down his face with anguish, he never complained, nor cried out, nor shewed the least sign of peevishness or impatience; and, during the short intervals from that violent torture, would smile and talk with his usual cheerfulness. On Wednesday March 15 he was somewhat better, and fallacious hopes were entertained of his recovery. On Saturday March 1$ he read the newspapers, and held a pretty long conversation with Dr. Mead, and had all his senses perfect but that evening at six, and all Sunday, he was insensible, and died on Monday March 20, 1727, between one and two o'clock in the morning; having reached the age of eighty-four years and a few months, and retained all hi? senses and faculties to the end of his life, strong, vigorouf, and lively. He continued writing and studying many hours every day, till the period of his last illness. Although he had lived with great splendour and liberality, and had originally but a small property, be accumulated 32,000l. of personal estate which was divided between his four nephews and nieces of half-blood . The land which he had of his father and mother descended to his hir of the whole blood, John Newton, whose great grand-father was sir Isaac’s uncle.

Sir Isaac was remarkably liberal to all his relations, particularly to his mother’s family by Mr. Smith, giving to one 500l. to another an estate of 4000l. or thereabouts, to make up a loss occasioned by the imprudent marriage of one of them, and to prevent a lawsuit among themselves. This was done many years before his death. He had a half-sister, who had a daughter, to whom he gave the best of educations. This was “the famous witty Miss Barton,” who married Mr. Conduitt; sir Isaac bought an estate of 70l. or 80l. a-year, and gave it to their daughter Miss Conduitt, then very young, who was afterwards married to the eldest son of lord Lymington, from whom the present earl of Portsmouth is descended. He was equally kind to his mother’s relations, the Ayscoughs, some of whom had been imprudent, and needed his help. To one he gave 800l. to another 200l. and many other sums, and frequently became security for them. He is said never to have sold the copies of any of his works, but gave them freely to the booksellers. Mr. Seward appears therefore to have been greatly mistaken in imputing a desire of gain to sir Isaac because he had some concern in the SouthSea bubble, and lost, according to his niece’s report, 20,000l. Even this loss made no alteration in his liberality, and in point of fact, it appears that the greatest instances of his kindness to his relations and friends occurred after the year 1720. The John Newton above mentioned, who inherited his real estate, died in 1737, at the age of thirty. He is said to have been illiterate and intemperate. With him the family of Newton became extinct.

Sir Isaac Newton was buried with great magnificence, at the public expence. On March 28, he lay in state in the Jerusalem -chamber, and was buried from thence in WesN minster-abbey, near the entry into the choir. The spot is one of the most conspicuous in the abbey, and had been previously refused to different noblemen who had applied for it. The pall was supported by the lord high chancellor, the dukes of Montrose and Roxborough, and the earls of Pembroke, Sussex, and Macclesfield, being fellows of the Royal Society. The hon. sir Michael Newton, knight of the Bath, was chief mourner, and was followed by some other relations, and some eminent persons intimately acquainted with sir Isaac. The office was performed by the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Bradford, attended by the prebendaries and choir. A magnificent monument was afterwards erected to his memory, in the abbey, and, by the munificence of the late Dr. Robert Smith, master of Trinity college, the antichapel of that college contains an admirable full-length statue of sir Isaac, by Roubilliac. Medals also were struck to his memory, one by Croker of our mint; one by Dassier of Geneva; and another by Roettiers in France. The only portrait for which he ever sat was by Kneller, and is, if we mistake not, in the collection of the duke of Rutland.

The first life of this illustrious man which appeared was drawn up by Fontenelle, from materials furnished by sir Isaac’s nephew, and published in the memoirs of the French Academy. Why none of his countrymen executed such an undertaking we shall not inquire. This, however, is the life from which all succeeding biographers have extracted their materials, and it formed the ground-work of the long, but somewhat confused account, that has hitherto appeared in this dictionary. But, like almost all the eloges, published in the memoirs of the French Academy, it seems better calculated to display the abilities, and answer the private views of FonteneUe, than to convey accurate information. Mr. Edmund Tumor has lately favoured the world with the original life of Newton, drawn tip by Mr. Conduitt, for the information of FonteneUe, and with a most interesting letter of Dr. Stukely on the same subject, from the Mss. in the possession of the earl of Portsmouth. But although Mr. Tumor’s “Collections for the Town and Soke of Grantham,” the work to which we allude, was published in 1806, Dr. Thomson was the first who availed himself of it, to enrich his valuable “History of the Royal Society.” In the preceding account, therefore, we have generally followed Dr. Thomson, who has unquestionably the merit of giving the public the most accurate and elegant account of the personal history of sir Isaac, a man, said Dr. Johnson, who, had he flourished in ancient Greece, would have been worshipped as a divinity.

Any investigation of his mathematical discoveries, or a laboured analysis of his philosophy, called, by way of distinction, the Newtonian, would be out of place in a work of this kind, and to be satisfactory would exceed all bounds. Dr. Keill said that if all philosophy and mathematics were considered as consisting of ten parts, nine of them would be found entirely of his discovery and invention. “Does Mr. Newton eat, drink, or sleep, like other men?” said the marquis de l'Hospital, one of the greatest mathematicians of the age, to the English who visited him. “I represent him to myself as a celestial genius entirely disengaged from matter.” Of his philosophy, properly so called, the great principle is the power of gravity: this had been hinted at by Kepler, but the glory of bringing it to a physical demonstration was reserved for Newton. It was first made public in 1686, but republished in 1713, with considerable improvements. Several other authors have since attempted to make it plainer, by setting aside many of the more sublime mathematical researches, and substituting either more obvious reasoning, or experiments, in lieu of them; particularly Whiston, in his “Prælect. Phys. Mathemat.;” S'Gravesande, in “Element, et Instit.” Dr. Pemberton, in his “View” and Maclaurin, in his excellent work, entitled “An Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” Notwithstanding the great merit of this philosophy, and the universal reception it has met with at home, it gained ground at its first publication but slowly abroad, and Cartesianism, Huygenianism, and Leibnitzianism, maintained their ground, till the force of truth prevailed. It is now, bowever, held in the utmost veneration both at home and abroad. The philosophy itself is laid down principally in the third book of the Principia. The two preceding books are taken up in preparing the way for it, and laying down such principles of mathematics as have the nearest relation to philosophy: such are the laws and conditions of powers. And these, to render them less dry and geometrical, the author illustrates by scholia in philosophy, relating chiefly to the density and resistance of bodies, the motion of iight and sounds, a vacuum, &c. In the third book he proceeds to the philosophy itself; and from the same principles deduces the structure of the universe, and the powers of gravity, by which bodies tend towards the sun and planets; and from these powers, the motion of planets, and comets, the theory of the moon, and the tides. This book, which he calls “De Mundi Systemate,” he tells us was first written in the popular way; but considering, that such as are unacquainted with the said principles would not conceive the force of the consequences, nor be induced to lay aside their ancient prejudices, he afterwards digested the sum of that book into propositions, in the mathematical manner; so as it might only come to be read by such as had first considered the principles; not that it is necessary a man should master them all; many of them, even the firstrate mathematicians, would find a difficulty in getting over. It is enough to have read the definitions, laws of motion, and the three first sections of the first book: after which the author himself directs us to pass on to the book “De Systemate Mundi.”

Dissatisfied with the hypothetical grounds on which former philosophers, particularly Des Cartes, had raised the structure of natural philosophy, Newton adopted the manner of philosophising introduced by lord Bacon, and determined to raise a system of natural philosophy on the basis of experiment. He laid it down as a fundamental rule, that nothing is to be assumed as a principle, which is not established by observation and experience, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted into physics, except as a question, the truth of which is to be examined by its agreement with appearances. “Whatever,” says he, “is not deduced from phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis: and hypotheses, whether physical or metaphysical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” In this philosophy, propositions are drawn from phenomena, and are ' rendered general by induction. This plan of philosophising he pursued in two different methods, the Analytic and the 8301thetic; collecting from certain phenomena the forces of nature, and the more simple laws of these forces; and then proceeding, on the foundation of these, to establish the rest. In explaining, for example, the system of the world, he first proves, from experience, that the power of gravitation belongs to all bodies then, assuming this as an established principle, he demonstrates, by mathematical reasoning, that the earth and sun, and all the planets, mutually attract each other, and that the smallest parts of matter in each have their several attractive forces, which are as their quantities of matter, and which, at different distances, are inversely as the squares of their distances. In investigating the theorems of the “Principia,” Newton made use of his own analytical method of fluxions; but, in explaining his system, he has 'followed the synthetic method of the ancients, and demonstrated the theorems geometrically. The following, we presume, is a correct list of the works of Newton, published before or after his death. 1. Several papers relating to his “Telescope,” and his “Theory of Light and Colours,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, numbers 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85., 83, 96, 97, 110, 121, 123, 128; or vols. Vj, VII, VIII, IX, X, XL 2. “Optics, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, and Inflections, and the Colours of Light,” 1704, 4to; a Latin translation by Dr. Clarke, 1706, 4 to.; and a French translation by Pet. Coste, Amst. 1729, 2 vols. 12mo; beside several English editions in 8vo. 3. “Optical Lectures,” 1728, 8vo; also in several Letters to Mr. Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society. 4. “Lectiones Opticse,” 1729, 4to. 5. “Naturalis Philosophise Principia Mathematica,” 1687, 4to; a second edition in 17 13, with a Preface, by Roger Cotes; the third edition in 1726, under the direction of Dr. Pemberton; an English translation, by Motte, 1729, 2 vols. 8vo, printed in several editions of his works, in different nations, particularly an edition, with a large Commentary, by the two learned Jesuits, Le Seur and Jacquier, in 4 vols. 4to, in 1739, 1740, and 1742. 6. “A System of the World,” translated from the Latin original, 1727, 8vo this was at first intended to make the third book of his Principia; an English translation by Motte, 1729, 8vo. 7. Several Letters to Mr. Flamsteed, Dr. Halley, and Mr. Oldenburg, 8. “A Paper concerning the Longitude,” drawn up by order of the House of Commons, ibid. 9. “Abrege de Chronologic,” &c. 1726, under the direction of the abbe Conti, together with some observations upon it. 10. “Remarks upon the Observations made upon a Chronological Index of Sir I. Newton,” &c. Philos. Trans, vol. XXXIII. See also the same, vol. XXXIV and XXXV, by Dr. Halley. 11. “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” &c. 1728, 4to. 12. “Arithmetica Universalis,” &c. under the inspection of Mr. Whiston, Cantab. 1707, 8vo. Printed, Dr. Hutton thinks, without the author’s consent, and even against his will: an offence which it seems was never forgiven. There are also English editions of the same, particularly one by Wilder, with a Commentary, in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo; and a Latin edition, with a Commentary, by Castilion, 2 vols. 4to, Amst. &c. 13. “Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones, et Differentias, cum Enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis,” 1711, 4to, under the inspection of W. Jones, eaq. f. ft. S.; the last tract had been published before, together with another on the Quadrature of Curves, by the method of fluxions, under the title of “Tractatus duo de Speciebus & Magnitudine Figurarum Curvilinearum,” subjoined to the first edition of his Optics in 1704; and other letters in the Appendix to Dr. Gregory’s Catoptrics, &c. 1735, 8vo; under this head may be ranked “Newtoni Genesis Curvarum per Umbras,” Leyden, 1740. 14. Several Letters relating to his Dispute with Leibnitz, upon his right to the invention of Fluxions printed in the “Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins & aliorum de Analyst Promota, jussu Societatis Regise editum,” 1712, 8vo. 15. Postscript and Letter of M. Leibnitz to the Abbe Conti, with Remarks, and a Letter of his own to that Abbe, 1717, 8vo. To which was added, Raphson’s History of Fluxions, as a Supplement. 16. “The Method of Fluxions, and Analysis by Infinite Series,” translated into English from the original Latin; to which is added, a Perpetual Commentary, by the translator Mr. John Colson, 1736, 4to. 17. “Several Miscellaneous Pieces, and Letters,” as follow L A Letter to Mr. Boyle upon the subject of the Philosopher’s Stone. Inserted in the General Dictionary, under the article Boyle, II. A Letter to Mr. Aston, containing directions for his travel?, ibid, under our author’s article; III. An English translation of a Latin Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews* Inserted among the miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves, vol. IL published by Dr. Thomas Birch, in 1737, 2 vols. 8vo. This Dissertation was found subjoined to a work of sir Isaac’s, not finished, entitled “Lexicon Propheticum;” IV. Four Letters from sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity, 1756, 8vo, very acutely reviewed by Dr. Johnson in the Literary Magazine, and afterwards inserted in his works V. Two Letters to Mr. Clarke, &c. iSi “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” 1733, 4to. 19. “I*. Newtoni Elementa Perspective Universalis,” 1746, 8vo. 20. “Tables for purchasing College Leases,” 1742, 12mo. 21. “Corollaries,” by Whiston. 22. A collection of several pieces of our author’s, under the following title, “Newtoni Is. Opuscula Mathematica Philos. & Philol. collegit J. Castilioneus,” Laus. 1744, 4to, 8 tomes. 23. “Two Treatises of the Quadrature^ Curves, and Analysis by Equations of an Infinite Number of Terms, explained: translated by John Stewart, with a large Commentary,” 1745, 4to. 24. “Description of an Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance from the Fixed Stars at Sea,” Philos. Trans, vol. XLII. 25. Newton also published “Barrow’s Optical Lectures,” 1699, 4to; and “Bern. Varenii Geographia,” &c. 1681, 8vo. 26. The whole works of Newton, published by Dr. Horsley, 1779, 4to, in 5 volumes.

, 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.

