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

, a French historian of the ninth century, the son of Angilbert, abbot of St. Riquier, and of Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne, was born before the year 790, and was probably educated at the court of his grandfather. He appears to have been distinguished both as a soldier and politician, and was occasionally employed by Charles the Bald, king of France, as a negociator. His history contains an account of the divisions between the sons of Louis le Debonnaire, in four books, of which the first three were written in the year 842, and the fourth is lost. It was published in 1594, by M. Pithou, in his “Annalium et Historiæ Francorum Scriptores,” &c. and has since been translated by Duchesne and Bouquet, in their collection of French Historians, and by Cousin in his “History of the Western Empire.”

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

, was born at Paris, Dec. 16, 1716. After he had served in the army some time, he was appointed ambassador to Rome, then to Berlin, and lastly, in 1763, was entrusted with the important negociation of the definitive treaty of peace at London, where he was highly respected, as a prudent and enlightened minister, who united amenity of manners with the dignity of his station. After his return to Paris, he devoted himself entirely to letters, and by some publications he obtained an admission into the French academy, and that of inscriptions. This worthy and excellent man lived to be a sufferer from the revolution, and was committed to prison during the tyranny of Robespierre, in which he was forced to remain till 1796. He died Feb. 25, 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Of his works, his “Fables” have not been thought to preserve the reputation they had originally, when handed about in private. Many of them, however, equal any of the French productions of that class. An English translation, very ably executed, was published in 1799. The duke’s reflections on the genius of Horace, Boileau, and Rousseau, are highly esteemed; and his “Dialogues of the Dead,” “Moral Letters,” “Lives of the Troubadours,” &c. are distinguished proofs of an acute and well-cultivated mind. He was very conversant in English literature, and translated Pope’s “Essay on Man,” and Horace Walpole’s “Modern Gardening,” of which, in imitation of Walpole, he printed only a few copies for friends. Didot, while the author was alive, printed a fine edition of his works, in 1796, 8 vols. 8vo, the demand for which, according to Brunet, is not great.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born in 1498, at Bresdiello, on the Po, in the duchy of Modena. He appears to have been first patronized by the counts Gambara of Brescia, with whom he lived for some years, amply provided with the means of study and improvement. When his writings had made him known, he was invited by the princes Farnese to Parma, to give public lectures on rhetoric, which he continued for many years. Prince Vespasian Gonzaga, a great patron of literature, having founded an university at Sabionetta, appointed Nizolius chief director or principal. In 1562 this university was opened, at which ceremony Nizolius delivered a speech, which was printed at Parma the following year. Some years after, being now advanced, he lost his sight, and retired to his native place, where he died in 1575.

The work for which he is chiefly entitled to notice, was his dictionary of the words that occur in Cicero, commonly called “Thesaurus Ciceronianus;” but the first edition was entitled “Observationes in Ciceronem,” 1535, 2 parts fol. It afterwards had the title of “Thesaurus,” and was repeatedly reprinted, and at last with such improvements as to make it a complete lexicon. There is one printed at Padua, as late as 1734, fol. The other most valued editions are the Aldine, 1570, 1576-, and 1591, and that by Gellarius, at Francfort, 1613. Henry Stephens and Vemeret have spoken harshly of this work, but without much injury to its fame. Nizolius was an enthusiastic admirer of the purity and eloquence of the style of Tully; and it was to promote a taste for correct and elegant literature, that he compiled this “Ciceronian Treasury.” By a natural association, he extended his attachment to Cicero from his language to his philosophy, and maintained a strenuous contest in favour of Cicero, with several learned men. In the course of the dispute he wrote a treatise “De veris Principiis et vera Ratione Philosophandi,” in Which he vehemently censured the followers of the Stagyrite, and particularly the scholastics, chiefly for the corruptions they had introduced into the Latin language, and the many ridiculous opinions which they held. Leibnitz was so struck with its solidity and elegance, that to expose the obstinacy of those who were zealously attached to Aristotle, he gave a new edition of it, with critical notes of his own, 1670, in 4to.

, cardinal and archbishop of Paris, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, proviseur of the house and society of the Sorbonne, and superior of that of Navarre, was the second son of Anne dukede Noailles, peer of France, and born May 27, 1651. In consequence of his birth, he became lord of Aubrach, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, duke of St. Cloud, and peer of France. He was bred with great care, and his inclination leading him to the church, he took holy orders; and proceeding in the study of divinity, he performed his exercise for licentiate in that science with reputation, and was created D. D. of the Sorbonne, March 14, 1676. Three years afterwards the king gave him the bishopric of Cahors, whence he was translated to Chalons on the Marne, in 1680. He discharged the duties of both these dioceses with a distinguished vigilance, and a truly pastoral charity; so that, the archbishopric of Paris becoming vacant in 1695, by the death of Francis de Harlay, his majesty chose the bishop of Chalons to fill that important see. Invested with this dignity; he applied himself wholly to the affairs of it, and made excellent rules for the reformation of the clergy.

As he considered that one principal branch of the episcopal province is to maintain sound doctrine, and to keep the flock committed to his care from being tainted with erroneous opinions, he vigorously opposed the growing errors of Quietism, which he had before condemned at Chalons; and now made it his business to root out of the capital of France. He proceeded against them, not only by judicial sentences, but likewise by instructions in his pastoral, charges. Among these he printed, in 1697, “A Pastoral Letter upon Christian Perfection, and the interior Life,” against the illusions of those mystics. At the same time, he testified an equal zeal against the errors of Jansenism; and in order to preserve his flock from that infection, he drew up a pastoral letter upon the questions then agitated concerning predestination and grace, cautioning them on one hand against the errors which were condemned by the popes, and explaining to them at large what was the rule of faith in relation to mysteries, according to the principles of St. Austin, and the fathers who embraced his doctrine.

By another ordinance, in 1703, he likewise condemned the resolution of the “Case of Conscience,” which had been signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in favour of Jansenius, the same year, respecting the distinction between the fact and the right. These maintained, that the five propositions, though rightfully condemned by the decrees of the popes, yet were not in fact taught by Jansenius, as was declared in those decrees. In the same spirit of pastoral vigilance, he did not content himself with preserving the sacred depositum of faith inviolate among the full-confirmed Catholics, but made it his business also to instruct the new converts, by a letter addressed particularly to them. With the like care, when Mr. Simon, an author of great fame, published his French version of the “New Testament,” with a paraphrase and notes, which were thought by our prelate of a bad tendency, he considered himself bound in duty to prohibit the reading of that book, in order to prevent the ill effects it might occasion by falling into the hands of the simple and unwary. In June 1700 he was created a cardinal, at the nomination of the French king, and assisted in the conclave held that year, in which Clement XI. was elected pope having, a little before, in the same year, sat president in an assembly of the clergy, where several propositions, concerning doctrine and manners, were condemned. He also presided afterwards in several of these general assemblies, both ordinary and extraordinary. In 1715, he was appointed president of the council of conscience at Rome, notwithstanding he had refused to accept the constitution Unigenitus.

This celebrated bull brought our cardinal into a great deal of trouble on this account. Pasquin Quesnel, one of the fathers of the oratory, publishing his New Testament, with moral reflections upon every verse, in 1694, our cardinal, then bishop of Chalons, gave it his approbation, and recommended it to his clergy and people in 1695; and, after his removal to Paris, procured a new edition, corrected, to be printed there in 1699. But as the book contained some doctrines in favour of Jansenism, the Jesuits took the alarm, and, after writing several pieces, charging the author with heresy and sedition, obtained, in 1708, a decree of pope Clement XI. condemning it in general. Although this decree could neither be received nor published in France, not being conformable to the usage of that kingdom, the book was condemned, without mentioning the decree, by some French bishops, at whose solicitation Lewis XIV. applied to his holiness to condemn it by a constitution in form, which was granted; and, in 1715, appeared the famous constitution “Unigenitus,” condemning the “Moral Reflections,” and 101 propositions extracted from the work. The pope also condemned all such writings as had been already published, or should hereafter be published in its defence. But the king’s letters patent, for the publication of this bull, were not registered in the parliament without several modifications and restrictions, in pursuance of a declaration made by a great number of bishops, that they accepted it purely and simply, although at the same time they gave some explications of it in their pastoral instructions. Cardinal Noailles, and some other prelates, not thinking these explications sufficient, refused absolutely to accept it, till it should be explained by the pope in such a manner as to secure from all danger the doctrine, discipline, and liberty, of the schools, the episcopal rights, and the liberties of the Gallican church. The faculty of divines at the Sorbonne declared, that the decree which was made March 5, 1714, for accepting the bull, was false. The four bishops also of Mirepoix, Seine’s, Montpelier, and Boulogne, appealed from it, March 4, 1717 and the same day the faculty of divines at Paris adhered to their appeal. This example was followed by several faculties of divines, monasteries, curates, priests, &c, and cardinal deNoailles, having appealed, about the same time, with the four bishops, published his appeal in 1718. However, he retracted this appeal, and received the constitution some time before his death, which happened in his palace at Paris, May 4, 1729.

His corpse was interred, according to the direction of his last will, in the grand nave of the metropolitan church in that city, before the chapel of the Virgin Mary, where a monument of black marble was erected, with a Latin inscription to his memory. Some notion of the character of the cardinal de Noailles may be collected from the preceding circumstances: and we are farther told by his biographers, that his conduct through life discovered exemplary piety, and attention to the promotion of learning, good conduct, and regularity of the clergy; for which purpose he zealously maintained ecclesiastical discipline. He was mild, affable, as easy to the poor as to the rich, and very charitable.