The Mss. of Mr. Jones, published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1783, have furnished the following detached memoranda concerning him: " A very sensible, thoughtful, judicious, and a truly honest man. His writings shew his learning, judgment, and integrity; and his life exemplified every Christian virtue. He was my very good friend; and a promoter of my studies. I entirely loved and respected him living, and I shall always revere his memory now he is dead. Most orderly and exact in his family at Lavendon Grange (where I often visited him), as well as In his college. Discreet and punctual in every part of his conduct. Highly and justly esteemed by all the wise and good. He lamented the indolence and inactivity, and was grieved to observe the secular views and ambitious schemes, of some of the heads of colleges and halls; but he, for his own part, resolved to do his duty, as became a good governor, and a friend to useful discipline and learning. An example of temperance and decency in every part of his behaviour; and of great moderation also, in respect of the different sentiments of his fellow-protestants. He valued, and occasionally visited, and would converse, and sometimes dine with, Dr. Doddridge, when he came to Northampton. He saw that they both aimed at the same great and good end, in fitting up hopeful young students for the Christian ministry. He usually made excursions, in the long vacations, into various parts of the kingdom, most commonly taking with him, for company and improvement, one or more young gentlemen of fortune in his college, at the request, and with the approbation, of their parents. He was himself, in every respect, a gentleman, and a mail of refined good breeding. You might see this in every part of his conversation. At evening, upon such journeys, he would, a little before bed-time, desire his young pupils to indulge him in a short vacation of about half an hour, for his own private recollections. During that little interval they were silent, and he would smoke his pipe with great composure, and then chat with them again in am useful manner for a short space, and, bidding them a good night, go to his rest.

“He died at Lavendon Grange, extremely lamented by all the poor of that neighbourhood, to whom he was a kind benefactor, and by all his friends and acquaintance throughout the kingdom. Upon his death-bed, he ordered all his writings to be destroyed, as his worthy widow informed me; and she was a conscientious person. His friend, Dr t Hunt, advised her to be cautious, and to be sure she did not mistake his meaning, especially with regard to some articles. I also, to whom she paid a favourable regard, presumed to suggest the same caution. How far that good lady proceeded in the proposed destruction of the worthy doctor’s papers, I am not able to say; but do hitherto suppose she reduced them to ashes. Upon a vacancy of the public orator’s place at Oxford, Newton offered himself a candidate; but Digby Cotes, then fellow of All Souls-college, and afterwards principal of Magdalenhall, carried the point against him. Newton’s friends thought him to be by far the more qualified person for that eminent post; though orator Digby was also, I think, a man of worth as well as reputation. Newton survived him. Dr. Newton was well skilled in the modern foreign languages, as well as in the ancient ones of Greece and Rome. A well-polished gentleman, and, at the same time, a sincere Christian. He carried dignity in his aspect, but sweetened with great modesty, humility, and freedom of conversation. This I know, having carefully observed bim, and having always found him even and uniform, both in his temper and in his conduct. One thing comes novr into my mind. Being a guest for a night or two at his house at Lavendon, in the summer-1749, and in my way to Oxford and London, &c. I had much familiar and free discourse with him, and particularly upon the subject of a reasonable reform in some particulars relating to our ecclesiastical establishment a reform, to which he was a hearty welt- wisher. One evening, there being present his worthy vice-principal Mr. Saunders, and an ingenious young gentleman of fortune, a pupil of Saunders, the doctor was pleased to propose to us this question: What share are ifce to allow to Common Sense and Reason in matters of lieKgion? Those two gentlemen and myself being silent, he addressed himself particularly to me, who was, in pqiuT-qf age, superior to them both. I freely answered, that, in my poor opinion, the due exercise of common sense and reason^ and private judgment in all matters of religion, ought to be allowed to all Christians. He said, he was of the same mind. He read prayers in his family at Lavendon, morning and evening, being select parts of the public liturgy. On Wednesdays and Fridays the litany only. He appointed to his studious guests several separate apartments (being parlours) for private study, with pen, ink, and paper, for each, and the use of his library, which was near those apartments, &c. When Pelham was minister, that station corrupted the man, and made him like other ministers; for when he was asked why he did not place, in proper station, the able and meritorious Dr. Newton, he said, `How could I do it? he never asked me' forgetting his tutor. Mr. Pelham more than once employed Dr. Newton to furnish king’s speeches.” His foundation of Hertford-college, for which chiefly he is now remembered, was an unfortunate speculation, ft was preceded by some publications calculated to make known his opinions on academic education. The first of these, which appeared in 1720, was entitled “A Scheme of Discipline, with Statutes intended to be established by a royal charter for the education of youth in Hert-hall;” and in 1725, he drew up the statutes of Hertford -college, which he published in 1747. In 1726, or 1727, he published his “University Education,” which chiefly relates to the removal of students from one college to another, without the leave of their respective governors, or of the chancellor. This appears to have involved him in some unpleasant altercations with his brethren. His application, for a charter to take Hert-hall from under the jurisdiction of Exeter- college, and erect it into an independent college, occasioned a controversy between him and Dr. Conybeare, then rector of Exeter, and afterwards bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ church. In August 1740, however, he obtained the charter for raising Hert-hall into a perpetual college, for the usual studies; the society to consist of a principal, four senior fellows or tutors, eight junior fellows or assistants, eight probationary students, twenty-four actual students, and four scholars. He contributed an annuity of 55l. 6s. Sd. issuing out of his house at Lavendon, and other lands in that parish, to be an endowment for the four senior fellows at the rate of 13l. 6s. Sd. each yearly. He then purchased some houses in the neighbourhood of Hert-hall for its enlargement, and expended about 1500l. on building the chapel and part of an intended new quadrangle. Very few benefactors afterwards appeared to complete the establishment, which, by the aid of independent members subsisted for some years, but has of late gradually fallen off, and it is but within these few months that a successor could be found to the late principal Dr. Bernard Hodgson, who died in 1805. Dr. Newton’s radical error in drawing up the statutes, was his fixing the price of every thing at a maximum, and thus injudiciously overlooking the progress of the markets, as well as the state of society. He seems indeed to have been more intent on establishing a school upon rigid and ceconomical principles, than a college which, with equal advantages in point of education, should keep pace with the growing liberality and refinement of the age. Besides some single sermons, Dr. Newton published in answer to the learned Wharton on pluralities, a volume entitled “Pluralities indefensible,” 1744; and in 1752 issued “Proposals for printing by subscription 4000 copies of the Characters of Theophrastus, for the benefit of Hertford-college;” but this did not appear until a year after his death, when it was published by his successor Dr. William Sharp, in an 8vo volume. The produce to the college is said to have amounted to 1000l., which we much doubt, as the price was only six shillings each copy. In 1784, a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his grandson, S.Adams, LL. B. 8vo.

, a Latin poet, divine, schoolmaster, and physician of the sixteenth century, was the eldest son of Edward Newton, of Butley, near Presbury in Cheshire. He was educated at Macclesfield in the same county, under Brownswerd, a schoolmaster of considerable fame. Newton preserved so great a regard for him, as to erect a monument to his memory in Macclesfield church, lyith an inscription which concludes with these lines:

and commemorates him also in his “Encomia” in equally high terms. From this school Newton was first sent in his thirteenth year to Trinity-college, Oxford, but removed soon after to Queen’s college, Cambridge. In his return to his native country, he stopt at Oxford for a considerable time, and was re-admitted to Trinity-college, and took ordei-s. He was patronised by Robert earl of Essex, and, probably through his influence, was elected master of the grammar-school at Macclesfield. He likewise practised physic, and published some treatises on that subject. In 1583 he left Macclesfield, on being instituted to the rectory of Little Jlford in Essex, where he taught school, continued the practice of physic, and acquired considerable property. Here he died in 1607, and was buried in his church, to which he left a legacy for ornaments. At Cambridge he became eminent for Latin poetry, and was regarded by scholars as one of the best poets in that language, certainly one of the purest of that period.

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.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Lichfield Jan. 1, 1704, N. S. His father, John Newton, was a considerable brandy and cyder merchant, a man of much industry and integrity; his mother was the daughter of Mr. Rhodes, a clergyman, and died when this, ber only son, was about a year old. He received the first part of his education in the free-school of Lichfield, which, at that time flourished greatly under the direction of Mr. Hunter, and at all times has sent forth several persons of eminence, from bishop Smalridge to Dr. Johnson When he was of an age to be sent out into the world, his father married a second wife, the daughter of the rev. Mr. Trebeck of Worcester, and sister to Dr. Trebeck, the first rector of St. George’s, Hanover-square; and by the advice of Pr. Trebeck, and the encouragement of bishop Smalrulge, young Newton was removed from Lichfield to Westminster school in 1717. Here he was placed at the lower- end of the fourth form, and the year following became a king’s scholar, being admitted into the college by the nomination of bishop Smalridge.

Mr. Newton continued six years at Westminster-school, five of which he passed in college, having stayed one year to be captain. He always thought the mode of education in college, and the taste which prevailed there, as far superior to that of the school, as that of the school was to any country school. At the election in 1723, he went to Cambridge, knowing., as he candidly confesses, that the fellowships of Trinity-college were much more valuable than the studentships of Christ-church. He accordingly applied to Dr. Bentley to be by him elected first to Cambridge, with which Bentley complied, and Mr. Newton constantly resided there eight months at least in every year, till he had taken his bachelor of arts degree, which was in 1756. He took his degree of M. A. in 1730; and, soon after he was chosen fellow of Trinity, he came to settle in Condon. This appears to have been previous to his taking the lasUmentioned degree, as he was ordained deacon Pec. 21, 1729, and priest in the February following, by bishop Gibson.

His first appearance as a preacher was in St. George’s, Hanover-square, where he officiated for a short time as curate, and afterwards as assistant preacher to Dr. Trebeck, whose ill-health disabled him from performing his duty. His first regular employment was that of reader and afternoon preacher at Grosvenor-chapel in SouthAudley-street. By this appointment, be became well known in the parish, and was soon taken into lord Carpenter’s family to be tutor to his son, afterwards created earl of Tyrconnel. Of this family he speaks with much gratitude, as a situation in which he lived very much at his ease “with not so much as an unkind word, or even a cool look ever intervening;” and, he tells us, that living at no kind of expense, he was tempted to gratify and indulge his taste in the purchase of books, prints, and pictures, and made the beginnings of a collection which was continually receiving considerable additions and improvements. Here he remained, however, for some time, without any promotion; but in 1738, Dr. Pearce, afterwards fcishop of Rochester, but then vicar of St. Martin’s, with svhom he had no acquaintance, sent to him requesting he would preach on a certain day at the chapel in Spring-garden, and immediately after offered to appoint him morning preacher at this chapel. This he gladly accepted, and it became the means of a useful and valuable connection with Dr. Pearce.

About this time he was induced by Mrs. Anne Deanes Devenish, an acquaintance whose friendship proved afterwards of great importance to him, to superintend an edition of Mr. Jlowe’s works, who had been her first husband. This edition was executed at the request of the Prince of Wales, who was very partial to that poet, and who honoured Mrs. Devenish with his friendship; and it was the means of JMr. Newton’s being made known to his royal highness. Nor was this the only obligation he owed to the good services of Mrs. Devenish, as she first introduced him ito the acquaintance of Mr. Pulteney, who, when lord Bath, appointed him his chaplain. Mr. Newton, in his life, gives a curious detail of that famous political revolution which occasionedthe resignation of sir Robert Walpole. This he appears to have written at the time, and it is no small proof of the authenticity of the facts, that Mr. Coxe, in his excellent Life of sir R. Walpole, seems disposed to admit it. It is indeed written with every internal mark of candour and honesty.

In the spring of 1744, Mr. Newton, through the interest of his patron, the earl of Bath, was preferred to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, “so that,” as he observes, “he was forty years old before he obtained any living.” Upon this preferment, he quitted the chapel in Spring-garden. His fellowship also became vacant, and at the commencement in 1745 he took his degree of doctor in divinity. The rebellion in Scotland breaking out soon sifter, he was in all his sermons and discourses so strenuous in the cause of his king and country, that he received some threatening letters, which lord Bath advised him to lay before the secretary of state. One or two of his sermons upon this occasion he published by desire, as well as that which was preached on the 18th December, in the same year, before the House of Commons. In the beginning of the following spring, 1746, he was honoured with additional proofs of the friendship and confidence of the earl of Bath, being intrusted by his lordship with the relation of some secret transactions at court, of which an account may be seen in his life. The king requested that lord Bath would avenge his cause on his servants who had deserted him, by writing a full account of the whole transaction, which he appears to have shown to his chaplain. His majesty also desired it might be printed, at a convenient season; but it perished among the other papers which lord Bath burnt after his son’s death. In the spring 1747, Dr. Newton was chosen lecturer of St. George’s, Hanover- square, in the room of Dr. Savage, deceased. In the month of August following he married his first wife, Jane, the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Trebeck; with this lady he lived very happily near seven years. As they had no children, they boarded in the parsonage-house with Dr. Trebeck; Dr. Newton had the best apartment for his pictures, and by the good management of Mrs. Trebeck was freed from the care and trouble of house-keeping, to which he seems to have always had an aversion.

In 1749 he published his edition of “Milton’s Paradise Lost,” which was so favourably received by the public as to go through, in his life-time, eight editions. The title of this work was, “Paradise Lost, a Poem, in twelve books. The author, John Milton: a new edition, with notes of various authors. By Thomas Newton, D. D.” 1749, 2 vols. 4to. The type of the text is remarkably large, and the whole printed with much elegance. It is dedicated to the earl of Bath, who, the editor states, was entitled to this mark of respect, as it was undertaken chiefly at his de sire, and in some measure carried on at his expence,“his lordship having contributed the engravings. The whole dedication is in a style of respect evidently dictated by gratitudes;t cannot be accused of direct flattery, or at least it is a flattery which we could wish there were oftener cause to imitate. His lordship is complimented” on his open profession of the truth of the Christian revelation; his regard for our established church, and regular attendance upon public worship.“Dr. Newton’s design in this edition was to publish the” Paradise Lost,“as the work of a classic author, cum notis variorum, and his first care was to print the text correctly, according to Milton’s own 'editions, that is, the two printed in his life-time. In his preface, he criticises with freedom, and generally, in our opinion, with justice, Milton’s annotators and editors, Patrick Hume, Dr. Bentley, Dr. Pearce, who, with the earl of Bath, first engaged him in this undertaking, and gave him much assistance; Richardson the painter, Warburton, and some anonymous commentators. He was assisted, of living authors, by Dr. Heylin, Dr. Jortin, Dr. Warburton, a copy of Bentley’s edition with Pope’s ms notes, Mr. Richardson, jun. Mr. Thyer of Manchester, and some others. The notes are of various kinds, critical and explanatory; some to correct the errors of former editions, to discuss the various readings, and to establish the genuine text; some to illustrate the sense and meaning, to point out the beauties and defects of sentiment and character, and to commend or censure the conduct of the poem; some to remark the peculiarities of style and language, to clear the syntax, and to explain the uncommon words, or common words used in an uncommon signification; some to consider and examine the numbers, an-d to display the versification, the variety of the pauses, and the adaptness of the sound to the sense; and some to show his imitations and allusions to other authors, sacred or profane, ancient or modern. The preface is followed by a life of Milton, compiled from the best authorities, and with a defence of Milton’s religious and political principles, as far as in Dr. Newton’s opinion they are capable of being defended. This is followed by Addison’s excellent papers on the” Paradise Lost,“taken from the Spectator, and a jnost copious list of nearly a thousand subscribers. The plates were designed by Hayman, and engraved by Grignion, &c. and have very considerable merit. What perhaps distinguishes this edition from all others, is an elaborate verbal index, which was compiled by the indefatigable Mr. Alexander Cruden, author of the Concorto the Bible, Sometime after, Dr. Newton was prevailed upon to publish the” Paradise Regained, and Milton’s smaller poems“upon the same plan, which accordingly appeared in one volume 4to, 1752, but this is not accompanied by a verbal index.” These things,“he says,” detained him too long from other more material studies, though he had the good fortune to gain more by them than Milton did by all his works together." He gained 735l. Among other advantages, he estimates very highly, their having procured him the friendship and intimacy of two such men as bishop Warburton and Dr. Jortin.

In June 1754, he lost his father at the age of eightythree, by a gradual, gentle decline; and within a few days Jiis wife, at the age of fifty-eight, by a sudden and violent inflammation of the bowels. These trials together almost overwhelmed him with affliction. But at this time, he says, he was engaged in writing his “Dissertations on the Prophecies;” and “happy it was for him, for in any affliction he never found a better or more effectual remedy than plunging deep into study, and fixing his thoughts as intensely as he possibly could upon other subjects.” The first volume of “Dissertations on the Prophecies, which have remarkably been fulfilled, and are at this time fulfilling in the world,” 8vo, was published in the winter of 1754. This is the most interesting, and by far the most popular of all his works, and that, indeed, by which principally his name will be handed down to posterity. In the publication, he had the advantage of having it perused and corrected by bishop Pearce, Dr. Warburton, and Mr. Jortin; and its success was very great. Six large editions were published in his life-time, and its popularity seems lately to have been revived, although many works have been published since on the same subject, with different views and conclusions. Soon after the appearance of these “Dissertations,” they were translated into the Danish and German languages. The second and third volumes were not published until 1758, and as an encouragement to the work he was in the interim appointed to preach the Boyle’s Lectures, which he adverts to in the commencement of the second volume.

In 1756 he was appointed one of the king’s chaplains, and permitted at the same time by her royal highness the princess of Wales to retain that rank in her service; and he held both stations during the rest of that reign and the beginning of the next. In the spring 1757 he was made prebendary of Westminster, and at the same time subalmoner, by the interest of Dr. Gilbert, archbishop of York, who held the office of lord almoner, and who likewise conferred on him the precentorship of the church of York, one of the most valuablepieces of preferment belonging to it. His account of his second marriage, and the reasons which Jed to it, we shall give in his own words, principally for the outline he has drawn of a clergyman’s wife, which we liope will suit many of our female readers.

“As long as Dr. Trebeck lived, Dr. Newton continued to board in the family, from his old principle of avoiding ^s much as possible the trouble of housekeeping: but upon the death of Dr. Trebeck, which happened in 1759, and upon the breaking up of the family, he was under the necessity of looking out for a house, and for the present took one ready furnished in Mount-street. This naturally engaged him to think seriously again of matrimony; for he found his time and attention much divided even by the cares of his little family; the study of sacred and classic authors ill agreed with accounts of butchers’ and bakers’ bills, and by daily experience he was convinced more and more that it was not good for man to live alone without an help meet for him. And especially when he had some prospect of a bishopric, fresh difficulties and troubles opened to his view^ there would be two houses at least to i be furnished, there would be a greater number of servants to be taken, there would be a better table and public days to be kept; and he plainly foresaw that he must either fall a prey to servants, or must look out for some clever sensible woman to be his wife, who had some knowledge and experience of the world; who was capable of superintending and directing his affairs; who was a prudent manager and ceconomist, and could lay out his money to the best advantage; who, though she brought no fortune, yet might save one, and be a fortune in herself; who could supply his table handsomely, yet not expensively, and do the honours of it in a becoming manner; who had no more taste and love of pleasure than a reasonable woman should have; who would be happier in staying with her husband at home than in perpetually gadding abroad; who would be careful and tender of his health, and in short be a friend and companion at all hours.”

Such qualities, it appears, he found in Elizabeth, daughter of John lord viscount Lisburne, who was at this time the widow of the rev. Mr. Hand. They were married Sept. 5, 1761, and on the 18th of the same month, he kissed his majesty’s hand on his promotion to the bishopric of Bristol, and the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. On this he resigned the prebend of Westminster, the precentorship of York, the lectureship of St. George’s, Hanover-square, and the office of sub-almoner, so that he was not upon the whole much a gainer by the exchange. In 1768, however, he was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s, and then resigned both the residentiaryship, and his living in the city, which latter he had held twenty-five years, and might still have held it, but, as he says, “he thought it not proper nor becoming his character and station to be so tenacious of pluralities.” His health now also began to decay, and he was frequently interrupted from the duties of his profession by violent fits of illness. For several of the last years of his life, his health would not permit him to attend the House of Lords: he never, indeed, was a constant attendant, unless debates of consequence were expected, and he never attempted to speak. Once, when strongly prompted by a desire to oppose the bill for the relief of the protestant dissenters, he committed his sentiments to the press, and caused a copy to be sent the day before the debate to every lord of parliament. It is in the appendix to his Life, along with a paper on the same subject which he printed in 1778. In 1780 also he published in the same manner, “A Letter to the new Parliament, with hints of some regulations which the Nation hopes and expects from them.” This he considered as the last duty that he should ever be able to pay to his country; nor did he long survive it. His faculties remained perfect to the last, but he suffered much by a complication of disorders and weaknesses, from which he was released on Feb. 14, 1782. He was interred in the vaults of St. Paul’s, immediately under the south aile, and it was the intention of his widow to erect a monument in the church to his memory; but on applying to the trustees of the fabric for their permission, she found that the introduction of monuments into the cathedral was not then agreeable to them. Bow church was then fixed upon, and a fine piece of monumental sculpture, by Banks, was accordingly erected in the chancel, near the south side of the communion table, with a prose inscription, and some lines in poetry by Mrs. Carter. 3 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1787, in 6 vols. 8vo, to which is prefixed “Some account of his life, and anecdotes of several of his friends, written by himself,” a narrative which well deserves to be printed separately, as containing much ecclesiastical and political information, and many striking traits of character. The contents of the volumes are: 1. “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” the only part of his works which has since been reprinted separately “Thirty: dissertations, chiefly on some parts of the Old Testament” “Nine occasional Sermons” “Five Charges” and “Sixty dissertations, chiefly on some parts of the New Testament.” These dissertations, although they can never obtain the popularity of his work on the prophecies, contain many ingenious and acute remarks, but in a few of them his opinions are not strictly in unison with those of the church, as he seems inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption, and in endeavouring to maintain this, perplexes himself, as others have done, on the awful subject of the decrees of God.

, a celebrated French antiquary ia the seventeenth century, was descended of a good family at Dijon, where his brother was proctor-general of the chamber of accounts, and born in 1623. Being inclined to the church, he became an ecclesiastic, and was made a canon in the holy chapel at Dijon but devoted himself wholly to the study and knowledge of antique monuments. Having laid a proper foundation of learning at home, he resigned his canonry, and went to Rome, where he resided many years; and, after his return to France, he held a correspondence with almost all the learned men in Europe. Perhaps there never was a man of letters, who had so frequent and extensive a commerce with the learned men of his time as the abbe Nicaise, nor with men of high rank. The cardinals Barbarigo and Noris, and pope Clement XL were among his regular correspondents. This learned intercourse took up a great part of his time, and hindered him from enriching the public with any large works; but the letters which he wrote himself, and those which he received from others, would make a valuable “Commercium Epistolicum.” The few pieces which he published are, a Latin dissertation “De Nummo Pantheo,” dedicated to Mr. Spanheim, and printed at Lyons in 1689. The same year he published an explication of an antique monument found at Guienne, in the diocese of Aach; but the piece which made the greatest noise was “Les Sirenes, ou discours sur leur forme et figure,” Paris, 1691, 4to; “A discourse upon the form and figure of the Syrens,” in which, following the opinion of Huet, bishop of Auvranches, he Undertook to prove, that they were, in reality, birds, and not fishes, or sea-monsters. He translated into French, from the Italian, a piece of Bellori, containing a description of the pictures in the Vatican, to which he added, “A Dissertation upon the Schools of Athens and Parnassus,” two of Raphael’s pictures. He wrote also a few letters in the literary journals, and a small tract upon the Ancient music; and died while he was labouring to present the public with the explanation of that antique inscription which begins “Mercurio et Minervæ Arneliæ, &c.” which was found in the village of Villy, where he died in Oct. 1701, aged 78.

, a celebrated grammarian, poet, and physician, flourished in the 160th olympiad, about 140 B. C. in the reign of Attains; or, according to some, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia. Suidas tells us, that he was the son of Xenophon of Colophon, a town in Ionia and observes, that, according to others, he was a native of Ætolia but, if we may believe Nicander himself, he was born in the neighbourhood of the temple of Apollo, at Claros, a little town in Ionia, near Colophon yet the name of his father was Damphæus. He was called an Ætolian, only because he lived many years in that country, and wrote a history of it. A great number of writings are ascribed to him, of which we have remaining only two: one entitled “Theriaca;” describing, in verse, the accidents which attend wounds made by venomoug beasts, with the proper remedies; the other, “Alexipharmaca” in which he treats of poisons and their antiuotes, or counter-poisons these are both excellent poems. Demetrius Phalereus, Theon, Plutarch, and Diphilus of Laodicea, wrote commentaries upon the first; and we have still extant very learned Greek “Scholia” upon both, the author of which is not known; though Vossius imagines they were made by Diphilus just mentioned. He wrote also “Ophiaca,” upon serpents; “Hyacinthia,' 1 a collection of remedies, and a commentary upon the” Prognostics of Hippocrates“in verse. The Scholiast of Nicander cites the two first of these, and Suidas mentions two others. Athenseus also cites, in several places, some poetical works of our author upon agriculture, called his” Georgics,“which were known likewise to Curio. Besides these he composed five books of” Metamorphoses,“some verses of which are copied by Tzetzes, and the” Metamorphoses“of Antonius Liberalis were apparently taken from those of Nicander. He composed also several historical works, among which” The History of Colophon,“his birth-place, is cited by Athenaeus we are told likewise of his history of Ætolia, Bœotia, and Thebes, and of” A History and description of Europe in general.“He was undoubtedly an author of merit, and deserves those eulogiums which are given of him in some epigrams in the” Anthologia.“This Nicander has been confounded with Nicander the grammarian of Thyatira, by Stephanus Byzantius: and Vossius, in giving the titles of the books written by both these Nicanders, does not distinguish them very clearly. Merian, in his essay on the influence of the sciences on poetry (in the Memoirs of the royal academy of Berlin for 1776), mentions Nicander to show the antipathy that there is between the language of poetry and the subjects which he treated. He considers Nicander as a therapeutic bard, who versified for the apothecaries, a grinder of anecdotes, who sung of scorpions, toads, and spiders. The” Theriaca“and” Alexipharmaca“are inserted in the Corp. Poet. Greec. Of separate editions, the best is that of Aldus, 1522; of the” Theriaca,“that of Bandini, 1764, 8yo, and of the” Alexipharmaca," that of Schneider, 1792, 8vo.

, a very eminent contributor to the restoration of literature, and founder of the library of St. Mark at Florence, was the son of Bartholomew Nicolas, a merchant of Florence, and was born in 1363. He was intended, and as some say, for a time engaged, in mercantile pursuits, but preferring the cultivation of the liberal arts, he placed himself, on the death of his father, under Marsigli, or Marsilius, a scholar of considerable fame. So ardent was his love of learning, that when he had attained a competent knowledge of the Latin language, he went to Padua, for the express purpose of transcribing the compositions of Petrarch. To this laborious task he was compelled, according to Tiraboschi, by the mediocrity of his fortune, which prevented his purchasing manuscripts of any great value. His fortune, however, such as it was, and his whole time, he devoted to the collection of manuscripts or making transcripts, and accumulated about eight hundred volumes of Greek, Roman, and oriental authors. What he copied, was executed with great accuracy, and he was one of the first who corrected the defects and arranged the text of the manuscripts which he had an opportunity of studying. His house was the constant resort of scholars and students, who had free access to his library, and to many of whom he was a liberal patron. Poggio Bracciolini valued him highly in this character, and on Niccoli’s death, Jan. 23, 1437, published a funeral oration, in which he celebrated his prudence, benevolence, fortitude, &c. He was not, however, without his faults, and had disgusted some eminent scholars of his time by his sarcastic wit and irritability of temper. By his will he directed that his library should be devoted to the use of the public, and appointed sixteen curators, among whom was Cosmo de Medici; but as he died in a state of insolvency, this legacy would have been lost, had not Cosmo offered to pay his debts on condition of obtaining a right to dispose of the books. This being agreed to, he deposjted them in the Dominican monastery of St. Mark at Florence. This collection was the foundation of another celebrated library in Florence, known by the name of the Bibliotheca Marciana, or library of St. Mark, which is yet open to the inspection of the learned, at the distance of three centuries. It does not appear that he was the author of any literary work, except a short treatise on the orthography of the Latin language, in which he attempted to settle various disputed points on this subject, by the authority of ancient inscriptions.