, one of the most indefatigable writers of his time, was born in 1643, at Troyes, of a good family. He soon made himself known in the literary world by ingenious pasquinades, and other jeux d'esprit. He was once attorney-general to the parliament of Metz but his bad conduct having involved him in difficulties, he was accused of drawing up false acts for his own advantage, confined at the Chatelet, and there sentenced to make amende honorable, and to be banished nine years. From this sentence he appealed, and being removed to the Conciergerie, became there the lover and advocate of Gabrielle Perreau, commonly called la belle Epiciere (the handsome grocer’s wife), whom her husband had shut up in that prison for her irregular conduct, and wrote several memoirs and other pieces in her favour, which were much read. Le Noble finding means to get out of the Conciergerie, 1695, lived a long time concealed with this woman, who had escaped from a convent to which she had been transferred, and had three children by her; but, being retaken, was condemned, notwithstanding his eloquent speech to his judges, while at the bar, March 24, 1698. The sentence passed upon him was for forgery, and condemned him to make an amende seche, privately, in the hall of the Chatelet, and to be banished for nine years. He left his prison four days after, and obtained a repeal of the sentence of banishment the next year, on condition that he should exercise no judicial office. His mistress was tried in May following, and le Noble was charged, by her sentence, with the three children, who were declared bastards. He died at Paris, January 31, 1711, aged 68, so poor, that the alms-house, in the parish of St. Severin, was obliged to bury him. His works have been printed at Paris, 19 vols. 12mo. The principal are, “Dialogues sur les affaires du Terns.” “Le Bouclier de la France, ou les Sentimens de Gerson et des Canonistes touchant les diflerends des Rois de France avec les Papes.” A prose “Translation of the Psalms.” “Relation de PEtat de Gnes.” Hist, de PEstablissement de la Republique d'Hollande.“This is little more than an extract from Grotius. He wrote also tales and fables; and romances, or historiettes, founded on facts;” L'Ecole du Monde,“4 vols. 12mo, consisting of twenty-four dialogues; and published a translation of the” Travels of Gemelli Carreri," Paris, 1727, 6 vols. 12mo.

, an heresiarch, who appeared in the third century, was a native of Smyrna, originally an obscure man, and of mean abilities. He affirmed, that the Supreme God, whom he called the Father, and considered as absolutely indivisible, united himself to the man Christ, whom he called the Son, and was born, and crucified with him. From this opinion, Noetus and his followers were tlistinguished by the title of Patripassians, i. e. persons who believed that the Supreme Father of the universe, and not any other divine person, had expiated the guilt of the human race. For these opinions he and his followers were expelled the church.

, a learned Italian, was born at Verona, of a family that had produced several men of letters about the beginning of the sixteenth century. In early life he became introduced to John-Matthew Giberti, bishop of Verona, at whose house he had an opportunity of profiting by the conversation of various learned men. The Greek appears to have been his favourite study, and his fame was established by his able translations from that language. In September 1545, he was employed, with two other persons of consequence at Verona, to furnish provisions for that city, at a time when a scarcity was apprehended; but not long after we find him at the council of Trent, where he delivered an harangue that was published at the end of his “Apostolicae Institutiones.” In 1554, he was one of the ambassadors deputed by the city of Verona to compliment the doge of Venice on his accession; and on this occasion he was created a knight of that republic, On his return home, he was appointed president of the jurisdiction of silk-manufacturers, a corporation which was then established. He enjoyed the favour and esteem of many Italian princes, but of none more than of Guy Ubaldi, duke of Urbano, whom he accompanied to Rome, and was made commander of the ecclesiastical troops by pope Julius III. Here he had begun a translation of Ocellus Lucanus, when he was seized with a disorder which interrupted his studies and his attendance at court; but he was enabled to complete his translation in 1558, and it was printed the year following, in which year he died.

He published, 1. “Joannis Damasceni libellus de his, qui in fide dormierunt, ex Gr. in Lat. versus,” Verona, 1532, 4to. 2. “Apostolicae Institutiones in parvum libellum collectse.” Venice, 1549, 4to. 3. “De Nili ipcremento dialogus,” ibid. 1552, 4to. This edition became so scarce that when Frederic Nogarola wished to publish a second, he could not find a single copy, and was therefore obliged to print from the author’s original manuscript. This second edition was printed at Milan, in 1626, 4to, under the title “Timotheus, sive de Nilo.” Timotheus is one of the four interlocutors in the dialogue. 4. “Platoni cæ Plutarchi questiones;” translated into Latin, with notes, Venice, 1552, 4to. 5. “Ocelli Lucani de universa natura libellus, L. N. interprete.” Venice, 1559, 4to, reprinted in octavo, at Heidelberg, 1598, and at Cambridge in 1671. Nogarola, however, was not the first who translated this author. There is a translation by Chretien, of 1541, and one by Bosch, of 1554. 6. “Epistola ad Adamum Fumenum canonicum Veronensem super viris illustribus genere Italis, qui Greece scripserunt.” This appeared first with his translation of Lucanus, and was reprinted in Gale’s “Opuscula,” 1671, and afterwards by Fabricius in his “Supplementa” to Vossius. 7. “Scholia ad Themistii Paraphrasim in Aristotelis Librum tertium de anima,” Venice, 1570, fol. with a translation. 8. “Disputatio super reginse Britannorum divortio,” 4to, Henry Vlll’s queen. ­Freher also mentions a work entitled “Oratio pro Vicentinis ad Maximilianum.”

, canon and theologal of Seez, the son of John le Noir, counsellor to the presidial of Alenon, was a celebrated preacher at Paris, and in the provinces, about the middle of the seventeenth century; but, having had a quarrel afterwards with M. de Mendavi, his bishop, in consequence of the boldness with which he censured not only the doctrine, but the conduct of his superiors, he was banished in 1663, confined in the Bastille in 1683, and condemned April 24, 1684, to make amende honorable before the metropolitan church at Paris, and to the gallies for life. This punishment, however, being changed to perpetual imprisonment, M. le Noir was afterwards carried to St. Malo, then to the prisons of Brest, and, lastly, to those of Nantes, where he died April 22, 1692, leaving several works, which are curious, but full of intemperate abuse. The principal are, A collection of his Requests and Factums, folio; a translation of “L'Echelle du Clottre” “Les Avantages incontestable de PEglise sur les Calvinistes,” 8vo “L‘Herésie de la Domination Episcopate qu’on etablit en France,” 12mo “Les nouvelles Lumieres politiques pour le Gouvernement de l'Eglise, ou TEvangile nouveau du cardinal Palavicini dans son Histoiredu Concile de Trente,” Holl. 1676, 12mo. This work occasioned the French translation of cardinal Palavicini’s history to be suppressed.

, an eminent Danish divine, was born June 22, 1626, at Hoybia, in Scania; and, after acquiring some grammatical and classical knowledge at Lunden, was removed to the university of Copenhagen in 1644, and continued there till 1650; when he was made rector of the college at Landscroon. He took the degree of master of arts the following year; and, in 1654, for farther improvement, made the tour of Germany, visited several universities there, and became acquainted with the most learned persons of that time. From Germany he continued his route to Holland, England, and France, and returned to Denmark in 1657. Hence, after a residence of only three months, he went to pursue his studies at Leyden and Franeker. In 1660, the lord of Gerstorff, master of the palace of Denmark, appointed him tutor to his children; and, in 1644, he obtained the chair of professor of divinity at Copenhagen, probably by the interest of this nobleman. Noldius, entering into holy orders, was made minister, and obtained the professor’s chair of divinity at Copenhagen, in which city he died, Aug. 22, 1683. He wrote several books, as “Concordantiae particularum Hebraeo-Chaldaicarum Veteris Testament!,” an excellent work, the best edition of which is that of Jena, 1734, 4to. “Historia Iduinsea, seu de Vita et gestis Herodum Diatribse.” “Sacrarum Historiarum et Antiquitatum Synopsis.” “Leges distinguendi seu de Virtute et Vitio distinctiones.” “Logica,” &c.

, a French abbe, and member of most of the literary societies of Europe, was born at Pimpre“, in the district of Noyon, Nov. 19, 1700. Notwithstanding the obscurity in which his finances obliged him to live, he soon acquired fame as an experimental philosopher. M. Dufay associated him in his electrical researches; and M. de Reaumur assigned to him his laboratory and these gentlemen may be considered as his preceptors. M. Dufay took him along with him in a journey he made into England; and Nollet profited so well of this opportunity, as to institute a friendly and literary correspondence with some of the most celebrated men in this country. The king of Sardinia gave him an invitation to Turin, to perform a course of experimental philosophy to the duke of Savoy. From thence he travelled into Italy, where he collected some good observations concerning the natural history of the country. In France he was master of philosophy and natural history to the royal family; and professor royal of experimental philosophy to the college of Navarre, and to the schools of artillery and engineers. The academy of sciences appointed him adjunct-mechanician in 1739, associate i 1742, and pensioner in 1757. Nollet died the 24th of April, 1770, regretted by all his friends, but especially by his relations, whom he always succoured with an affectionate attention; but his fame, as an electrician, in which character he was best known, did not survive him long. His’ works are, 1.” Recueils de Lettres sur TElectricite;“1753, 3 vols. 12mo. '2.” Essai sur l'Electricite des corps;“1 vol. 12mo. 3. Recherches sur les causes particulieres des Phenomenes Electriques,” 1 vol. 12mo. 4. “L'Art des Experiences,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. In these are contained his theory on electricity, which he maintained with the most persevering obstinacy against all the arguments of his antagonists, who were perhaps all the eminent electrical philosophers of Europe. It is no easy matter to form a very adequate notion of this theory, which has been long since abandoned by every person. When an electric is excited, electricity flows to it from all quarters, and when thus effluent (as he termed it), it drives light bodies before it. Hence the reason why excited bodies attract. When the electricity is effluent, the light bodies are of course driven from the electric, which in that state appears to repel. He conceived every electric to be possessed of two different kinds of pores, one for the emission of the electric matter, and the other for its reception. Besides his papers in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” from 1740 to 1767, we have in our “Philosophical Transactions,” the result of a great number of experiments, made by the abbe Nollet, on the eflect produced by electricity on the flowing of water through capillary tubes; on the evaporation of liquids; the transpiration of vegetables; and the respiration of animals. These last experiments have been often repeated since, but the results drawn by the abbe are not considered as established.

, was a grammarian and peripatetic philosopher of Tivoli, by whom we have a treatise “De Proprietate Sermonis, sive da varia significatione verborum.” He is supposed to have flourished in. the fourth century. His work is valuable only because he introduces several fragments of ancient writers not to be found elsewhere. The best edition is that by Mercer, printed at Paris, 1614, 8vo, with notes. The first editions, of 1471, and 1476, and 1480, are of great rarity, but all in the Spencer collection.