, a Greek historian, was born about the close of the thirteenth century, and flourished in the fourteenth, under the emperors Andronicus, John Palacologus, and John Cantacuzenus. He was a great favourite of the elder Andronicus, who made him librarian of the church of Constantinople, and sent him ambassador to the prince of Servia. He accompanied Andronicus in his misfortunes, and attended at his death; after which he repaired to the court of the younger Andronicus, where he appears to have been well received; and it is certain, that, by his influence over the Greeks, that church was prevailed on to reject any conference with the legates of pope John XXII. But, in the dispute which arose between Barlaam and Palamos, happening to take the part of the former, he maintained it so zealously in the council that was held at Constantinople in 1351, that he was cast into prison, and continued there till the return of John Palseologus, who released him; after which he held a disputation with Palamos, in the presence of that emperor. He compiled the Byzantine history in a barbarous style, and very inaccurately, from 1204, when Constantinople was taken by the French, to the death of Andronicus the younger, in 1341. Besides this work, he is the author of some others. His history, with a Latin translation by Jerome Wolf, was printed at Basil in 1562, and again at Geneva in 1615. We have also a new version of it, and a new edition more correct than any of the preceding, printed at the Louvre in 1702, by Boivin the younger, the French king’s librarian, 2 vols. fol. This edition contains, in the first volume, the thirty-eight books of Gregoras, which end with the year 1341; and in the second are the thirteen following, which contain a history of ten years. There are still fourteen remaining to be published; as also fourteen other pieces of Gregoras. Gregoras also wrote Scholia upon “Synesius de Insomniis,” published by Turnebus in 1553; the version of which, by John Pichon, is printed among the works of the same Synesius.

, a celebrated patriarch of Constantinople, of the ninth century, was distinguished for his zealous defence of the worship of images, against the emperor Leo the Armenian, who banished him in the year 815, to a monastery, where he died in the year 828, aged seventy. His works are, “An Abridgment of History,” from the death of the emperor Mauritius to Constantino Copronymus, printed at the Louvre, 1648, fol. It forms part of the Byzantine history, and has been translated into French by president Cousin. It is said to be accurate, but written in a dry and concise style. An “Abridgment of Chronography,” which is at the end of Syncellus; and several other works in Greek, which may be found in P. Labbe’s Councils, or the Library of the Fathers. Cardinal Baronius has inserted this patriarch’s “Confession of Faith” in torn. XI. of his Annals. He is supposed by Lardner and others, to have been the author of “The Stichometry,” a catalogue of the books of sacred scripture, which, ifof no other use, at least shews that the Jewish canon was generally esteemed sacred by Christians, and that the other books of the Old Testament, which are now deemed “Apocryphal,” were not of equal authority, though sometimes read in the churches, and quoted by Christian writers.

, the son of Callistus Xanthopulus, a learned monk of Constantinople, is placed by Wharton at 1333, but by Lardner in 1325. He wrote in Greek an “Ecclesiastical History,” in twenty-three books, eighteen of which are still extant, containing the transactions of the church from the birth of Christ to the death of the emperor Phocas in the year 610. We have nothing left besides the arguments of the five other books, from the commencement of the reign of the emperor Heraclius to the end of that of Leo the philosopher, who died in the year 911. He dedicated this history to the emperor Andronicus Palseologus the elder: it was translated into Latin, by John Langius, and has gone through several editions, the best of which is that of Paris, in 1630. There is only one manuscript of this history, which was said to be formerly in the library of Matthias, king of Hungary, and now in that of Vienna. Nicephorus was no more than thirty years of age when he compiled it, and it is said to abound in fables, and therefore has been treated with contempt by Beza, and by Gesner. Some other pieces are ascribed to our author. Labbe, in his preliminary discourse prefixed to the “Byzantine Historians,” has given a catalogue of the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople, composed by Nicephorus. His abridgment of the Bible in iambic verse was printed at Basil in 1536, and Dr. Hody has attributed to him a small piece which he published in Greek and Latin, during his controversy with Mr. Dodwell, under the title of “Anglicani Schismatis Redargutio.” His homilies on Mary Magdalen are also inserted in Bandini “Monumenta,” 1762, vol. III.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in 1613. Having finished his academical studies with the most promising success, he entered into the order of Minims, took the habit in 1632, and as usual, changed the name given him at his baptism for that of Francis, the name of his paternal uncle, who was also a Minim, or Franciscan. The inclination which he had for mathematics appeared early during his philosophical studies; and he devoted to this science all the time he could spare from his other employments, after he had completed his studies in theology. Ah the branches of the mathematics, however, did not equally engage his attention; he confined himself particularly to optics, and studied the rest only as they were subservient to his more favourite pursuit. He informs us in the preface to his “Thaumaturgus Opticus,” that he went twice to Rome; and that, on his return home, he was appointed teacher of theology. He was afterwards chosen to accompany father Francis de la Noue, vica^r-general of the order, in his visitation of the convents throughout all France. Amidst so many employments, it is wonderful that he found so much time to study, for his life was short, and must have been laborious. Being taken sick at Aix, in Provence, he died there, September 22, 1646, aged only thirty-three. He was an intimate acquaintance of Des Cartes, who had a high esteem for him, and presented him with his works. Niceron’s writings are, 1. “L'Interpretation des Chiffres, ou Regies pour bien entendre et expliquer facilement toutes sortes des Chiffres Simples,” &c. Paris, 1641, 8vo. This was only a translation oh the art of decyphering, written by Cospi in Italian, but is much improved by Niceron, who justly conceived it to be a work of utility. 2. “La Perspective curieuse, ou Magie artificielle des effets marveilleux de l'Optique, Catroptique, et Dioptrique,” intended as an introduction to his, 3. “Thaumaturgus Opticus: sive, Admiranda Optices, Catoptrices, et Dioptrices, Pars prima, &c.” 1646, fol. He intended to add two other parts, but was prevented by death.

, one of the most useful French biographers, was born at Paris, March 11, 1685. He was of an ancient and noble family, who were in very high repute about 1540. He studied with success in the Mazarine college at Paris, and afterwards at the college Du Plessis. He appears to have been of a serious turn of mind, and of great modesty, and from a dread of the snares to which he might be exposed in the world, de termined to quit it for a religious life. On this subject he consulted one of his uncles, who belonged to the order of Barnabite Jesuits. This uncle examined him; and, not diffident of his election, introduced him as a probationer to that society at Paris. He was received there in 1702, took the habit in 1703, and made his vows in 1704, at the age of nineteen. After he had professed himself, he was sent to Montargis, to study philosophy and theology, a course of both which he went through with credit, although he confesses that he never could relish the scholastic system then in vogue. His superiors then, satisfied with his proficiency and talents, sent him to Loches, in Touraine, to teach the classics and rhetoric. Here his devout behaviour and excellent conduct as a teacher, made him be thought worthy of the priesthood, which he received at Poitiers in 1708, and as he was not arrived at the age to assume this orders a dispensation, which his uncommon piety had merited, was obtained in his favour. The college of Montargis having recalled him, he was their professor of rhetoric during two years, and philosophy during four. In spite of all these avocations, he was humanely attentive to every call and work of charity, and to the instruction of his fellow-creatures, many of whom heard his excellent sermons, pure and unadorned in style, but valuable in matter, which he delivered not only from the pulpits of most of the churches within the province, but even from those of Paris. In 1716 his superiors invited him to that city, that he might have an opportunity of following, with the more convenience, those studies for which he always had expressed the greatest inclination. He not only understood the ancient, but almost all the modern languages; a circumstance of infinite advantage in the composition of those works which he has given to the public, and which he carried on with great assiduity to the time of his death, which happened after a short illness, July 8, 1738, at the age of fifty-three. His works are, 1. “Le Grand Fébrifuge; or, a dissertation to prove that common Water is the best remedy in Fevers, and even in the Plague; translated from the English of John Hancock, minister of St. Margaret’s, London, in 12mo.” This treatise made its appearance, amongst other pieces relating to this subject, in 1720; and was attended with a success which carried it through three editions; the last came out in 1730, in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled “A Treatise on common Water;” Paris, printed by Cavelier. 2. “The Voyages of John Ouvington to Surat, and divers parts of Asia and Africa; containing the History of the Revolution in the kingdom of Golconda, and some observations upon Silk- Worms,” Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “The Conversion of England to Christianity, compared with its pretended Reformtion;” a work translated from the English, and written by an English catholic, Paris, 1729, 8vo. 4. “The Natural History of the Earth, translated from the English of Mr. Woodward, by Mons. Nogues, doctor in physic with an answer to the objections of doctor Camerarius containing, also, several letters written on the same subject, and a methodical distribution of Fossils, translated from the English, by Niceron,” Paris, 1735, 4to. 5. “Memoirs of Men illustrious in the republic of letters, with a critical Account of their Works. Paris,” 12uio. The first volume of this great work appeared in 1727; the others were given to the public in succession, as far as the thirty-ninth, which appeared in 1738. The fortieth volume was published after the death of the author, in 1739. Since that event three others were added, but in these are many articles of which Niceron was not the author. It is not easy to answer all the objections which may be offered to a work of this kind. The author himself, in one of his prefaces, informs us that some of his contemporaries wished for a chronological order; some for the order of the alphabet; some for classing the authors according to the sciences or their professions, and some according to the countries in which they were born. As his work, however, appeared periodically, he thought himself justified in giving the lives without any particular order, according as he was able to procure materials. That the French critics should dwell upon the unavoidable mistakes in a work of this magnitude, is rather surprizing, for they have produced no such collection since, and indeed Niceron has been the foundation, as far as he goes, of all the subsequent accounts of the same authors. Chaufepie only treats him with respect while he occasionally points out any error in point of date or fact.

, a Greek historian, was born at Chone, or Colossus, a town in Phrygia. He flourished in the thirteenth century, and was employed in several considerable affairs at the court of the emperors of Constantinople. When that city was taken by the French in 1204, he withdrew, together with a young French captive, whom he afterwards married at Nice in Bithynia, and died there in 1206.

, deacon of the church of Constantinople, and contemporary with Theophylact in the eleventh century, and afterwards bishop of Heraclea, composed several “Funeral Orations upon the death of Gregory Nazianzen;” as also a “Commentary,” which is inserted in Latin among the works of that father. There is ascribed to him a “Catena upon the Book of Job,” compiled of passages taken from several of the fathers, which was printed by Junius at London, 1637, in folio. We have also, by the same author, several “Catenx upon the Psalms and Canticles,” printed at Basil in 1552. Ttiere is likewise a “Commentary upon the Poems of Gregory Nazianzen,” printed at Venice, under the name of Nicetas of Paphlagonia, which is apparently the same author.

pope, and the only pontiff of that name much deserving of notice, was originally named Thomas of Sarzana, and was born in 1398. He was the son of Barth. dei Parentucelli, a professor of arts and medicine in Pisa. His mother, Andreola, was a native of Sarzana, a small town on the borders of Tuscany, and the republic of Genoa, whence he derived his surname. In his seventh year his father died, and his mother marrying again, a man who had no affection for her offspring, his younger days were embittered by domestic neglect and harshness. He. obtained a friend, however, in cardinal Nicholas Albergati, who took him under his protection, and supplied him with whatever was necessary for pursuing his studies at the university of Bologna. At the age of twenty-four he enrolled himself in the priesthood, but continued to live in the family of his patron until the death of the latter, when his learning and virtues procured him another friend in the cardinal Gerard Andriani. By his means he was introduced to. the court of Eugenius IV. and employed in all the disputes between the Latins and Greeks at the councils ef Ferrara and Florence, for his admirable management of which he was rewarded in 1445 by the bishopric of Bologna. In 1446 he was promoted to the purple, and in March 1447 he was elevated to the papal throne, on which occasion he assumed the name of Nicholas V. The temporalties of the holy see being in a lamentable state of disorder, he had uncommon difficulties to struggle with, which, however, he encountered by a wise and temperate conduct. It was first his object to restore the finances, and to cultivate the arts of peace, which furnished him with the means of gratifying his passion for the encouragement of learning. Fostered by his patronage, the scholars of Italy no longer had reason to complain that they were doomed to obscurity and contempt. Nicholas invited to his court all those who were distinguished by their proficiency in ancient literature; and whilst he afforded them full scope for the exertion of their talents, he requited their labours by liberal remunerations. Poggio was one of those who experienced his kindest patronage.