, a learned physician at Antwerp, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was the author of a curious treatise, entitled “Pieteticon, sive de Re cibaria;” containing several remarks illustrative of those passages in the Latin Roman poets, particularly Horace, Juvenal, and Persius, which relate to the luxury of the old Roman tables. It was published in 4to in 1646, at Antwerp. He renewed the opinion of the ancient physicians, who have written “De salubri Piscium alimento,” or the wholesomeness of a fish diet; and endeavoured to shew, that, according to them, fish is especially a proper aliment for sedentary persons, for the aged, sick, and such as are of a weak constitution, as it generates blood of a moderate consistence, which suits their habit. In this work Nonius complains of the Arabians, who, in translating the Greek physicians, have omitted all passages relating to fish; because the Arabs eat little of this kind of aliment, which in that hot and dry country is rarely to be met with. Nonius also printed a very large commentary in 1620, upon the Greek medals, and those of Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius, which had been engraved about fifty-five years before by Goltzius, and published in folio at that time by James de Bye, another celebrated engraver. Besides these, he wrote “Hispania; seu de Oppidis Fluminibusque Hispanise,” 1607, 8vo; “Icthyophagia, seu de Usu Piscium,” and “Epicaedium Justo Lipsio,” &c.

, a very eminent Portuguese mathematician and physician, was born in 1497, at Alcazar in Portugal, anciently a remarkable city, known by the name of Salacia, from whence he was surnamed Salaciensis. He was professor of mathematics in the university of Cojmbra, where he published some pieces which procured him great reputation. He was mathematical preceptor to Don Henry, son to king Emanuel of Portugal, and principal cosmographer to the king. Nonius was very serviceable to the designs which this court entertained of carrying on their maritime expeditions into the East, by the publication of his book “Of the Art of Navigation,” and various other works. He died in 1577, at eighty years of age.

Nonius was the author of several ingenious works and inventions, and justly esteemed one of the most eminent mathematicians of his age. Concerning his “Art of Navigation,” father Dechaies says, “In the year 1530, Peter Nonius, a celebrated Portuguese mathematician, upon occasion of some doubts proposed to him by Martinus Alphonsus Sofa, wrote a treatise on Navigation, divided into two books; in the first he answers some of those doubts, and explains the nature of Loxodromic lines. In the second book he treats of rules and instruments proper for navigation, particularly sea- charts, and instruments serving to find the elevation of the pole” but says he is rather obscure in his manner of writing. Furetiere, in his Dictionary, takes notice that Peter Nonius was the first who, in 1530, invented the angles which the Loxodromic curves make with each meridian, calling them in his language Rhumbs, and which he calculated by spherical triangles. Stevinus acknowledges that Peter Nonius was scarce inferior to the very best mathematicians of the age. And Schottus says he explained a great many problems, and particularly the mechanical problem of Aristotle on the motion of vessels by oars. His Notes upon Purbach’s Theory of the Planets, are very much to be esteemed: he there explains several things, which had either not been noticed before, or not rightly understood.

In 1542 he published a treatise on the twilight, which he dedicated to John III. king of Portugal; to which he added what Alhazen, an Arabian author, has composed on the same subject. In this work he describes the method or instrument erroneously called, from him, a Nonius. He corrected several mathematical mistakes of Orontius Finasus. But the most celebrated of all his works, or that at least he appeared most to value, was his “Treatise of Algebra,” which he had composed in Portuguese, but translated it into the Castilian tongue when he resolved upon making it public, which he thought would render his book more useful, as this language was more generally known than the Portuguese. The dedication to his former pupil, prince Henry, was dated from Lisbon, Dec. 1, 1564. This work contains 341 pages in the Antwerp edition of 1567, in 8vo. The catalogue of his works, chiefly in Latin, is as follows: 1. “De Arte Navigandi, libri duo,” 1530. 2. “De Crepusculis,” 1542. 3. “Annotationes in Aristotelem.” 4. “Problema Mechanicum de Motu Navigii ex Remis.” 5. “Annotationes in Planetarum Theorias Georgii Purbachii,” &c. 6. “Libro de Algebra en Arithmetica y Geometra,” 1564. We have said that his name was erroneously given to the method of graduation now generally used in the division of the scales of various instruments; for Vernier was the real inventor The method of Nonius, described in his treatise “De Crepusculis,” consists in describing within the same quadrant, 45 concentric circles, dividing the outermost into 90 equal parts, the next within into 89, the next into 88, and so on, till the innermost was divided into 46 only. By this means, in most observations, the plumb-line or index must cross one or other of those circles in or very near a point of division: whence by calculation the degrees and minutes of the arch might easily be obtained. This method is also described by him in his treatise “De Arte Navigandi,” where he imagines it was not unknown to Ptolomy. But as the degrees are thus divided unequally, and it is very difficult to attain exactness in the division, especially when the numbers, into which the arches are to be divided, are incomposite, of which there are no less than uine, the method of diagonals, first published by Thomas Digges, esq. in his treatise “Alae seu Scaloe Mathematicae,” printed at Lond. in 1573, and said to be invented by one Richard Chanseler, a very skilful artist, was substituted in its stead. However, Nonius’s method was improved at different times; but the admirable division now so much in use, is the most considerable improvement of it.

, a Greek poet, surnamed Panoplites, from the place of his birth, was born at Panopolis, in Egypt, in the fifth century. He is the author of two works of a very different character; one a miscellany of heathen mythology and learning, in heroic verse, entitled “Dionysiacorum libri xlviii.” which was printed by Falkenburgh, from a ms. in the library of John Sambucb, at Antwerp, in 1569, 4to, and afterwards translated into Latin by Eiihard Lubin, professor at Rostock, who reprinted it at Hanover in 1610, with the notes of various persons, 8vo. There is also an edition printed at Eton, 1610, 4to. This is one of the most irregular poems extant, both with regard to the style, sentiments, method, and constitution: nothing is natural, nothing approaching to the purity of Homer; nothing of the free, easy manner, and beautiful simplicity, of the ancients. In short, this piece is as much beneath, as his other work, his “Paraphrasis,” is above, censure. In his paraphrase in Greek verse, upon the Gospel of St. John, the diction is perspicuous, neat, elegant, and proper for the subject. Hence he is styled by Isaac Casaubon “poeta eruditissimus.” Heinsius, indeed, reproaches him with leaning to Arianism but he appears to hold the same sentiments concerning the Trinity with Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. The first edition of this piece is that of Aldus Manutius at Venice in 1501, 4to; it has since gone through several editions, the last of which, and the best, is that by Heinsius, Gr. and Lat. 1627, 8vo. His various readings, which are deemed important, have been selected by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, and Griesbach.

, a celebrated civilian, was born Sept. 4, 1647, at Nimeguen, where his father, Peter Noodt, held a law office in the corporation. He was first educated at the school at Nimeguen; and, having gone through the usual classes, removed, in 1663, to the university which then subsisted, although in a decayed state, in that city . Here he began his studies with history and polite literature under John Schulting, professor of eloquence and history. Besides these, he applied himself to philosophy and the mathematics, which he would have made his principal study, had he not been diverted by Mr. Arnauld Coerman, German counsellor of the duchy of Guelderland, &c. who prevailed upon him to apply himself to law, as likely to be of more advantage to himself and to the public. Complying with this advice he studied law three years under Peter de Greve; during which time he maintained two public theses with uncommon reputation. The second of these, “De acquirenda, et retinenda, et amittenda possessione,” which was of his own composition, he defended with such masterly knowledge, that the professor had not occasion to say a word throughout the whole disputation. As soon as he had completed his course of study here, he visited the other universities of Leyden, Utrecht, and shortly after Franeker, where he was created LL. D. in June 1669. He then returned to his own country, and entered upon the practice of his profession, in which he soon had an opportunity of acquiring fame by his defence of two criminals, who were accused of murder in 1671. Noodt appeared advocate for them, by the special appointment of the magistrates of Nimeguen; and he exerted himself so well in their behalf, that one of them was entirely acquitted, and the other only sentenced to banishment for two years. This cause established his reputation, and, the same year, he was elected professor of law in ordinary in the university of Nimeguen, although only in his twenty-fourth year.

During the congress held there in 1677, his talents became known to several of the foreign ministers, and the plenipotentiary from the elector of Brandenburg tempted him with the offer of a professorship in the university of Duysbourg, which he refused, although that of Nimeguen was approaching to dissolution. William de Haren, however, third ambassador plenipotentiary from the States General, succeeded afterwards in inducing him to accept the law-professor’s chair at Franeker. Of this, accordingly, he took possession in 1670, and made his inauguration-speech Oct. 6. In 1683 his increasing reputation procured him an offer from the magistracy of Utrecht of a professorship there which, after some demur, he accepted, and made his inauguration-speech in 1684, “De causis corrupts Jurisprudentise.” In 1686 he married; and, the same year, complied with an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, where he fixed for life, and published several treatises. In 1698 he was made rector of that university in 1699 he lost his wife, with which he was greatly affected, and sought to console himself by employing his thoughts upon that important question relating to the practice of exposing children, in use among the Greeks and Romans. In 1705 he was a second time chosen rector of the university, and continued his dilU gence in writing and publishing books in his profession. During the last three years of his life, his health and strength continued to decay, although without any visible disorder or pain, and after some slight attacks of the apoplectic kind, from which he was relieved by the skill of the celebrated Boerhaave, he sunk under one of greater violence, Aug. 15, 1725, aged almost seventy-eight.