In 1453 Nicholas received intelligence of the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II. which some historians mention as the greatest affliction that befel the pope; but Gibbon, speaking on the subject, says, “Some states were too weak, and others too remote; by some the danger was considered as imaginary, by others as inevitable: the western princes were involved in their endless and domestic quarrels; and the Roman pontiff was exasperated by the falsehood or obstinacy of the Greeks. Instead of employing in their favour the arms and treasures of Italy, Nicholas V, had foretold their approaching ruin, and his honour seemed engaged in the accomplishment of his prophecy. Perhaps he was softened by the last extremity of their distress, but his compassion was tardy: his efforts were faint and unavailing; and Constantinople had fallen before the squadrons of Genoa and Venice could sail from their harbours.” From this time he spent the remainder of his pontificate in endeavours to allay the civil wars and commotions which took place in Italy, to reconcile the Christian princes who were then at war with one another, and to unite them in one league against the enemies of the Christian church. But all his efforts being unsuccessful, the disappointment is said to have hastened his death, which happened March 24, 1455. “The fame of Nicholas V.” says Gibbon, who seems to have formed a just estimate, of the character of this pontiff, " has not been adequate to his merits. From a plebeian origin, he raised himself by his virtue and learning; the character of the man prevailed over the interest of the pope; and he sharpened those weapons which were soon pointed against the Roman church. He had been the friend of the most eminent scholars of the age; he became their patron; and ‘such was the humility of his manners, that the change was scarcely discernible either to them or to himself. If he pressed the acceptance of a liberal gift, it was not as the measure of desert, but as the proof of benevolence; and when modest merit declined his bounty, ’ accept it,‘ he would say, with a consciousness of his own worth, ’ you will not always have a Nicholas among you.‘ The influence of the holy see pervaded Christendom; and he exerted that influence in the search, not of benefices, but of books. From the ruins of the Byzantine libraries, from the’darkcst monasteries of Germany and Britain, he collected the dusty manuscripts of the writers of antiquity; and wherever the original could not be removed, a faithful copy was transcribed, and transmitted for use. The Vatican, the old repository for bulls and legends, for superstition and forgery, was daily replenished with more precious furniture; and such was the industry of Nicholas, that in a reign of eight years he formed a library of 5000 volumes. To his munificence the Latin world was indebted for the versions of Xenophon, Diodorus, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Appian; of Strabo’s Geography; of the Iliad; of the most valuable works of Plato and Aristotle; of Ptolemy and Theophrastus, and of the fathers of the Greek church.

, a celebrated Dominican, was born at Gironna, in Catalonia, about 1320. He was made inquisitor general by Innocent VI. about 1356, and afterwards chaplain to Gregory XL and judge of heretical causes. He died Jan. 4, 1399, leaving a precious monument of inquisitorial tyranny, entitled “Directorium Inquisitorium,” or the Inquisitor’s Directory, the best editions of which are those with corrections, particularly that “cum comment. Fran. Pegnse,” printed at Rome, 1587, fol. This book, says L'Avocat, contains the most pernicious and horrible maxims, according to which, not only private persons, but princes and kings, may be condemned secretly by the inquisition, without being permitted to speak in their own defence, and afterwards put to death by poison, or other means. It is astonishing, adds this liberal ecclesiastic, that a work which inculcates such dietestable principles should have been printed at Barcelona, afterwards at Rome, and at Venice. The commentary, he says, is as pernicious as the text. The French have an abridgment of the work, by the abbé Morellet, 1762, 12mo.

, a physician and anatomist of eminence, was born in London in 1699, where his father was a barrister. After receiving the rudiments of his education at a private school in the country, where his docility and sweetness of temper endeared him to his master and school- fellows, he was in a few years removed to Westminster, and thence to Oxford, where he was admitted a commoner of Exeter college, under the tuition of Mr. John Haviland, in 1714. He applied himself to the usual academical exercises with great assiduity, and took his degrees in arts at the accustomed periods, that of M. A. in 1721. He paid his greatest attention to natural philosophy, and after reading a few books on anatomy, engaged in dissections, which he pursued with so much reputation as to be chosen reader of anatomy in the university in 1726, about two years after taking his degree of B. M. In this office he used his utmost endeavours to introduce a zeal for this neglected study, and obtained a high and well merited reputation. His residence at Oxford, however, was only temporary; for at the close of his course he returned to London, where he bad determined to settle, after having made a short trial of practice in Cornwall, and a subsequent visit to the principal schools of France and Italy. At Paris, by conversing freely with the learned, he soon recommended himself to their notice and esteem. Winslow’s was the only good system of physiology at that time known in France, and Morgagni’s and Santorini’s, of Venice, in Italy. On his return to England he resumed his anatomical and physiological lectures in London, and they were frequented, not only by students from both the universities, but by many surgeons, apothecaries, and others. His reputation rapidly extended, and in 1728 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, to which he communicated several papers, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, especially some observations on the nature of aneurisms, in which he controverted the opinion of Dr. Freind; and a description of a singular disease, in which the pulmonary vein was coughed up. He also made observations on a treatise by Helvetius, on the lungs. In 1729, he received the degree of M. D at Oxford, and became a fellow of the college of physicians in. 1732. In 1734 he was appointed to read the Gulstonian lectures at the college, and chose the structure of the heart, and the circulation of the blood, for his subjects. At the request of the president, Dr. Nichols again read the Gulstonian lectures in 1736, choosing for his topics the urinary organs, and the nature and treatment of calculous diseases; and in 1739 he delivered the anniversary Harveian oration. In 1743 he married one of the daughters of the celebrated Dr. Mead, by whom he had a son and daughter, both living.

In 1745 Dr. Nichols left Oxford finally, and was succeeded in his professorship by Dr. Lawrence. In 1748 he was appointed lecturer on surgery to the college, and began his course with a learned and elegant dissertation on the “Anima Medica,” which was published as a separate work in 1750. While he was proceeding with his course, however, he received what he considered an insult from the college, who chose a junior fellow as an elect, on the death of Dr. Coningham, in preference to him, without any apparent reason; and he indignantly resigned his lectureship, never afterwards attending the meetings of the fellows, except when matters of the utmost importance were in agitation. In 1751 he took some revenge in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “The Petition of the unborn Babes to the Censors of the Royal College of Physicians in London,” in which Dr. Nesbitt, Dr. Maule, Dr. JBarrowby principally, and sir William Browne, yir Edward Hulse, and the Scots, were the objects of his satire.

On the death of sir Hans Sloane, in 1753, Dr. Nichols was appointed his successor as one of the king’s physicians an office which he held till the death of his majesty in 1760, when the most skilful were superseded to make way for one who, his biographer says, was not long before an army surgeon of the lowest order. On this occasion an offer of a pension was made to Dr. Nichols, which it was suggested he might have if he would ask for it, but he rejected it with disdain. In 1772 he published a second edition of his treatise “De Anima Medica,” to which was subjoined a dissertation “De Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Homine nato et non nato,” inscribed to his learned friend and coadjutor the late Dr. Lawrence.

Weary at length with his profession, and with a residence in London, and also wishing to superintend the education of his son at Oxford, he removed to that city, where he had spent some of the most agreeable years of his youth. But when the study of the law recalled his son (afterwards a member of parliament) to London, the doctor took a house at Epsom, where he passed the remainder of his life in a literary retirement, varying his recreations by an attention to the recent botanical researches of Linnæus, and by some agricultural inquiries. His constitution had never been robust; he was constantly subject to severe catarrhal affections, and an asthmatic cough, which, returning with great violence January 7, 1778, deprived the world of this valuable man, in the eightieth year of his age. In 1780 his friend Dr. Thomas Lawrence, wrote his life in elegant Latin, for distribution among his friends. He gives his character as very amiable.

, whom Mr. Headley considers as a poet of great elegance and imagination, and one of the ornaments of the reign of Elizabeth, was born in London, of genteel parents, in 1584. In 1602 he entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, whence, after a short time, he removed to Magdalen hall, and took the degree of B. A. in 1606. After remaining at the university some years, and being esteemed among the most ingenious men of his day, according to Wood, he quitted Oxford for London, where he “obtained an employment suitable to his faculty.” What this employment was, we are left to conjecture. The time of his death is also uncertain, but he appears to have been alive at least in 1616, and was then but young. The most material of his works are his additions to “The Mirror for Magistrates,” a book most popular in its time (see Higgins), containing a series of pieces by Sackville, Baldwyne, Ferrers, Churchyard, Phayer, Higgins, Drayton. It was ultimately completed, and its contents new arranged by Nichols, whose supplement to the edition of 1610 is entitled “A Winter Night’s Vision,” To this likewise is improperly subjoined “England’s Eliza; or the victorious and triumphant reigneof that virgin Empress, &c. Elizabeth, queen of England,” &c. His other writings are, “The Cuckow, a Poem,” London, 1607; “Monodia, or Waltham’s complaint upon the death of the most vertuous and noble lady, late deceased, the lady Honor Hay,” ibid. 1615; a play called “TheTwynnes Tragedye” is attributed to him in the Biog. Dram.; but we can, on better authority, add “London’s Artillery, briefly containing the noble practice of that worthie Society,” &c. &c. 1616, 4to; “The Three Sisters’ Tears, shed at the late solernne Funerals of the royal Henry, prince of Wales,” &c. 1613, 4to; and “The Furies, with Vertue’s encomium, &c. in two books of epigrammes, satirical and encomiastic,” 1614, 8vo. Ample specimens of his poetry are given in Headley’s “Beauties,” and the “Bibliographer.”

, an English divine of great learning and merit, was the son of John Nichols, of Donington, in Bucks, an eminent counsellor, and was born, in 1664. He was educated at St. Paul’s school, London, whence, in 1679, he went to Magdalen hall, Oxford. He removed afterwards to Wadham college, where he took the degree of B. A. Nov. 27, 1683; but being admitted probationer- fellow of Merton college in October 1684, he completed his degree of M. A. there on June 19, 1688. About that time he entered into holy orders, became chaplain to Ralph earl of Montague, and in September 1691, rector of Selsey, near Chichester, in Sussex. He was admitted B. D. July 2, 1692, and D. D. Nov. 29, 1695. After a life entirely devoted to piety and study, we find him, in the close of it, thus describing his situation, in a letter to Robert earl of Oxford:

"I was in hopes that her majesty would have bestowed the prebend of Westminster upon me, being the place where I live, and that I might be nearer to books, _to finish my work on the liturgy and articles, for which she was pleased to tell to me, with her own mouth, she would consider me. My good lord, I have taken more pains in this matter than any divine of our nation, whjch I hope may bespeak the favour of a church-of-England ministry. Therefore I most humbly beseech your lordship for your interest for the next prebend of that church (if this be disposed of) that shall be void; for if I had merited nothing, my circumstances want it. I am now forced on the drudgery of being the editor of Mr. Selden’s books, for a little money to buy other books to carry on my liturgical work. I have broken my constitution by the pains of making my collections myself throughout that large work, without the help of an amanuensis, which I am not in a condition to keep, though the disease of my stomach (being a continual cholic of late, attended by the rupture of a vein) might plead pity, and incline my superiors not to suffer me all my days to be a Gibeonite in the church without any regard or relief. Pray f my lord, represent my case to the queen; and I shall never be wanting to make my most ample acknowledgment for so great a favour. I could long since have made my way to preferment without taking all this pains, by a noisy cry for a party; but as this has been often the reproach, and once the ruin of our clergy, so I have always industriously avoided it, quietly doing what service I could to the church I was born in, and leaving the issue thereof to God’s Providence, and to the kind offices of some good man, who some time or other might befriend me in getting some little thing for me to make my circumstances easy, which is the occasion that your lordship has the trouble of this application, from,