He published a collection of his works in 1713, 4to, containing, 1. “Probabilia Juris,” in three books; the first of which was printed in 1674, and the other two in 1679, and again, altogether, in 1691. 2. “De civili Prudentia Oratio inauguralis, 1679.” 3. “De causis Corruptse Jurisprudentiae, Oratio inauguralis,” 1684. In this speech he opens his method of studying and explaining the Roman law. 4. Two tracts, one entitled “De Jurisdictione et Imperio” the other, “Ad Legem Aquileiam Liber singularis;” both subjoined to a new edition of his “Probabilia Juris,” 1691. 5.“De Fcenore et Usuris,” 1698. In this piece he shews that money lent out to usury is neither against the law of nature or nations. 6. “De Jur6 summi Imperii et Lege regia, Oratio habita,” 1698. 7. “Julius Paulus sive, de Partus Expositione et Nece apud veteres, Liber singularis,” 1699. 8. “Diocletianus et Maximianus; sive, de Transactione et Pactione Criminum,” 1704. 9. “De Religione ab Imperio Jure Gentium libera Oratio,” 1706. 10. “Observationum Libri duo,” 1706. 11. “De Forma emendandi doli mali in contrahendis negotiis admissi apud Veteres,” 1709. 12. Two treatises one, “de Usufructu;” the other, “de Pactis et Transactionibus,” &c. 1713. Another edition of his works was published in 1724, in 2 vols. folio; containing, besides those in the former edition, the following pieces: 1. “Commentaria in Pandectas, in 27 Libros,” 4 of which had been published in 1716. 2. “Arnica Responsio ad Difficultates in Julio Paulo, sive Libro de Partus Expositione, motas a, Viro amplissimo Van Bynkershoek,” 1722. Our author also wrote, in Flemish, “An Opinion upon a case relating to Matrimony,” which was translated into Latin by M. Alexander Arnold Pargenstecher, and printed in a treatise of that translator, entitled, “Imperius injuria vapulans.” A third edition of his works was published in 1735, 2 vols. fol. by Barbeyrac, with a life of the author, which Barbeyrac had originally published in 1731. There is also an edition printed at Naples in 1786,4 vols. 4to. Noodt is said to have been a man of great probity, and of a placid disposition. He was free from conceit and arrogance, and never engaged in any controversy except one with M. Bynkershoek, who complained that he had been a little too free in his expressions. The character of his genius is seen in his works; which shew that he quitted the common method of the civilians, treading in the steps of Cujacius, and introduced much of a liberal and philosophic spirit into the law, although perhaps with too great a tendency to theory, or to what is practicable only in theory. He lectured at all the academies to which he succeeded, on Grotius “De Jure Belli et Pads.”

, the biographer of Charles XII. of Sweden, was born at Stockholm in 1677. After entering the church, he was appointed an army chaplain, and accompanied the troops for some years. There is little else in the accounts of him that is interesting. Having had many opportunities of acquiring the necessary knowledge and information, he was selected to write the life of Charles XII, which was published at Stockholm in 1740, in 2 vols, folio, and afterwards translated into the German and French languages. The author of it died in 1744. Voltaire, who also wrote a life of Charles XII. speaks with little respect of Nordberg’s labours; and indeed the work seems rather a collection of useful materials than a well-digested narrative.

, an eminent geographer and traveller, was born at Gluckstadt in Holstein, Oct. 22, 1708. His father was a lieutenant-colonel of artillery, and himself was bred to arms. Being intended for the sea-service, he entered, in 1722, into the corps of cadets; a royal establishment, in which young men were instructed in the arts and sciences necessary to form good sea-officers. Here he is said to have made a great progress in the mathematics, ship-building, and drawing, especially in the last. He copied the works of the greatest masters in the art, to form his taste, and acquire their manner; but he took a particular pleasure in drawing from nature. The first person who noticed this rising genius, was M. de Lerche, knight of the order of the elephant, and grand master of the ceremonies. This gentleman put into his hands a collection of charts and topographical plans, belonging to the king, to be retouched and amended, in which Norden shewed great skill and care; but, considering his present employment as foreign to his profession, de Lerche, in 1732, presented him to the king, and procured him, not only leave, but a pension to enable him to travel: the king likewise made him, at the same time, second lieutenant. It was particularly recommended to him, to study the construction of ships, especially such gallies and rowing vessels as are used in the Mediterranean. Accordingly he set out for Holland, where he soon became acquainted with the admirers of antiquities and the polite arts, and with several distinguished artists, particularly De Reyter, who took great pleasure in teaching him to engrave. From Holland he went to Marseilles, and thence to Leghorn; staying in each place so long as to inform himself in every thing relating to the design of his voyage. At this last port he got models made of the different kinds of rowing vessels, which are still to be seen at the chamber of models at the Old Holm. In Italy, where he spent near three years in enlarging his knowledge, his great talents drew the attention of persons of distinction, and procured him an opportunity of seeing the cabinets of the curious, and of making his advantage of the great works of painting and sculpture, especially at Rome and Florence. At Florence he was made a member of the drawing academy, and while in this city he received an order from the king to go into Egypt.

Christian VI. was desirous of having a circumstantial account of a country so distant and so famous from an intelligent man, and one whose fidelity could not be questioned; and no one was thought more proper than Norden. He was then in the flower of his age, of great abilities, of a good taste, and of a courage that no danger or fatigue could dishearten; a skilful observer, a great designer, and a good mathematician: to all which qualities may be added an enthusiastic desire of examining, upon the spot, the wonders of Egypt, even prior to the order of his master. How he acquitted himself in this business appears amply from his “Travels in Egypt and Nubia.” In these countries he stayed about a year and, at his return, when the count of Danneskiold-Samsoe, who was at the head of the marine, presented him to his majesty, the king was much pleased with the masterly designs he had made of the objects in his travels, and desired he would draw up an account of his voyage, for the instruction of the curious and learned. At this time he was made captain-lieutenant, and soon after captain of the royal navy, and one of the commissioners for building ships.

When the war broke out between England and Spain, count Danneskiold-Samsoe proposed to the king, that several of his officers of his majesty’s navy should go as volunteers into the service of the powers at war; and chose Norden in particular, to accompany his own nephew, count Ulric Adolphus, then a captain of a man of war, in such expeditions as should be undertaken by the English. On their arrival in London, Norden, whose fame had preceded him, was received with distinguished favour; several of the most considerable men at court, and even the prince of Wales, hearing of the designs he made in Egypt, were curious to see them, and shewed him great kindness. The following summer, he accompanied the count on an expedition under sir John Norris; and, in 1740, he again went on-board the fleet destined to America, under the command of sir Chaloner Ogle, with a design to reinforce admiral Vernon. After this, Norden spent about one year in London in great esteem, and was admitted a member of the Royal Society. On this occasion he gave the public an idea of some ruins and colossal statues, entitled, tf Drawings of some Ruins and Colossal Statues, at Thebes of Egypt; with an account of the same, in a Letter to the Royal Society,“1741. This essay, with the plates belonging to it, heightened the desire which men of curiosity had before conceived of seeing that work entire, of which this made only a small part. About this time he found his health declining; and proposed to the count to take a tour to France, and to visit the coasts and ports of that kingdom, in hopes a change of climate might have been a means of recovering his health: but he died at Paris in 1742, much regretted as a person who had done honour to his country, and from whom the world had great expectations. His” Travels" were translated from the Danish into French by Des Roches de Parthenais, and published at Copenhagen in 1755, 2 vois. fol. This was followed by an English translation, both in fol. and 8vo, by Dr. Peter Templeman. This edition was decorated with the original plates, which are extremely numerous, and were procured by Mr. Lockyer Davis.

, an industrious topographer, classed by Wai pole and Strutt among engravers, seems to have been horn in Wiltshire about 1548, and admitted of Hartball, Oxford, in 1564. He proceeded A. M. in 1573. He bad patronage, but little else, from the great Burleigh; and in his old age obtained jointly with his son the place of surveyor to the prince of Wales. He lived in narrow circumstances at Fulham and Hendon, and died about 1626. Wood ascribes to him fifteen devotional pieces, though he doubts if they were really written by him, and Granger, who describes a print of him, thinks they must have been his father’s. As a topographer, however, we are more certain of his productions. He surveyed the county of Essex in 1584, and Hertfordsire and Middlesex in 1593; and besides these, he executed the maps of Cornwall, Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex, all which, except those of Herts and Hants, were copied, with additions, into “Speed’s Theatre.” He was the first that inserted the roads. His map of Surrey was much larger and more exact than any of his others. Among his published works are, “England; an intended guyde for English travailers, &c.” Lond. 1625, 4to; “Speculum Britanniae, a topographical and historical description of Cornwall,” 1728, 4to. It was published from a very old ms. in the British Museum, Mss. Karl. 6252. Mr. Gough says that the better part of this most finished of Norden’s works is a mere transcript of Carew; from the other parts very little of moment is to be learned; and no stress is to be laid on his drawings. Norden wrote also an account of the estate of the dutchy of Cornwall, the right by which the duke holds his estates, and many of the customs of the manors; which was once deposited in the duchy office. Another of his publications, is “Speculum Britanniae, or an historical and chorographical description of Middlesex and Hertfordshire,” 1573, 4to, reprinted 1637. and 1723. The Middlesex part was the first of his labours there is a copy of it among the Harleian Mss. No. 570, supposed to be in Norden’s own writing, which differs from the printed books both in the arrangement and the additions made to it. The last of this kind was his “Speculum Brit, pars altera, or a delineation of Northamptonshire,” Lond. 1720, 8vo. This is the most superficial of all his surveys, except in a few towns; nor were the map and plans of Peterborough and Northampton referred to in it ever engraved. Norden was not only a practical surveyor, but wrote a good treatise on the subject, entitled “The Surveyor’s Dialogue, &c.” 1607, 4to. Of this an account, with extracts, is given in the Cens. Lit. vol. I. There are some Mss. by Norden in the British Museum and other public libraries.

, an ingenious artist, was the son of Robert Norgate, D. D. master of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and in his youth shewed a great inclination to heraldry and limning, in both of which he became very eminent, but his talent in illuminating the initial letters of patents, was chiefly admired. His judgment in paintings also was considered very great, for which reason he was employed by the earl of Arundel, that celebrated collector of antiquities, to purchase pictures for him in Italy. Returning by Marseilles, and by some accident being disappointed of the remittances he expected, and totally unknown there, he was observed by a French gentleman, who, after inquiring into his circumstances, furnished him with the means of returning to his own country on foot. He was afterwards one of the clerks of the signet to ’Charles I. and as such attended his majesty to the North in 1640. He was also made Windsor herald for his great skill in heraldry, in which office he died, at the heralds’ college, Dec. 23, 1650, and was buried at St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf, leaving the character of an honest, amiable, and accomplished man. Lloyd tells us that he left manuscripts to several of his friends to be published, but his intention in that point has not been executed. His letters, giving an account of the expedition against the Scotch in 1639, are among Dr. Birch’s “Historical Letters,” 3 vols. ms. in the British Museum, Ayscough’s catalogue. As an illuminator, the evidence of his abilities is a curious patent discovered some years ago. The late earl of Stirling received from a relation an old box of neglected writings, among which he found the original commission of Charles J. appointing his lordship’s predecessor, Alexander earl of Stirling, the celebrated poet, commander in chief of Nova Scotia, with the confirmation of the grant of that province made by James I. In the initial letter are the portraits of the king sitting on the throne, delivering the patent to the earl, and round the border representations in miniature of the customs, huntings, fishings, and productions, of the country, all in the highest preservation, and so admirably executed, that it was believed of the pencil of Vanclyck. But Mr. Walpole ascribes it to Norgate, who was allowed the best illuminator of that age.

, one of the most celebrated scholars of the seventeenth century, was born at Verona, Aug. 29, 1631. His baptismal name was Jerom, which he changed tO'Henry, when he entered the order of the Augustines. His family is said to have been originally of England, whence a branch passed into Ireland, and even to Cyprus. When this island was taken by the Turks, a James Noris, who had defended it as general of artillery, settled afterwards at Verona, and it is from this person that the subject of the present article descended. His father’s name was Alexander, and, according to Niceron, published several works, and among them a History of Germany. Maffei, however, attributes this work only to him, which is not a history of Germany, but of the German war from 1618 to the peace of Lubec, translated from the Italian by Alexander Noris. His son discovered, from his infancy, an excellent understanding, great vivacity, and a quick apprehension. His father, having instructed him in the rudiments of grammar, procured an able professor of Verona to be his preceptor. At fifteen, he was admitted a pensioner in the Jesuits’ college at Rimini, where he studied philosophy; after which, he applied himself to the writings of the fathers of the church, particularly those of St. Augustine; and, taking the habit in the convent of Augustine monks of Rimini, he so distinguished himself among that fraternity, that, as soon as he was out of his noviciate, the general of the order sent for him to Rome, in order to give him an opportunity of improving himself in the more solid branches of learning. Here he indulged his favourite propensity for study to the utmost, and spent whole days, and even nights, in the library of his order at Rome. His daily course of reading was fourteen hours, and this practice he continued till he became a cardinal. It, is easy to conceive that a student of such diligence, and whose memory and comprehension were equally great, must have accumulated a vast stock of knowledge. But for some time his reading was interrupted by the duties of a regent master being imposed on him, according to the usual practice; and we find that for some time he taught at Pesaro, and afterwards at Perugia, where he took his degree of doctor of divinity. Proceeding then to Padua, he applied himself to finish his “History of Pelagianism,” which he had begun at Rome, when he was no more than twentysix: and, having now completed his design, it was printed at Florence in 1673. The great duke of Tuscany invited him, the following year, to that city, made him his chaplain, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Pisa, which the duke had founded with that view.

His “History of Pelagianism,” however, although approved by many learned men, and in fact, the origin of his future advancement, created him many enemies. In it he had defended the condemnation pronounced, in the eighth general council, against Origen and Mopsuesta, the first authors of the Pelagian errors: he also added “An Account of the Schism of Aquileia, and a Vindication of the Books written by St. Augustine against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians.” A controversy now arose, which was carried on between him and various antagonists, with much violence on their part, and with much firmness and reputation on his, and his book was at last submitted to the sovereign tribunal of the inquisition; but, although it was examined with the utmost rigour, the author was dismissed without the least censure. It was reprinted twice afterwards, and Noris honoured, by Pope Clement X. with the title of Qualificator of the Holy Office. Notwithstanding this, the charge was renewed against the “Pelagian History,” and it was brought again before the inquisition, in 1676; and was again acquitted of any errors that affected the church. He now was left for sixteen years to the quiet enjoyment of his studies, and taught ecclesiastical history at Pisa, till he was called to Rome by Innocent XII. who made him under-librarian of the Vatican, in 1692. These distinctions reviving the animosity of his opponents, they threw out such insinuations, as obliged the pope to appoint some learned divines, who had the character of impartiality, to re-examine father Noris’s books, and make their report of them; and their testimony was so much to the advantage of the author, that his holiness made him counsellor of the inquisition. Yet neither did this hinder father Hardouin, one of his adversaries, and the most formidable on account of his erudition, from attacking him warmly, under the assumed title of a “Scrupulous Doctor of the Sorbonne.” Noris tried to remove these scruples, in a work which appeared in 1695, under the title of “An Historical Dissertation concerning the Trinity that suffered in the Flesh;” in which having justified the monks of Scythia, who made use of that expression, he vindicated himself also from the imputation of having attacked the pope’s infallibility, of having censured Vincentius Lirinensis, and other bishops of Gaul, as favourers of Semi-Pelagianism, and of having himself adopted the errors of the bishop of Ypres.

His answers to all these accusations were so much to the satisfaction of the pope, that at length his holiness honoured him with the purple in 1695. After this he was in all the congregations, and employed in the most important affairs, much to the hindrance of his studies, which he used deeply to regret to his friends. Upon the death of cardinal Casanati, he was made chief librarian of the Vatican, in 1700; and, two years afterwards, nominated, among others, to reform the calendar: but he died at Rome, Feb. 23, 1704, of a dropsy. He had the reputation of one of the most learned men in the sixteenth century, which seems justified by his many able and profound writings on subjects of ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Of the latter the most celebrated are, 1. “Annus et Epochse Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syriae nummis prsesertim Mediceis expositae,” Florence, 1691, fol. and 2. “Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata,” Venice, 1681, fol. The whole of his works are comprized in 4 vols. fol. 1729 1732. Some authors mention a fifth volume, but Fabroni gives the contents of only four. They indicate much study of theology, the belles-lettres, sacred and profane history, antiquities and chronology. His History of Pelagianism, as it procured him the most reputation, occasioned also the only uneasiness with which his literary life was disturbed. He had written it with a good deal of caution, and confined himself mostly to historical detail, mixing very little discussion. The Jesuits, however, took occasion to reproach him with Jansenism, and it must be allowed that while he rejected some particular notions of Jansenius, he leaned not a little to the doctrine of St. Augustine.

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

He resided at his college, and had been in holy orders five years, when he was presented to the rectory of Newton St. Loe, in Somersetshire, 1689; upon which occasion he married, and resigned his fellowship. In 1691, his distinguished merit procured him the rectory of Bemerton, near Sarum. This living, upwards of 200l. a-year, came very seasonably to his growing family; and was the more acceptable, for the easiness of the parochial duty, which gave him leisure to make an addition to his revenues, by the fruits of his genius; the activity of which produced a large harvest, that continued increasing till 1710. But he seems to have died a martyr, in some measure, to this, activity; for, towards the latter end of his life, he grew very infirm, and died 1711, in his 55th year, at Bemerton. He was interred in the chancel of that church, where there“is a handsome marble monument erected to his memory, with the following inscription:” H. S. E. Johannes Norris, parochiæ hujus rector, ubi annos viginti bene latuit curæ pastorali & literis vacans, quo in recessu sibi posuit late per orbem sparsa ingenii paris ac pietatis monumenta. Obiit An. Dom. 1711, ætatis 54."

"The piety of Norris was as conspicuous as his learning and abilities. The extreme fervour of devotion which appears throughout his works, may be termed enthusiasm in this age, when moral precepts, elegantly dressed, constitute clerical compositions.

In much of this panegyric we cordially agree, but doubt whether the revival of Mr. Norris’s works would be benerjcial either to religion or philosophy. It cannot, however, be denied, that men of a similar cast of mind may be greatly benefited by some of his works; and we know that some of our most eminent divines have formed their theological studies upon them. Mr. Norris left a widow, two sons and a daughter. His eldest son was rector of Little Langford, and vicar of the two Chilterns, in Wiltshire. His second son, Thomas, was also a clergyman, and some time minister of Stroud, in Gloucestershire. They have both long been dead, as well as their mother, who died at the house of Mr. Bowyer, vicar of Martock, in Somersetshire, who married her daughter.