That he deserved more attention, will appear from the following list of his useful publications. 1. “An Answer to an Heretical Book called `The naked Gospel,' which was condemned and ordered to be publicly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxon, Aug. 19, 1690, with some Reflections on Dr. Bury’s new edition of that book,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A short History of Socinianism,” printed with the answer before-mentioned; and dedicated to his patron the earl of Montague. 3, “A Practical Essay on the Contempt of the World,” 1694, 8vo, inscribed to “sir John Trevor, master of the rolls,” to whom the author acknowledges his obligations for “a considerable preferment, bestowed in a most obliging and generous manner.” 4. “The Advantages of a learned Education,” a sermon preached at a school-feast, 1698, 4to. 5. “The Duty of Inferiors towards their Superiors, in five practical discourses; shewing, I. The Duty of Subjects to their Princes. II. The Duty of Children to their Parents. III. The Duty of Servants to their Masters. IV. The Duty of Wives to their Husbands. V. The Duty of Parishioners and the Laity to their Pastors and Clergy. To which is prefixed a dissertation concerning the divine right of Princes,” 1701, 8vo. 6. “An Introduction to a Devout Life, by Francis Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva; translated and reformed from the Errors of the Romish edition. To which is prefixed, a Discourse of the Rise and Progress of the Spiritual Books in the Romish. Church,” 1701, 8vo. 7. “A Treatise of Consolation to Parents for the Death of theirChildren written upon the occasion of the Death of the Duke of Gloucester and addressed to the most illustrious Princess Anue of Denmark,” 1701, 8vo. 8. “God’s Blessing on Mineral Waters;” a Sermon preached at the chapel at Tunbridge Wells,“1702, 4to. 9.” A Conference with a Theist, in five parts; dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,“1703, 8vo; of which a third edition, with the addition of two Conferences, the one with a Machiavelian, the other with an Atheist, all carefully revised and prepared for the pres$ by the author, was published in 1723, 2 vols. 8vo. This was particularly designed, says Leland, by the learned and ingenious author, in opposition to the” Oracles of Reason,“published by Blount; and he has not left any material part of that work unanswered. 10.” A Practical Essayon the Contempt of the World; to which is prefixed, a Preface to the Deists and vicious Libertines of the Age,“1704, 2d edit. 8vo. 11.” The Religion of a Princes shewing that the Precepts of the Holy Scriptures are the best maxims of Government,“1704, 8vo, in opposition to Machiavel, Hobbes, c. and written when the queen gave up the tenths and first fruits to the inferior clergy. 12.” Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1707, 12mo. 13.” A Paraphrase on the Common Prayer, with Notes on the Sundays and Holidays,“1708, 8vo. 14.” Afflictions the lot of God’s children, a Sermon on the Death of Prince George,“1709, 8vo. 15.” A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments,“&c. 1710, folio. This volume has the royal licence prefixed, and a list of more than 900 subscribers. In his dedication to the queen, he notices, as what never happened before, that all the copies were bespoke or paid for before the day of publication. It still continues to be printed in 8vo. The late sir James Stonhouse, in a letter to the rev. Thomas Stedman, dated 1793, says of this work,” I would have you recommend it to every family in your parish as it will shew them the use of the common prayer and psalms, as read in our churches, and be a standard book from father to son.“16.” A Supplement to the Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,“1711, folio. In the preface to this supplement, Dr. Nichols mentions” a long fit of illness with which God had pleased to visit him, and a very unestablished state of health both before and after it.“This illness appears soon to have ended in his death. 17.” Historic Sacroe Libri VII. Ex Antonii Cocceii Sabellici Eneadibus concinnatum, in usum Scholarurn et Juventutis Christianae,“1711, 12mo. 18” A Commentary on the first fifteen, and part of the sixteenth Articles of the Church of England,“1712, fol. 39.” A Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; first written in Latin, for the use of foreigners, by William Nichols, D. D. and translated into English by himself,“1715, 12mo. Dr. Nichols was reckoned a very excellent scholar, and was known abroad as well as at home by the learned correspondence he kept with foreigners of eminence. A volume of such correspondence with JaUlonski, Osterwald, Wetstein, &c. was presented by his widow Catharine Nichols to the archbishop of Canterbury, Oct. 28,* 1712, to be deposited either in Lambeth or St. Martin’s library, and is now among the valuable Mss. at Lambeth, No. 676. He died in the end of April 1712, and was buried in St. Swithin’s church May 5. It may not be improper to distinguish this pious divine from his name-sake William Nichols, M. A. and rector of Stockport, in Cheshire, who was a student of Christ church, Oxford, and. published, 1.” De Literis jnventis Libri sex ad illustrissinuum Principem Thomam, Herbertum, Pembrokiae Comitem,“&c. 1711, 8vo. 2.” Oratio corarn venerabili Spcietate promovenda Religione Christiana habita Londini, Dec. 29, 171.&,“12mo; and, 3.” Περι Αρχων Libri Septem. Accedunt Liturgica," 1717, 12mo.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, and Dominican, was born in 1594, at Monza, a village in the diocese of Verdun, near Stenay. After taking a doctor’s degree in 1632, he taught theology in tl?e house of his order at Paris, for about twenty years. He was elected prior in 166 1, and died May 7, 1673, aged seventyeight. He was the editor of a good edition of the “Summary” of St. Thomas, with notes, and of all that doctor’s works, Lyons, 1660, 19 vols. fol. He also published five Dissertations on several points of ecclesiastical discipline, againstM.de Launoi, 12mo; “Judicium, seu censorium suffragium de propositions Antonii Arnaldi,” &c. 4to, which last he likewise published in French by the title of “Avis deliberatif,” &c. 4to. This relates to the much contested proposition of M. Arnauld, that “Grace failed in St. Peter,” and it was answered by M. Arnauld, Nicole, and de la Lane. He was the author of other works, in which are some singular opinions, but which are now of little consequence. He must, however, be distinguished from Philip Nicolai, a learned divine, who died in 1608, and from Melchior Nicolai, a celebrated professor of divinity at Tubingen, who died in 1659. Both these wrote commentaries and controversial treatises, noticed in “Freheri Theatrum,” and our other authorities.

, a native of Damascus, in Syria, who flourished in the time of Augustus, was a man of extensive learning, and an illustrious ornament of the Peripatetic school. Herod the Great made choice of him for his preceptor in philosophy; and when he sailed to Rome for the purpose of visiting the emperor, took him as his companion in the voyage. Afterwards that prince prosecuted historical learning under Nicolaus, who at his request undertook to write a Universal History, and being introduced by Herod to Augustus, he was admitted to his intimate friendship, and received from him many valuable tokens of regard. The integrity and generosity of his spirit, and the urbanity of his manners, obtained him universal respect. Nicolaus wrote several treatises on the philosophy of Aristotle; “A Dissertation on the manners of various Nations;” Memoirs of Augustus;“and his own” Life.“Of these some fragments are preserved by Valesius, and a complete edition was published in 1804, by J. C. Orellius, under the title” Nicolai Damasceni Historiarum excerpta et fragmenta qua; supersunt, Gr. Lat." 8vo.

, a very celebrated French mathematician, was born at Paris, December 23, 1683. His early attachment to the mathematics induced M. Montmortto take the charge of his education, and initiate him in the higher geometry. He first distinguished himself by detecting the fallacy of a pretended quadrature of the circle. A M. Mathulon was so confident that he had discovered this quadrature, as to deposit in the hands of a public notary at Lyons, the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid to any person who in the judgment of the academy of sciences, should demonstrate the falsity of his solution. M. Nicole having undertaken the task, the academy’s judgment was, that he had plainly proved that the rectilineal figure which Mathulon had given as equal to the circle, was not only unequal to it, but that it was even greater than the polygon of 32 sides circumscribed about the circle. It was the love of science, however, and not of money, which inspired Nicole on this occasion, for he presented the prize of 300O livres to the public hospital of Lyons. The academy named Nicole eleve-mechanician, March 12, 1707; adjunct in 1716, associate in 1718, and pensioner in 1724, which he continued till his death, which happened January 18, 1758, at seventy-five years of age.

, father of the celebrated Peter Nicole, was descended of a reputable family, and born at Chartres, in Get, 1600. He applied himself to the law, and made a good proficiency in it; so that he became an advocate in parliament, and judge official to the bishop of Chartres. As a pleader, however, he is said to have been more flowery than solid, and he injured his reputation by interspersing his pleadings with verses and scraps of romances, which his son took care afterwards to burn. It does not appear that he published much, unless part if not the whole of a French translation of Quintilian, printed at Paris, in 1642, and dedicated to Mr. Seof, bishop of Chartres. The abbé de Marolles says that he had several times received verses in Latin and French from our advocate, who died at Chartres in 1678.

, cousin-german of the preceding, was son of Nicolas Nicole, receiver of the town of Chartres, where he was born Sept. 4, 1611; and became one of the king’s council, and president in the elections of Chartres. He died Nov. 22, 1685. He was a good Greek, Latin, and Italian scholar, and had a talent for French poetry; which, however, he abused, the greatest part of his poems being grossly indelicate. Of these he published a collection at Paris, 1660, in 2 vols. 12mo, with a dedication to the king, under the title of “The Works of the President Nicole.” This collection appeared again after his death, enlarged with several new pieces, some of which are upon subjects of piety, in 1693, at Paris. They consist chiefly of translations of several works of “Ovid,” “Horace,” “Persius,” “Martial,” “Seneca the Tragedian,” “Claudian,” and others, “A Translation of an Elegy and Ode of Anacreon,” and of “A Poem upon the Loves of Adonis, by the cavalier Marin, &c.”

, a celebrated French divine, was born at Chartres, Oct. 6, 1625. He was the son of John Nicole above mentioned, who, discovering him to be a youth of promising talents, gave him his first instructions in grammar, and so grounded him in classical knowledge, that at the age of fourteen he was qualified to go to Paris, and commence a course of philosophy; and at its completion, in about two years, he took the degree of M. A. July 23, 1644. He afterwards studied divinity at the Sorbonne, in 1645 and 1646 and, during this course, learned Hebrew, improved himself farther in Greek, acquired a knowledge of Spanish and Italian. He also devoted part of his time to the instruction of the youth put under the care of messieurs de Port-royal. As soon as he had completed three years, the usual period, in the study of divinity,he proceeded bachelor in that faculty in 1649, on which occasion he maintained the theses called the Tentative, He afterwards prepared himself to proceed a licentiate;, but was diverted from it by the dispute which arose about the five famous propositions of Jansenius, added to his connections with Mr. Arnauld. By this means he was at more leisure to cultivate his acquaintance with gentlemen of the Port-royal, to which house he now retired, and assisted Mr. Arnauld in several pieces, which that celebrated divine published in his own defence. They both went to M. Varet’s house at Chatillon near Paris, in 1664, and there continued to write, inconcert. Nicole afterwards resided at several places, sometimes at Port-royal, sometimes at Paris, &c. He was solicited to take holy orders but, after an examination of three weeks, and consulting with M. Pavilion, bishop of Aleth, he remained only a tonsured priest. It has been asserted by some, that having failed to answer properly when examined for the subdeaconship, he considered his being refused admission to it, as a warning from heaven. He continued undisturbed at Paris till 1677, when a letter which he wrote, for the bishops of St. Pons and Arras, to pope Innocent XI. against the relaxations of the casuists, drew upon him a storm, that obliged him to withdraw. He went 6rst to Chartres, where his father was lately dead; and, having settled his temporal affairs, he repaired to Beauvais, and soon after took his leave of the kingdom, in 1679. He retired first to Brussels, then went to Liege, and, after that, risited Orval, and several other places. A letter, dated July 16, 1679, which he wrote to Harlai, archbishop of Paris, facilitated his return to France: and Robert, canon of the church of Paris, obtained leave of that archbishop, some time after, for Nicole to come back privately to Chartres. Accordingly he repaired immediately to that, city, under the name of M. Berci, and resumed his usual employments. The same friend afterwards solicited a permission for him to return to Paris, and having obtained it at length in 1683, he employed his time in the composition of various new works. In 1693, perceiving himself to be grown considerably infirm, he resigned a benefice, of a very moderate income, which her had at Beauvais; and after remaining for about two years more in a very languishing state, died of the second stroke of an apoplexy, Nov. 16, 1695, aged 70 years.

He lived all his life with great simplicity, loved retirement and quiet, and was very little versed in the manners of the world, in which, however, he acquired great fame for his excellence in metaphysics. His judgment was solid; and he was more than commonly learned. Yet he is said to have been so credulous, that he believed every thing he heard, however improbable, being unable to imagine that any one would deceive him. His conversation was agreeable, but not prompt; he was slow in producing reasons for what he advanced. This occasioned him to say of M. de Treville, a man of genius, and a fluent speaker, *' He is too hard for me in the chamber, but by the time I get to the stairs-foot, I have puzzled him." Nicole was also a man of such timidity, that he scarcely dared to stir from his house, for fear of unforeseen accidents, by which thousands, he said, had been killed or wounded.

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.

, commonly known by the name of Nicolini, a great singer, and still greater actor, arrived in England in 1708, which, says Dr. Burney, forms an era in the annals of our lyric theatre; as he was the first vocal performer of the highest class from Italy that trod our stage, and promoted a taste both for fine singing and fine acting. He was a native of Naples; his voice was at first a soprano, but afterwards descended into a full and rich contralto. The first operas in which we have met with his name in Italy were “Tullo Ostilio,” and “Xerse,” two dramas composed by John Bononcini for Home, in 1694. In 1697 and 1698 we find him the principal singer in the Neapolitan operas; and in 1699 and 1700 again at Rome. From this period till his arrival in England, he sung at Venice, Milan, and other cities of Italy, where the musical drama was established. When he arrived in England, where geniuses of this description are always more fondly caressed than any where else, the opera prices were raised to 15s. for the boxes on the stage, half a guinea the pit and other boxes, and first gallery five shillings. Nicolini indeed appeared a phenomenon worthy of occupying the attention of the whole nation; not only sir Richard Steele celebrated the majesty of his appearance on the stage in the “Tatler;” but Mr. Addison, who on other occasions so justly ridiculed the absurdities of the Italian opera, celebrated the abilities of Nicolini as an actor in the Spectator, No. 13. In 1712 he went abroad, but returned to England, and in the year 1715 we find him performing in Handel’s opera of “Rinaldo,” and receiving his accustomed applause. According to the ideas which tradition gives us of the abilities of this performer, his part in “Rinaldo” must have drawn out all his powers both as a singer and actor. He continued here till 1717, when he returned to Italy for the last time; but continued in favour there as aa actor, after his vocal powers were faded, and a new style of singing was established for in 1723 we still find him at Rome with the Tesi, in Leo’s “Timocrate.”

, a learned English prelate and antiquary, was both by the father and mother’s side of Cumberland extraction. His grandfather was Joseph Nicolson, of Averas Holme in that county, who married Radigunda- Scott, heiress to an estate at Park Broom, in the parish of Stanvvix which estate descended to Catherine eldest surviving daughter of our prelate. His father, who married Mary daughter of John Brisco of Grofton, esq. was a clergyman, of Queen’s college, Oxford; and rector of Orton near Carlisle. He was born at Orton in 1655, and in 1670 was entered of Queen’s college, under the tuition of Dr. Thos. Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, and took his degree of B. A. in 1676. While here he became known to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, the great benefactor to Queen’s college, and the patron of many of its scholars, who in 1678 sent him to Leipsic to learn the septentrional languages. While there he translated into Latin an essay of Mr. Hook’s, containing a proof of the motion of the earth from the sun’s parallax, which was printed at Leipsic by the professor who had recommended the task.