His works were, 1. “The picture of Love unveiled,” already mentioned. 2. “Hierocles upon the golden verses of the Pythagoreans,” Oxford, 1682, 8vo. 3. “An idea of Happiness, in a letter to a friend, inquiring wherein the greatest happiness attainable by man in this life doth consist,” London, 1683, 4to. 4. “A Murnival of Knaves; or Whiggism plainly displayed and burlesqued out of countenance,” London, 1683, 4to. 5. “Tractatus adversus Reprobationis absolutae Decretum, nova methodo & snccinctissimo compendio adornatus, & in duos libros digestus,” London, 1683, 8vo. What follows in this treatise after the third chapter of the second book, is a declamation spoken in the public schools, commending the Roman senate for banishing all mathematicians out of their dominions. 6. “Poems and discourses occasionally written,” Lond. 1684, 8vo. 7. An 'English translation of the four last books of “The institution and life of Cyrus,” from Xenophon, Lond. 1685, 8vo. The four first books were translated by Mr. Francis Digby, of Queen’s college. 8.“A collection of Miscellanies, consisting of Poems, Essays, Discourses, and Letters occasionally written,” Oxford, 1637, 8vo. The fifth edition, carefully revised, corrected, and improved by the author, was printed at London, 1710, in 8vo. - This has been the most popular of all his works, and affords the picture of a truly amiable mind. 9. “The theory and regulation of Love, a moral essay,” Oxford, 1688, 8vo. 10. “Reason and Religion; or the grounds and measures of Devotion considered from the nature of God and the nature of man, in several contemplations. With exercises of devotion applied to every contemplation,” Lond. 1689, 8vo. 11. “Reflections upon the conduct of human life with reference to the study of learning and knowledge; in a letter to the excellent lady, the lady Mashana,” Lond. 1690, 8vo. To which is subjoined a “Visitation sermon on John xi. 15. preached at the Abbey Church at Bath, July the 30th, 1689. The” Reflections*' were reprinted with large additions, in 1691, 8vo. 12. “Christian blessedness; or discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour 4 Jesus Christ,” Lond. 1690, 8vo; to which he subjoined, “Cursory reflections upon a book called e An Essay concerning Human Understanding.'” 13. “The charge of Schism continued; being a justification of the author of * Christian Blessedness,' for his charging the Separatists with Schism, notwithstanding the toleration. In a letter to a city friend,” Lond. 1691, 12mo. 14. “Practical discourses upon several divine subjects, vols. II. and III.” The third volume was printed in 1693, 8vo. 15. “Two treatises concerning the divine light. The first being an answer to a letter of a learned Quaker (Mr. Vickris), which he is pleased to call A just reprehension to John Morris for his unjust reflections on the Quakers in his book entitled Reflections upon the conduct of human life, &c. The second being a discourse concerning the grossness of the Quakers’ notion of the light within, with their confusion and inconsistency in explaining it,” Lond. 1692, 8vo. 16. “Spiritual counsel; or the father’s advice to his children,” Lond. 1694, 8vo; which was at first composed, as he observes in the Advertisement before it, for the use of his own children. 17. “Letters concerning the Love of God, between the author of the `Proposal to the Ladies,' and Mr. John Norris wherein his Jate discourse, shewing that it ought to be intire and exclusive of all other loves, is further cleared and justified,” Lorid. 1695, 8vo. The second edition, corrected by the authors, with some few things added, was printed at London, 1705, fcvo. The lady, whose letters are published in this collection, was Mrs. Astell. 18. “Practical Discourses; vol. IV.” Lond. 1698, 8vo. To which he subjoined “An Admonition concerning two late books, called ‘ A Discourse of the Love of God,’” &c. 19. “An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World; considering it absolutely in itself. Part I.” Lond. 1701, 8vo. “The Second Part, being the relative part of it; wherein the intelligible World is considered with relation to human understanding; whereof some account is here attempted and proposed,” was printed at London, 170*, 8vo. 20. “A Philosophical Discourse concerning the Natural Immortality of the Soul, wherein the great question of the Soul’s Immortality is endeavoured to be rightly stated and cleared,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Mr. Dodweli returned an Answer to this piece, in the Appendix to his book entitled “The natural Mortality of the Human Souls clearly demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures, and the concurrent Testimonies of the Primitive Writers,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. 21. “A Treatise concerning Christian Prudence; or the Principles of Practical Wisdom fitted to the use of Human Life, designed for the better Regulation of it,” Lond. 1710, 8vo. 22. “A Practical Treatise concerning Humility; designed for the Furtherance and Improvement of that great Christian Virtue, both in the Minds and Lives of Men,” Lond. 8vo. There are some of his letters to Mrs. Thomas, in “Pylades and Corinna,” vol. II. p. 199.

, who appears to be the first of this family entitled to notice in a work of this description, was born in 1581, and succeeded his grandfather Roger, second lord North, in 1600. From the biographer of the family, we learn that “he was a per on full of spirit and flame, yet after he had consumed the greatest part of his estate in the gallantries of king James’s court, or rather his son, prince Henry’s, retired, and lived more honourably in the country, upon what was left, than ever he had done before.” He is said, however, in another authority, to have carried into the country with him the dregs of an old courtier, and was capricious, violent, vindictive, tyrannical, and unprincipled. In 1645 he pears to have acted with the parliament, and was nominated by them to the administration of the admiralty, in conjunction with the great earls of Northumberland, Essex, Warwick, and others. He died Jan. 16, 1666, being then eighty-five years of age, and was buried at Kertling, or Cartlage. He lived to see his grandchildren almost all grown up, and Francis, the second of them, beginning to rise at the bar. He was the author of a miscellany in prose and verse, entitled “A Forest of Varieties, first part,” 1645 a second part had the title of “Exonerations” and a third part included “Privadoes, or Extravagants.” The whole were reprinted in 1659. The prose, says lord Orford, which is affected and obscure, with many quotations and allusions to Scripture and the classics, consists of essays, letters, characters in the manner of sir Thomas Overbury, and devout meditations on his misfortunes.' The verse, though not very poetic, is more natural. Sir E. Brydges, in his “Memoirs of the English Peerage, has given considerable extracts from this publication,” as it is by no means common, and as it lays open many traits of the noble author’s life and character, with much energy, feeling, ability, and eloquence." He appears likewise from these essays and letters to have been perfectly conscious of the errors of his early life, although he might not be able to conquer his temper in old age.

, son of the preceding, had a learned education in the university of Cambridge. He had been made knight of the Bath as early as 1616, at the creation of Charles prince of Wales, and had stood as the eldest son of a peer, at the state in the house of lords, at sixty-three, and was an eminent instance of filial duty to his father, before whom he would not put on his hat, or sit down, unless enjoined to do it. He was bred in the best manner; for besides the court, and choicest company at home, he was sent to travel, and then into the army, and served as a captain under sir Francis Vere. He sat in many parliaments, until secluded by that which condemned the king. After this he lived privately in the country, at Tostock, in Suffolk; and towards the latter end of his life, entertained himself with justice-business, books, and (as a very numerous issue required) oeconomy. He published a little tract on that subject, entitled “Observations and advices Œconomical,” Lond. 1669, 12mo. Afterwards he published another tract, entitled “Passages relating to the Long Parliament,” with an apologetic, or rather recantation preface; for he had at first been active against the King. He wrote also the “History of the Life of Edward Lord North, the first Baron,” Lord Orford says, “sensibly, and in a very good style,” though this critic seems to think he fails in impressing the reader with much respect for his ancestor. After his death appeared a volume of essays, entitled “Light in the way to Paradise; with other occasionals,” Lond. 1682, 8vo. These essays shew that he was steadfast in his religion, that of the established church, and led an exemplary life. He outlived his father ten years, and died June 24, 1677. By his wife Anne, daughter and co-heir to sir Charles Montagu, he had a numerous family, of which six sons and four daughters lived to maturity. Three of his sons form the subject of the ensuing articles.

, lord Guilford, lord keeper of the great seal in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. was the second son of the preceding, and was born about 1640. He had his grammar learning, in which he was a great proficient, at Bury-school, whence he was admitted a fellowcommoner of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1653. His conversation is said to have been remarkably agreeable and facetious, while his diligent advancement in his studies afforded him more solid claims on the esteem of the society. But, as he was originally designed for the law, after two or three years spent at the university, he was removed to the Middle Temple. Here he applied with great diligence to the main object, yet continued to improve himself in history, classics, and languages. He acquired French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch, and became not only a good lawyer, but was esteemed very accomplished in mathematics, philosophy, and music. He used to say, that, if he had not diverted his attention by these studies, and by the practice of music particularly, he should never have been a lawyer. He used to spend much of his early vacations with his grandfather, who loved to hear him talk of philosophy, and the news of London. The biographer of the Norths informs us that he made him “play at backgammon, and fid lie, whenever he thought fit; and the course of life altogether was not displeasing to a young person, for here was fishing, billiards, hunting, visiting, and all the country amusements.”

On commencing business at the bar, the friendship and instructions of sir Jeffery Palmer, attorney-general, and the Hydes, greatly contributed to his proficiency, and advanced his practice. By means of the first named gentleman he had a favourable opportunity of shewing his abilities. The story of the five members in king Charles the First’s time, is well known, who, being prosecuted for the riot committed in the house of commons, in holding the speaker down in his chair, were convicted. After the restoration, the commons thought that the records of this conviction might be prejudicial to the privilege of that house, and ordered a writ of error to be brought; and Mr. Attorney was to find counsel to argue for the king, against the lord Hollis, who was one of the five, and first named in the record. Mr. Attorney being an assistant in the house of lords, could not argue, nor could he prevail upon any of the Serjeants, or other practisers to do it; for they said it was against the commons of England, and they durst not undertake it. At last he appointed Mr. North, "who prepared his argument, which was delivered at the bar of the house of lords; and though the commons carried the cause, yet his argument was approved, and particular notice was taken of his comely youth, and of his modest but forcible reasoning. The duke of York was pleased to inquire who that young gentleman was, who had argued so well; and prevailed with the king to encourage him by making him one of his counsel.

He usually attended the Norfolk circuit, and was soon employed as counsel in every important cause. When the great level of the fens was to be divided, he was appointed chairman in the commission, and directed the execution in such a manner as greatly to augment his fame. Dr. Lane, then bishop, likewise constituted him judge of the royal franchise of Ely; a creditable employment, which increased his business in the country. He was also appointed to assist the earl of Oxford, lord chief justice in eyre, in a formal iter, or justice-seat of the forests, which was of great pecuniary advantage to him, and gave him an idea of the ancient Jaw in the immediate practice of it He was promoted to be the king’s solicitor- general, in the room of sir Edward Turner, made lord chief baron, and was knighted the same day, May 23, 1671. He now dropt the circuit, and was chosen to represent the borough of Lynn, in the house of commons. In 1673 he was appointed attorney-general, on the promotion of sir Heneage Finch to the great seal. In former times, when he applied close to his studies, and spent his days in his chamber, he was subject to the spleen, and apprehensive of many imaginary diseases; and by way of prevention, wore warm cloathing, and leather skull-caps, and inclined much to quackery; but as business flowed in, his complaints vanished, and his skull-caps were destined to lie in a drawer, and receive hjs money. Though his profits were now very great, while the king approved his judgment and fidelity, and the chiefs of the law were mostly his friends, yet he soon grew weary of his post, and wished for another, though less profitable, in a calmer region. The court was sunk in pleasure and debauchery; averse to, and ignorant of all business. The great men were many of them corrupt, false, and treacherous; and were continually tormenting him with improper projects and unreasonable importunities. Among all the preferments of the law, his thoughts were most fixed upon that of lord chief justice of the common pleas; the business there being wholly matter of pure law, and having little to do in criminal causes, or court intrigues: and, on the death of lord chief justice Vaughan in 1674 he succeeded to his wishes. While he presided in this court, he was very attentive to regulate what was amiss in the law, arising either from the nature of things changing, or from the corruption of agents: when any abuse or necessity of regulation appeared, he noted it down, and afterwards digested his thought, and brought it into the form of a tract, from which he might prepare acts of parliament, as he had encouragement and opportunity. He had a great hand in “The Statute of Frauds and Perjuries,” of which the lord Nottingham said, that every line was worth a subsidy. In 1679, the king, being under great difficulties from the parliament, in order to bring them to better temper, and that it might not be said he wanted good counsellors, made a reform of his privy-council, dissolved the old, and constituted a new one, which took in the lord Shaftsbury as president, and the heads of the opposition in both houses; but that he might not be entirely at their mercy, he joined some of his friends, in whose fidelity and judgment he had an entire confidence, among whom lord chief justice North had the honour to be one. Not long after this, he was taken into the cabinet, that he might be assistant, not only in the formal proceedings of the privy-council, but also in the more private consultations of his majesty’s government. He was also often obliged to fill the office of speaker, and preside in the House of Lords, in the room of the chancellor Nottingham, who, towards the latter end of his time, was much afflicted with the gout and other infirmities. From his interest with the king he was considered as probable successor to Nottingham, and accordingly, on his death, in 1683, the great seal was committed to his custody, on which occasion he was created a peer, by the title of lord Guilford, barori of Guilford, in the county of Surrey, by patent bearing date Sept. 27th, 1683.