After a short tour into France, he returned to college, and completed his degree of M. A. July 23, 1679, and in the. same year was elected and admitted fellow of Queen’s college. He received deacon’s orders in December. In 1680, he furnished an account of the kingdoms of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, for the first volume of Pitt’s English Atlas, and he compiled also the principal part, if 'not the whole, of the second and third volumes. In February of the same year, he was sent by the vicechancellor to wait on George Lewis., prince of Brunswick, afterwards George I. who was then at Tetsworth, in his way to the university, where next day his highness was complimented with the degree of LL. D. In Sept. 1681, Mr. Nicolson was ordained priest, and was in that year collated by bishop Rainbow to a vacant prebend in the cathedral church of Carlisle, and also to the vicarage of Torpenhow, and in the year following to the archdeaconry of Carlisle, vacant by the resignation of Mr. Thomas Musgrave. His attachment to the study of antiquities began to appear early, and although we cannot minutely trace the progress of his studies at Oxford, it is evident from his correspondence, that in addition to the ordinary pursuits of classical, philosophical, and theological information, he had accumulated a great stock of various learning. He had, among other branches, studied botany with much attention, and had paid particular attention to the natural history of the earth, the effects of the deluge, the authority of the scripture account of that event, and other subjects connected with it, which at that time were agitated by Dr. Woodward and his contemporaries. He made also great proficiency in ancient northern literature; and in matters of antiquarian research, had a great portion of that enthusiasm, without which no man can form an accomplished or successful antiquary. In one place we find him, speaking of a journey to Scotland, where “he met with a most ravishing Runic monument;” and it indeed appears that he spared neither labour or expence in investigating the remains of antiquity wherever they could be found. In 1685 he wrote a letter to Mr. Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford, concerning a Runic inscription at Bewcastle in Cumberland, which is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 178, and in Hutch inson’s Hist. of Cumberland, with the opinions of subsequent antiquaries. He likewise sent a letter to sir William Dugdale, printed in the same number of the Transactions, concerning a Runic inscription on the font in the church of Bride-kirk. Dr. Hickes, in the preface to his “Thesaurus,” acknowledges the able, polite, and prompt aid he received from Mr. Nicolson in preparing that great work. In 1696 he published the first part of his “English Historical Library,” a work intended to point out the sources whence all information respecting English history and aniiqu ties,- whether printed or in manuscript, was to be derived. The whole, in three parrs, was completed in 1699, and was followed by a similar “Library” for Scotland, in 1702; and for Ireland in 1724. These were published together in folio, and more recently in what, if not the best, is the most convenient edition, in 1776, 4-to, by T. Evans. Of the controversy which arose from this work, some notice will be taken hereafter.

In 1702, on the eve of Ascension day, our author was elected bishop of Carlisle, confirmed June 3, and consecrated June 14, at Lambeth. This promotion he owed to the interest of the house of Edenhall. On Sept. 15, 1704, the celebrated Dr. Atterbury, who had reflected with much harshness on some parts of the “Historical Library,” waited upon bishop Nicolson at Rose, for institution to the deanery of Carlisle; but the letters patent being directed to the chapter, and not to the bishop, and the date thereof being July 15, though the late dean (Grahme,) did not resign till the 5th of August, and some dispute also arising about the regal supremacy, institution was then refused. The bishop, however, declared at the same time that the affair should be laid forthwith before the queen; and that, if her majesty should, notwithstanding these objections, be pleased to repeat her commands for giving Dr. Atterbury possession of the deanery, institution should be given, which was accordingly done in consequence of her intimation to the bishop through the secretary of state. This preferment, however, was followed by many unpleasant consequences, as we shall have occasion to notice, a^ter enumerating the remaining productions of our learned prelate.

In November 1705, bishop Nicolson was elected F.R.& and published his “Leges Marchiarum, or Border Laws; with a preface, and an appendix of Charters and Records relating thereto,” Lond. 8vo, reprinted in 1747. In 1713 he wrote an essay, or discourse, to be affixed to Mr. Chamberlayne’s collection of the Lord’s prayer in one hundred different languages. Dr. Hickes bestows the highest praises on this essay: “I know not,” says he, “which is most to be admired in it, the vast variety of reading, or the putting all his observations together in so short, clear, and easy a discourse, which mightily confirms the history of Moses, and refutes the vain cavils which atheists, and deists, and latitudinarians are wont to make against the truth of it.” In 1718 he wrote a preface to the third edition of Dr. Wilkins’s “Leges Anglo-Saxonicae.” This appears to be the last of his literary performances, to the list of which may be added. seven occasional sermons, published in the course of his life.

In 1715, George I. appointed bishop Nicolson lord high almoner; an office which was resigned in his favour by his friend archbishop Wake. On March 17, 1718, he was nominated to the bishopric of Derry in Ireland, but was allowed to be continued bishop of Carlisle and lord almoner till after Easter. On Feb. 9, 1727, he was translated to the archbishopric of Cashel, but died suddenly, on the 14th of that' month, and was buried in the cathedral at Derry, without any monumental inscription. He married Elizabeth youngest daughter of John Archer, of Oxenholme near Kendal, esq. by whom he had eight children. One daughter, Catherine, was living unmarried in 1777, but this family is probably now extinct. He had a brother, who was master of the Apothecaries company, and died in 1723.

The archbishop left three ms volumes, fol. to the dean and chapter of Carlisle, consisting of copies and extracts from various books, Mss. registers, recorus, and charters, relating to the diocese of Carlisle, from which many articles in the “History of Cumberland,” by his nephew Joseph Nicolson, esq. and Dr. Richard Burn, were transcribed. There is also a large octavo ms. of his, containing miscellaneous accounts of the state of the churches, parsonage and vicarage houses, glebe lands, and other possessions, in the several parishes within the diocese, collected in his parochial visitation of the several churches in 1703, 1704, and 1707, which, in 1777, was in the possession of his nephew. Bagford, in his catalogue prefixed to Gibson’s edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” 1695, advertised, as ready for the press, but stiil remaining in the dean and chapter’s library at Carlisle, a description of the ancient kingdom of Northumberland, by bishop Nicolson. when archdeacon of Carlisle, consisting of eight parts; but although no man was more capable of executing such a work, we are assured by Mr. Wallis in the preface to his account of Northumberland, that all that can now be found in the Carlisle library is only a compendious ecclesiastical view of that diocese in a parochial method. The truth appears to have been, that instead of making a separate publication of his account of Northumberland, he made other uses of his collections, as in his “Leges Marchiarum,” where we find much information respecting the ancient state of Northumberland, but we are not permitted to doubt that a separate work was his original design. In 1692 he speaks of his having hopes that his “Essay on the Kingdom of Northumberland,” would be completed in a few months; and that Mr. Ray had promised (in the preface to his late collection of English words), that it should shortly be published. He informs us also that he was the author of the “Glossarium Northanhymbricum,” in Ray’s work.

The publication of the first part of his “Historical Library” involved him in the first literary controversy in which he was engaged. Two of his antagonists were Dr, Hugh Todd, and Dr. Simon Lowth, against whom he appears to have defended himself with much reputation, as they were both far beneath him in talents and learning. In Atterbury, who likewise attacked him, he had an antagonist more worthy of his powers; but even against him he was very successful, although not very temperate, in the long letter addressed to Dr. Kennett, which was originally a separate publication, and has since been prefixed with some alterations to the various editions of the “Historical Library.” This, however, perhaps laid the foundation for that degree of animosity which prevailed between our prelate and Dr. Atterbury. The latter, unfortunately for both parties, considering their hostile tempers, was made dean of Carlisle while Nicolson was bishop. In any other arrangement of preferments, their passions might have had leisure to cool, but they were now brought together, with no personal respect on either side, and the consequences were what might have been expected. Nicolson, it must be allowed, had some reason to complain, or some apology for his feelings concerning Atterbury: Atterbury had made an, attack on his “Historical Library,” in very contemptuous language; but what was worse, Atterbury appears to have been the cause of Nicolson 9 s being for some time refused a degree at his own university, when, on his promotion to the bishopric of Carlisle, he applied for that of D. D. For an explanation of this we must refer to the principles of the times, as well as of the men; and both perhaps will be sufficiently illustrated by the following paper which was sent to Mr. Nicolson (in answer to his request of having a doctor’s degree by diploma) by the vice-chancellor, Dr. Mander, “Whereas the members of the university of Oxford, in a very full convocation held the (fifth) day of (March) 1701, did unanimously agree to confer the degree of Doctor of Divinity upon the reverend Mr. Francis Atterbury, as a testimony of the sense which they had of the signal service he had done the church, by his excellent book entitled The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, 7 &c. (See Atterbury, vol. III. p. 113, &c.) And whereas W. Nicolson, archdeacon of Carlisle, in a pamphlet, entitled ‘ A Letter to Dr. White Kennett, in defence of the English Historical Library against the unmannerly and slanderous objections of Mr. Francis Atterbury, preacher at the Rolls,’ &c. and printed in 1702, doth, in and through the said pamphlet, term the said doctor Mr. Atterbury only, in a seeming contempt of the honour done him by the said university: And whereas the said archdeacon (in the thirty-fourth page of the said pamphlet) hath these words: viz.” I need not, Sir, acquaint you what a toil and expence the very collecting of those materials hath brought upon me; nor how much trouble I have had in the composure. And it is but a discouraging prospect (after all) to see so many men of gravity and good learning, to whom I thought my labours might have been chiefly useful, caressing an empty misrepresenter of our antiquities, histories, and records; and patronizing an ambitious wretch in his insolent attempts against our ancient and apostolical church-government; which words are conceived to contain a severe and undecent reflection upon the proceedings of the university; it is humbly proposed to Mr. Vice-chancellor, by several members of your venerable convocation, whether it can be consistent with the honour of the university to bestow any mark of favour upon the said archdeacon, before he shall have made suitable satisfaction for so high an indignity, and open an affront, as he hath hereby put upon her."

The vice-chancellor, who communicated this paper to bishop Nicolson, added that he would notwithstanding propose the degree, if “he would please to order him what to say in answer.” Nicolson, however, irritated at the superiority thus given to his antagonist, determined to send no answer. His own words on this occasion are: “Mr. Vice-chancellor not having acquainted me who the masters or members of the venerable convocation are, that presented this libellous memorial to him: the most civil treatment, which (as I thought, by advice of my friends) could be given to it, was, to take no manner of notice of its coming to my hand.” He accordingly applied to Cam-­bridge, where the degree in question was readily granted; and, what must have been yet more gratifying, he received the same honour from the university of Oxford, on July 25 following. The former refusal seems to have been that of a party, and not of the convocation at large. In one of his letters written at this time to Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, he enters upon a defence of his vindication of the “Historical Library,” and not unsuccessfully. The objection that he had called the doctor Mr. Atterbury was certainly trifling and unjust, for he was Mr. Atterbury when he wrote against Nicolson. He also alludes to the coarse treatment of himself in the above paper, where he is styled only William Nicolson, although at that time a bishop elect. But whatever may be thought of bishop Nicolson’s conduct, or that of these members of the convocation, it was not to be expected that when Atterbury was made dean of Carlisle, there could be much cordiality between them. Nicolson knew to whom he had been indebted for the affront he had received from the university; and Atterbury was equally out of humour with the bishop, in addition to his usual turbulence of disposition. In 1707, when the bishop found that Atterbury was continually raising fresh disputes with his chapter, he endeavoured to appease them once for all, by visiting the chapter in pursuance of the power given by the statutes of Henry VIII. at the foundation of the corporation of the dean and chapter. But Dr. Todd, already mentioned, one of the prebendaries, was instigated by Atterbury to protest against any such visitation, insisting upon the invalidity of Henry VIII's statutes and that the queen, and not the bishop, was the local visitor. Nicolson, conscious of his strength in a point which he had probably studied more deeply than any of the chapter, during the course of his visitation suspended and afterwards excommunicated Dr. Todd on which the latter moved the court of common pleas for a prohibition, and obtained it unless cause shown. In the mean time such proceedings alarmed the whole bench of bishops; and the archbishop of Canterbury, Tenison, wrote a circular letter on the subject to all his suffragans, considering the cause of the bishop of Carlisle as a common cause, and of great concern to the church, which, he added, “will never be quiet so long as that evil generation of men who make it their business to search into little flaws in ancient charters and statutes, and to unfix what laudable custom hath well fixed, meet with any success.” Soon afterwards a bill was carried into parliament, and passed into a law, which established the validity of the local statutes given by Henry VIII. to his new foundations. Bishop Nicolson published on this occasion, “Short Remarks on a paper of Reasons against thepassing of a bill for avoiding of doubts and questions touching the statutes of divers cathedrals and collegiate churches,” 4to, in one half sheetj without date. His triumph was now compleat, and a fevr years afterwards, when Atterbury was preferred to the deanry of Christ-church, his old friends of the university of Oxford had reason to change their sentiments of him.

In some accounts of bishop Nicolson it has been said that he was deeply engaged in the Bangorian controversy. In one sense this could not be true, for although his opinions were in opposition to those which produced that memorable controversy, we cannot find that he wrote any thing expressly on the subject. In another sense he may be said to have been too deeply concerned, for on the very commencement of the controversy, he became involved in a dispute with Dr. Kennett, which threatened to affect his veracity, and from which it certainly did not escape without some injury. We have already noticed that he addressed his letter in vindication of his “Historical Library” to Dr. Kennett, and it may be added that they had lived for many years in habits of mutual respect and friendship, which were now to be dissolved by violence. It is not necessary to enter into a long detail of this affair; referring, therefore, to Newton’s Life of bishop Kennett, we shall confine ourselves to the following simple statement of the fact. Bishop Nicolson had asserted that some words in Dr. Hoadly’s memorable sermon were not originally in it, but were inserted by the advice of a friend, and by way of caution; and upon being called upon to give up his authority, mentioned Dr. White Kennett, not only as his authority, but as the person who advised Hoadly to leave out the objectionable words. Dr. Kennett, in the most solemn and positive manner, denied, either that he had given Dr. Nicolson such information, or that he had ever seen Dr. Hoadly’s sermon before it was preached, or that it had ever been submitted to his correction. In rejoinder, Dr. Nicolson re-affirmed as before in the most decided manner. Many letters passed between the parties (in the newspapers) which our prelate published in 1717, under the title of “A Collection of Papers scattered lately about the town in the. Daily Courant, St. James’s Post, &c. with some remarks upon them in a letter to the bishop of Bangor,” 8vo; and after this he determined to take no farther notice of the matter. His antagonists came at length to the conclusion that he stood convicted at least of forgetfulness “in charging a fact upon the bishop of Bangor which was not true, and quoting a witness for it who knew nothing of the matter.” And this is certainly the conclusion which every one will wish to draw who respects his characv ter, or forms a judgment of it from his “Letters” lately published by Mr. Nichols, a collection to which we have been greatly indebted in drawing up our account, and rectifying the errors of his preceding biographers* Many of his sentiments are given without disguise in these letters, and prove him to have been a steady friend to the civil and ecclesiastical government of his country, and a man of liberality and candour. That he was not uniformly accurate in his historical researches has been oftenrepeated, but he appears to have been always ready to correct what errors were pointed out. In one letter, after defending some apparent mistakes noticed by his correspondent, he adds, “but nothing can be pleaded, except ignorance, in excuse for the rest.” It must still be admitted, what is equally evident from his correspondence, that his temper was somewhat irritable, and that, living in days of bitter controversy, he admitted in his disputes too much of that style which has in all ages been the reproach of literature.