The death of king Charles involving him in much business, and his enemies Sunderland and Jefferies acquiring considerable influence in the new court, he took a resolution to quit the seal, and went to lord Rochester to intercede with his majesty to accept it. But that noble lord, who considered his opposition to the popish inclinations of the court as of great importance, diverted him from his purpose; but, as his health was visibly impaired, lord Rochester obtained of the king, that lord Guilford might retire with the seal into the country, with the proper officers attending, jn hopes that, by proper regimen and fresh air, he might recover his health against the winter. He died, however, Sept. 5, 1685, at his seat at Wroxton, near Ban bury. Burnet and Kennett have given no very favourable character of him; and the author of “The Lives of the Lords Chancellors” accuses him of yielding too much to court-measures. If we may credit his biographer, however, he appears to have exerted considerable independence of mind, and to have disapproved of many of the measures both of Charles II. and James; but such were his notions of loyalty, as to prevent him from an avowed opposition, even when he felt, and to his friends expressed, most disgust. While his private character was strictly virtuous and unexceptionable, he did not, according to his brother’s account, want zeal to promote the good of his country, which he thought would most effectually be done, by supporting the Church and Crown of England in all due and legal prerogatives and from these principles he never swerved. He wrote, 1. a An Alphabetical Index of Verbs Neuter,“printed with Lilly’s Grammar compiled while he was at Bury school. 2. A paper” on the Gravitation of Fluids considered in the Bladders of Fishes,“printed in Lowthorp’s Abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, vol. II. p. 845. It appears that his lordship’s hint was approved, and pursued, by Mr. Boyle and Mr. Ray, whose papers on that subject are entered in the same collection. 3.” An Answer to a paper of Sir Samuel Moreland on his Static Barometer.“This was never published; but we may observe, to his honour, that it was through his means that barometers were first publicly sold in shops, which before were very rare. 4.” A Philosophical Essay on Music, 1677.“Dr. Burney says, that though some of the philosophy of this essay has been since found to be false, and the rest has been more clearly illustrated and explained, yet, considering the small progress which had been made in so obscure and subtil a subject as the propagation of sound, when this book was written, the experiments and conjectures must be allowed to have considerable merit. The Scheme, or Table of Pulses, at the beginning, shewing the coincidence of vibrations in musical concords, is new, and conveys a clear idea to the eye, of what the ratio of sounds, in numbers, only communicates to the intellect. These coincidences, upon which the degrees of perfection in concords depend, being too rapid for the sense of hearing to enable us to count, are here delineated in such a manner as explains the doctrine of vibrations even to a person that is deaf. This pamphlet, containing only 35 pages, was published without the name of the author; but afterwards acknowledged to have been the work of lord keeper North. His delineation of the harmonical vibration of strings seems to have been adopted by Euler, in his” Tentamen novae Theorise musicae.“The keeper was said, in our last edition, to have composed several concerto* in two and three parts; but no composition, in fewer than four or five parts, is ever honoured with the title of concerto; nor was this title given to instrumental music during the life of lord keeper North. Besides the above, we have from his pen some political essays and narratives, published in whole or part, in his Life by Roger North, and in his” Examen," lord Sommers’ tracts, &c.

, fourth son of Dudley lord North, and brother to the preceding lord Guilford, was born in London, Sept. 4, 1645. In his youth he was of a delicate constitution, and serious turn of mind, circumstances which are said to have determined his parents in the choice of the church as a profession. He received the first principles of education at Bury school, and afterwards, while at home, his father initiated him in logic and metaphysics. In 1661 he was admitted a fellow-commoner of Jesus college, Cambridge, but on the barony descending to his father, he appeared in the academic garb of a nobleman, although without varying from his plan of study, or the punctual obedience he gave to every part of college discipline. He is said to have been particularly attentive to the public exercises and lectures, but was one of the first who conceived that the latter mode of instruction was less useful since students had more easy access to books. The collection of these was one of his earliest passions, and we learn from his brother that he had the usual predilections of a collector for the best editions, fine printing, and elegant bindings, and bought many editions of the same author, and many copies of the same edition, and in this way soon became master of a very valuable library, particularly rich in Greek authors, that and the Hebrew being his favourite studies while at college. After taking his degree of B. A. he was admitted fellow of Jesus, Sept. 28, ie66, by the king’s mandate. He afterwards took his master’s degree, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, June 15, 1669. In 1671 he was admitted to holy orders, and preached his first, or one of “his first sermons, before Charles II. at Newmarket, which was published the same year. About the same time he assisted Dr. Gale with the” Pythagorica Fragmenta,“published in that learned author’s” Opuscula," who handsomely acknowledges the favour in his preface.

In November 1672 he was elected Greek professor at Cambridge. Tr.e first church preferment he had was the sine-cure of Llandiuon -in Wales, given him by archbishop Sheldon; on this he quitted his fellowship, and procured himself to be admitted of Trinity college, for the sake of being more nearly connected with the master, Dr. Isaac Barrow, for whom he had the greatest esteem. About this time he was appointed clerk of the closet to Charles II. who also bestowed on him a prebend in Westminster in Jan. 1673 and on his majesty’s visit to Cambridge he was created D. D. out of respect to the duke of Lauderdale, whose chaplain he then was, and whose character his brother has very weakly endeavoured to defend Among his official duties, it is recorded that in 1676, Dr. North baptised Isabella, second daughter of James duke of York and Mary D'Este.

On the death of Dr. Barrow in May 1677, he was appointed in his room, master of Trinity college, and fancied he had now attained a place of honour, ease, and usefulness; but his solicitude for maintaining good order and strict regularity in the society, and the opposition he met with from the senior fellows, soon convinced him of his mistake. His conscientious integrity in college elections exposed him to many affronts and disagreeable importunities. But by pre-elections he found means to obviate and break the custom of court-mandates; which he suspected some of his fellows were instrumental in obtaining, and which were very common at his first coming, to the great prejudice of real merit. While he continued master of the college he finished the fine library begun by his predecessor. As his constitution was naturally weak, his health was soon impaired by too close and eager application to his studies, without proper remissions and due exercise. He had a stroke of an apoplexy; and a dumb palsy following, deprived him in a great measure of the use of his understanding; in which deplorable condition he lived between four and five years. His miseries being increased by epileptic fits, one of them put an end to his life in April 1683. He was buried in the anti-chapel of Trinity college, with no other memorial than a small stone on which the initials J. N. are inscribed.

Dr. North appears to have been a man of great probity and learning, but, upon the whole, to have been better qualified for private than public life. Although his conversation was fluent, and he possessed much of the wit that is so observable in his descendants, he had an uncommon timidity of temper; and there is much reason to think that the ungovernable state in which he found Trinity college, and the vexatious insolence of some of the fellows, had a tendency to produce that imbecility which rendered his last years useless. His only publication, except the sermon above-mentioned, was an edition of some pieces of Plato, whose philosophy he preferred to that of Aristotle, as more consonant to Christian morality. These were printed at Cambridge in 1673, 8vo, under the title “Platonis de rebus divinis Dialog! selecti, Gr. et Lat. Socratis Apologia, Crito, Phasdo, e libb. legum decimus, Alcibiades secundus.”

, brother of the preceding, and sixth son of Dudley lord North, was likewise brought up to the law, and was attorney-general to James II. and steward of the courts to archbishop Sheldon . He published an “Examen into the credit and veracity of a pretended complete History,” viz. Dr. White Kenneths History of England, and also the lives of his three brothers, the lord keeper Guilford, sir Dudley North, and the rev. Dr. John North. In these pieces little ability is displayed, but there is much curious and truly valuable information, and which would have been yet more valuable had not the author’s prejudices led him to defend some of the worst measures and worst men of Charles II. 's reign. He was also, says Dr. Burney, a dilettante musician of considerable taste and knowledge in the art, and watched and recorded its progress during the latter end of the seventeenth, and beginning of the eighteenth century, with judgment and discrimination; leaving behind him at his decease a manuscript, entitled “Memoirs of Music,” which Dr. Burney found of great use in the history of English secular music during the period to which his memoirs are confined. He lived chiefly at Rougham, in Norfolk, where his life was extended to the age of eighty-three. He died in 1733. He had an organ, built by Smith, for a gallery of 60 feet long, which he erected on purpose for its reception. There was not a metal pipe in this instrument, in 1752; yet its tone was as brilliant, and infinitely more sweet, than if the pipes had been all of metal.