, an eminent Russian prelate, was born in a village under the government of Nishnei Novogorod, in 1613. His parents were so obscure that neither their names nor stations are known. He was educated under the care of a monk in the convent of St. Macarius, and here he imbibed a strong and increasing prejudice in fa*­vour of the monastic life. In compliance, however, with the wishes of his family, he married, and was ordained a secular priest. The loss of his children by death disgusted him with the world, and he persuaded his wife to take the veil, whilst he became a monk. He retired into an island in the White Sea, and instituted a society in this solitude remarkable for its great austerities. He had not been in this place many years before he was made, after a series of ecclesiastical dignities, archbishop of Novogorod; and, finally, patriarch of Russia. He was not only eminent as a priest, but discovered the great and energetic talents of a statesman; and to them he fell a victim. In 1658 he was compelled to abdicate his dignity of patriarch, on which he returned to his cell, and lived over his former austerities; but his degradation did not satisfy the malice of his enemies, who procured his imprisonment. He obtained, after a number of years, his release, with permission to return to his favourite cell; but, whilst on the road to this spot, he expired in his 66th year, in 1681. Nicon did not spend his whole time in the performance of useless austerities, but occasionally employed himself in compiling a regular series of Russian annalists from Nestor, the earliest historian of that country, to the reign of Alexey Michaelovitch. This collection is sometimes called, from its author, “The Chronicle of Nicon,” and sometimes, from the place where it was begun and deposited, “The Chronicle of the Convent of Jerusalem.” It is considered as a work of authority.

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Nismes in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He came to Paris early in life, and acquired the esteem of the learned men of that time. He was also so favourably received at court, that in 1559 he was made master of requests in the lung’s household, and the same year was sent as ambassador to Portugal. Of the nature of his embassy, or his talents in executing its duties, we have no information; but he was the means while in that country of introducing the use of tobacco in Europe. Of this herb, then called Petun, he received some seeds from a Dutchman, who had them from Florida. It then became an object of cultivation or importation in France, and the name Nicotiana was given to it in honour of him. This, it has been observed by Dr. Johnson, is a proper compliment, for a plant is a monument of a more durable nature than a medal or an obelisk; and yet, he adds, “as a proof that even this is not always sufficient to transmit to futurity the name conjoined with them, the Nicotiana is now scarcely known by any other term than that of tobacco.”

After his return from Portugal, in 1561, Nicot retired from public, and devoted himself to literary employment. In 1567 he published an edition of the life of Aimon, a Benedictine of the abbey of Fleury, which Dupin has improperly attributed to Pichon. He also improved Aimar de Rangonnet’s French Dictionary, so as to render it almost a new work. It did not appear, however, until after his death, when it was entitled “Tresor de la langue Frangaise tant ancienne que moderne,” 1606, fol. and was reprinted at least four times. Nicot died at Paris May 5, 1600. He left several Mss. particularly a kind of history or dictionary of navigation.

, an eminent Dutch philosopher and mathematician, was born Aug. 10, 1654, at Westgraafdyk in North Holland, of which place his father vvas minister. He discovered a turn for learning in his first infancy, and his father designed him for the ministry; but when he found him averse from this study, he suffered him to gratify his own taste. He then applied himself to logic, and the art of reasoning justly; in which he grounded himself upon the principles of Des Cartes, with whose philosophy he was greatly delighted. Thence he proceeded to the mathematics, where he made a great proficiency; and added so much to his stock of various knowledge, that he was accounted a good philosopher, a great mathematician, a celebrated physician, and an able and just magistrate. Although naturally of a grave and serious disposition, yet his engaging manner in conversation made him be equally admired as a companion and friend, and frequently drew over to his opinion those who, at first, differed very widely from him. Thus accomplished, he acquired great esteem and credit in the council of the town of Purmerende, where he resided; as he did also in the states of that province, who respected him the more, as he never interfered in any cabals or factions. His disposition inclined him to cultivate the sciences, rather than to obtain the honours of the government and he therefore contented himself with being counsellor and burgomaster of the town, without wishing for more bustling preferments, which might interfere with his studies, and draw him too much out of his library. He died May 30, 1718, in the sixty-third year of his age. His works are, 1. “Considerationes circa Analyseos ad Quantitates infinite parvas applicator principia,” &c. Amst. 1694, 8vo. 2. “Analysis infinitorum seu curvilineorum Proprietates ex Polygpnorum natura deductse,” ibid. 1695, 4to. 3. “Considerationes secundoe circa differentialis Principia r & Responsio ad Yirum nobilissimum G. G. Leibnitium,” ibid. 1696, 8vo. This piece was attacked by John Bernoulli and James Hermant, celebrated geometricians at Basil. 4. “A Treatise upon a New Use of the Tables of Sines and Tangents.” 5. “Le veritable Usage de la Contemplation de TUnivers, pour la conviction des Athees & des Incredules,” in Dutch. This is his most esteemed work; and went through four editions in three or four years. It was translated into English by Mr. John Chamberlaine, and printed three or four times under the title of the “Religious Philosopher,” &c. 3 vols. 8vo. This was, until within these forty years, a very popular book in this country. We have also, by our author, one letter to Bothnia of Burmania, upon the 27th article of his meteors, and a refutation of Spinosa, 1720, 4to, in the Dutch language.

, professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Leyden, was born at Diemermeer, a village near Amsterdam, Nov. 5, 1764. His father, by trade a carpenter, having a great fondness for books, and being tolerably well versed in the mathematics, instructed his son himself till he attained his eleventh year, who appears to have exhibited very extraordinary proofs of genius long before that time. When only three years old, his mother put into his hand some prints, which had fifty verses at the bottom of them by way of explanation. These verses she read aloud, without any intention that her son should learn them, but was much surprized some time after to hear him repeat the whole from memory, with the utmost correctness, on being only shown the prints. Before he was seven years old he had read more than fifty different books, and in such a manner that he could frequently repeat passages from them both in prose and in verse. When about the age of eight, Mr. Aenese of Amsterdam, one of the greatest calculators of the age, asked him if he could tell the solid contents of a wooden statue of Mercury which stood upon a piece of clock-work. “Yes,” replied young Nieuwland, “provided you give me a bit of the same wood of which the statue was made for I will cut a cubic inch out of it, and then compare it with the statue.” Poems which (says his eulogist) display the utmost liveliness of imagination, and which he composed in his tenth year, while walking or amusing himself near his father’s house, were received with admiration, and inserted in different poetical collections. Such an uncommon genius must soon burst through those obstacles which confine it. Bernardus and Jeronirao de Bosch, two opulent gentlemen of Amsterdam, became young Nieuwland’s patrons, and he was taken into the house of the former in his eleventh year, and received daily instruction from the latter for the space of four years. While in this situation he made considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages, and studied philosophy and the mathematics under Wyttenbach. In 1733 he translated the two dissertations of his celebrated instructors Wyttenbach and de Bosch, on the opinions which the ancients entertained of the state of the soul after death, which had gained the prize of the Teylerian theological society. From September 1784 to 1785 he studied at Leyden, and afterwards applied with great diligence at Amsterdam to natural philosophy, and every branch of the mathematics, under the direction of professor Van Swinden. He had scarcely begun to turn his attention to chemistry, when he made himself master of Lavoisier’s theory, and could apply it to every phenomenon.

One of his great objects was to bring the pure mathematics nearer to perfection, and having turned his thoughts to the improvement of the methods of determining the latitude of a place at sea, he wrote, in 1789, a paper on the subject, and transmitted it to Lalande at Paris, who greatly approved of it, and after Major von Zach and Nieuwland had reconsidered the method, this paper was published by von Zach, with Nieuwland’s name, in the first supplement to Bode’s “Astronomical Almanack,” Berlin, 1793. This, however, was not the only service which Nieuwland endeavoured to render to astronomy. It had been observed by Newton, Euler, De la Place, and others, that the axes of the planets do not stand perpendicular, but inclined, to the plane of their orbits. Nieuwland attempted to account for this phenomenon, and his paper on the subject was printed, for the opinion of the learned, in the supplement to Bode’s “Almanack,” for the same year. His success in this, however, according to the biographer we follow, seems doubtful.

Nieuwland’s talents and diligence recommended him to the notice of his country. In 1786, he was appointed a member of the commission chosen by the college of admiralty at Amsterdam, for determining the longitude, and improving marine charts. On this labour he was employed eight years, and had also a considerable share in preparing a nautical almanack. While at Amsterdam, where he had been invited to give lectures on mathematics, he wrote his useful and excellent treatise on navigation, the first part of which was published there in 1793. In 1789 he was chosen member of a learned society, distinguished by the motto of Felix Mentis, whose object was chemical experiments; and contributed many very valuable papers to it. In July 1793 he was invited to the university of Leyden, to be professor of philosophy, astronomy, and the higher mathematics, in the room of the celebrated Damen; and the admiralty of Amsterdam requested him to continue his nautical researches, which he did with great assiduity till the period of his death. The only variation which he now made in his studies related to natural philosophy, for with the mathematics he was already sufficiently acquainted. He applied himself, therefore, to the experimental part, and spared no pains or labour to become perfect in it; which would certainly have been the case, had he not been snatched from science and his friends at the early age of thirty. He died of an inflammation in his throat, accompanied with a fever, Nov. 13, 1794.

In his external appearance, Nieuwland was not what might be called handsome, nor had he ever been at pains to acquire that ease of deportment which distinguishes those who have frequented polite company. His behaviour and conversation were, however, agreeable, because he could discourse with facility on so many subjects, and never wished to appear but under his real character. On the first view one might have discerned that he was a man of great modesty and the strictest morality. His father was a Lutheran, and his mother a Baptist; but he himself was a member of what is called the reformed church, i. e. a Calvinist, and always shewed the utmost respect to the Supreme Being, both by his words and actions. His attention appears to have been directed to three principal pursuits, which are seldom united; poetry, the pure mathematics, and natural philosophy. In the latter part of his life he added to these also astronomy. Among the poems which he published, his “Orion” alone has rendered his name immortal in Holland. Of the small essays which he published in his youth, the two following are particularly deserving of notice, 1. “A comparative view of the value of the different branches of science” and, 2. “The best means to render general, not learning, but soundness of judgment and good taste.”

, one of the most learned authors of ancient Rome after Varro, flourished in the time of Cicero, was his fellow-student in philosophy and the counsellor with whom he advised in affairs of state; and, being praetor and senator, he assisted the orator in defeating the conspiracy of Catiline, and did him many services in the time of his adversity. Cicero acknowledged, that it was in concert with Nigidius, that he took those important measures which saved the commonwealth under his consulship: and, when Cicero went to his government of Cilicia, Nigidius, who was returning to Rome, after having exercised a public employment in Greece, waited for him at Ephesus; where these two friends had long philosophical conferences with Cratippus the Peripatetic. Nigidius was a professed advocate for the doctrine of Pythagoras. Cicero speaks of him as an accurate and penetrating inquirer into nature, and ascribes to him the revival of that philosophy, which formerly, for several ages, flourished in the Pythagorean schools, both in Italy and Sicily. He was a considerable proficient in mathematical and astronomical learning, and, after the example of his master, applied his knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. In civil affairs, he attached himself to the party of Pompey; and, upon Caesar’s accession to the supreme power, he was banished from Rome. After his time, the Pythagorean doctrine was much neglected; few persons being then able to decypher, with accuracy, the obscure dogmas of this mysterious sect. Of the impostures practised by Nigidius, there are some anecdotes told, but scarcely worth repeating. It has been thought, that these deceptions were the cause of his banishment; but this appears not to have been the case, nor did he dare to return to Rome after Julius Caesar had possessed himself of that city. He died 45 B. C. His works were entitled, “De Augurio private,” “De Animalibus,” “De Extis,” “De Vento;” and “De Diis.” He also wrote “Commentaries upon Grammar.” Fragments of these only remain, which were collected and published by James Rutgersius, who has also inserted among them the Greek translation of A Treatise of Nigidius," by John Laurentius of Philadelphia.

a learned Italian, was born at Sessa, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1473. About 1500, he was appointed professor of philosophy at Padua, where he composed a treatise “De Intellectu et Duemonibus,” in which he maintained that there is but one soul, which animates all nature. This raised many opponents, and he was forced to publish his treatise with amendments in 1492, fol. reprinted 1503 and 1527. He afterwards gained so much reputation by his other works, however insignificant they may now appear, that the most celebrated universities of Italy offered him professorships with large stipends; and he had a salary of a thousand crowns in gold, when professor at Pisa, about 1520. Pope Leo X. had such a value for Niphus, that he made him count palatine, permitted him to quarter his arms with those of the Medici family, and granted him power to create masters of arts, bachelors, licentiates, doctors of divinity, civil and canon law, to legitimate bastards, and to ennoble three persons. The letters patent which conveyed these singular privileges, are dated June 15, 1521. Niphus was a philosopher in theory only, being remarkable even in old age for levity and intrigue. He also loved high living; and such were the charms of his conversation, that he had easy access to the nobility and ladies of rank. The year in which he died is not exactly known, but it is certain that he was living in 1545, and dead in 1550, and that he was above seventy at the time of his death. He left Commentaries in Latin on Aristotle and Averroes, 14 vols. fol.; some smaller works on subjects of morality and politics, Paris, 1645, 4to a treatise “on the Immortality of the Soul,” against Pomponatius, Venice, 1518, fol. “De amore, de pulchro, Veneris et Cupidinis venales,” Leydae, 1641, 16to, &c.