, more familiarly known as Lord North, was the eldest son of Francis, first earl of Guilford, and was born April 13, 1732. He commenced his education at Eton school, and completed it at Trinity college, Oxford, of which his father had been a member, and which the family have generally preferred, from their relationship to the founder, sir Thomas Pope. At school and college, where he took both his degrees in arts (that of M. A. in March 1750) he obtained considerable reputation for his proficiency in classical literature; and was not less respected for the vivacity of his conversation, and his amiable temper, qualities which he displayed during life, and for which his family is still distinguished. He afterwards made what used to be called the grand tour, and applied with much assiduity to the acquisition of diplomatic knowledge. He also studied with great success the Germanic constitution, under the celebrated Mascow, one of the professors of Leipsic, whose lectures on the droit publique were at that time much frequented by young Englishmen of fortune and political ambition; and this mode of education being much a favourite with George II. courtiers thought it a compliment to his majesty to adopt his sentiments in this branch of their sons’ accomplishments. Celebrated, however, as professor Mascow once was, when we came to his name we were not able to discover any biographical memoir of him, or any information, unless that he outlived his faculties for some years, and died about 1760.

On lord North’s return home, he commenced his parliamentary career in 1754, as representative for the family borough of Banbury, in Oxfordshire. On June 2, 175y, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1763, in which last year Mr. George Grenville succeeded the earl of Bute, as first lord. In the same year lord North began to contribute his more active services, as a statesman, by taking the management of the measures adopted in consequence of the publication of Mr. Wilkes’s “North Briton,” and other parts of that gentleman’s political conduct, to his final expulsion from the House of Commons. It must be confessed that these measures afford but an inauspicious commencement of his lordship’s political career, for without answering their purpose, or suppressing the spirit of faction, they served only to give that importance to Wilkes which he then could not otherwise have attained. In the same year lord North was a supporter of the right of taxing American commodities, and of the memorable stamp act. In 1765, on the dissolution of Mr. Grenville’s administration, which was succeeded by that of the marquis of Rockingham, lord North retired from office with his colleagues, but persisted in his sentiments respecting the taxation of the colonies, and divided with the minority against the repeal of the stamp act. The Rockingham administration scarcely survived this well-intentioned measure, and when succeeded by that of the duke of Grafton, lord North was, in August 1766, appointed joint receiver (with George Cooke, esq.) and paymaster of the forces; and in Dec. 1767, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and a lord of the treasury. The talents he had already displayed were thought to qualify him in an eminent degree for those situations, especially that of chancellor of the exchequer; and his abilities for debate were often displayed to advantage. During a period of considerable political turbulence, he was advanced Jan 28, 1770, to the place of first lord of the treasury, which he held with that of chancellor of the exchequer during the whole of his eventful administration, which finally terminated in March 1782.

To detail his lordship’s political conduct during these twelve years would be to give the voluminous history of the contest with America, and the war with France, Spain, and Holland, and the Northern confederacy, which arose from it. With every part of this series of difficulties, every step which led to them, and every measure by which they were to be opposed, his lordship was intimately connected, either as prime mover, or defender. It has often indeed been said, that in some of the worst parts of his administration, where his measures appeared most erroneous, and his obstinacy in defending them most unaccountable, he acted under a certain species of secret influence, or controul. Whether this was intended as a compliment to his understanding at the expence of his independence, or was one of those insinuations, very common during his administration, against the first personage of the state, has not yet been decided; and as the best informed seem to be of opinion that the private history of his administration, which on all occasions is different fro that which appears on the surface, is not yet ripe for di closure, we may be excused from entering on the di cussion.

Some facts, however, may be added, which are admitted on all sides, and on which future information can throw very little new light. It may be added that lord North entered upon the war with America upon a principle recognized not only by the most decided majorities in parliament, but by the voice of the nation. To this last there was no exception but in the proceedings of a party in the metropolis, whose dissatisfaction arose from other causes, and who embraced this favourable opportunity to mix something national with the petty concerns of John Wilkes. On the other hand, no minister had ever to contend with so many difficulties; a question of right, which many disputed; the disaffection of the colonies, which was applauded and encouraged within his hearing in the house of commons; an army which, even if it had appeared at once in the field of battle, had to encounter physical difficulties; but which was sent out with hesitation, and in such divisions that the portion to be assisted was generally defeated before that which was to assist had arrived; a navy likewise incapable of coping with the numerous European enemies that combined against Great Britain, and as yet in the infancy only of that glory to which we have seen it arrive. Added to these, lord North had to contend in parliament with an opposition more ample in talents and personal consequence than perhaps ever appeared at one time, and with the uninterrupted hostility of the corporation of London to all his measures, and to the court itself. For such a force of opposition lord North was not in all respects qualified. Even Burke, whose irritating language during tfye American war seemed beyond all endurance, could allow, that “lord North wanted something of the vigilance and spirit of command that the time required.” Yet with all these discouragements, it was only the actual failure of the measures of subjugation that lessened his majorities, and turned the tide of popular sentiment. It was not conviction, but disappointment, which made the war obnoxious; and the “right of taxation,” the “ingratitude of the colonies,” “unconditional submission,” ana even the epithet “rebellion,” applied to their resistance, never ceased to be urged until repeated failures prescribed a different language, and made thousands question the principle as well as the policy of the war, who at its commencement did not entertain a doubt on the subject. It was now that the ministry of lord North was charged with misconduct and incapacity; and such misconduct and incapacity being but too obvious in the blunders of those who had to execute his orders, it was not wonderful that the supporters of the war should gradually desert the ministerial standard, and that ministers should sink under the accumulated weight of parliamentary and popular odium. After a few faint efforts, therefore, to which he seemed rather impelled than inclined, lord North gave in his resignation in March 1732. That he had lately acted under the influence to which we formerly alluded, seemed to he about this time more generally believed, for some of the last endeavours of the opposition to procure his dismissal, had the “influence of the crown” for their avowed object; and as they approached nearer the accomplishment of their wishes, their threats to bring this guilty minister to his trial became louder. When, however, he made way for his successors, they not only granted him fu-ll indemnity for the past, but at no great distance of time, associated with him in a new administration, a measure to which the public could never be reconciled. The coalition which placed lord North and Mr. Fox in the same cabinet was more repugnant to general feeling than any one, or perhaps the aggregate, of lord North’s measures, when in the plenitude of his power. When the voice of the nation, and the spirit of its sovereign, had dismissed this administration, lord North returned no more to power, and took 110 very active part in politics, except on two occasions, when he maintained the consistency of his former political life, by opposing the repeal of the test act, and a scheme for the reform of parliament. In 1790 he succeeded his father in the earldom, but survived him only two years, during which he had the misfortune to lose his sight. He passed his last days in the calmness and endearments of domestic privacy, to which his cheerful and benign temper m was peculiarly adapted. His lordship died August 5, 1792. He was at this time, ranger and warden of Busby Park; chancellor of the university of Oxford; a knight of the garter; lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Somerset; recorder of Gloucester and Taunton, one of the elder brethren of the Trinity-house; president of the Foundling-hospital and the Asylum, and governor of the Turkey company and Charter-house.

In March 1756, he married Anne, daughter and co-heir of George Speke, of White Lackington, in the county of Somerset, esq. by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his eldest son, George Augustus, who dying without male issue in 1794, was succeeded by his brother Francis, present and fourth earl of Guilford. Of the talents of lord North, much was said during his administration, and it is perhaps his highest praise, that against such a force of opposition, he could act so well upon the defensive. With many personal defects, he contrived to exhibit a species of eloquence which seemed easy and habitual, and always commanded attention. On subjects of finance, his abilities were generally acknowledged^ he reasoned closely and he replied with candour and temper, not unfrequently, however, availing himself of his wit. But as an orator, there were men of far more brilliant talents opposed to him; and as a statesman in general, he cannot be compared to his successor Pitt. He perhaps approaches the nearest to sir Robert Walpole, and like him seldom displayed the commanding energies of mind, but was content to follow the track of official duties, and to defend individual measures, arising out of temporary necessities, without professing any general system applicable to all occasions. But whatever were the errors or defects in lord North’s public conduct,' there lies no impeachment on his integrity. He neither enriched himself nor his family, nor was he ever accused of turning ministerial information. or influence to the purposes of pecuniary emolument. To the last moment of his life, he reviewed his conduct and his principles with satisfaction, and professed his readiness to defend them against any inquiry that could be instituted. What such inquiry can produce, must be the subject of future discovery. All we know at present is, that the moment he resigned, his public accusers became silent.

The private character of lord North has ever been the subject of praise and admiration. Among all his political opponents, he never had a personal enemy. Although during his whole administration the subject of the bitterest calumny and malignity, he never retorted but in conversation. His uncommon sweetness of temper, the vivacity of his replies, his ready and playful wit, created a diversion in his favour, if we may use the phrase, amidst the fiercest of his political contests. His character in general, indeed, cannot be concluded in more comprehensive terms than those of Burke: “He was a man of admirable parts; of general knowledge; of a versatile understanding, fitted for every sort of business; of infinite wit and pleasantry; of a delightful temper, and with a mind most disinterested.”

, an English antiquary, was the son of George North, citizen of London, and was born in 1710. He received his education at St. PauPs school, whence, in 1725, he went to Bene't college in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of B. A. in 1728, and M. A. in 1744. In 1729 he was admitted into deacon’s orders, and went to officiate as curate at Codicote, a small village near Welwyn, in Herts. In 1741 he published, without his name, “An Answer to a scandalous libel, entitled The Impertinence and Imposture of Modern Antiquaries displayed.” This “scandalous libel,” a quarto pamphlet, professed to be a “refutation of the *ev. Mr. Wise’s Letter to Dr. Mead, concerning the white horse, and other antiquities in Berkshire,” and was written by the rev. Will. Asplin, vicar of Banbury, and had a preface added to it by William Burnstead of Upton, co, Warwick, esq. formerly the supercargo of the prince Frederic, East Indiaman. Mr. North’s refutation and censure of the pert arrogance of Messrs. Asplin and Bumstead recommended him not only to the notice and esteem of the gentleman whose cause he had so generously espoused (to whom he was at that time a perfect stranger), but also of several dignified members of the Society of Antiquaries, into which he was elected early in 1742, and soon distinguished himself as a very useful member, and drew up in that year, a catalogue of the earl of Oxford’s coins, for the public sale of them.

In 1743 he was presented to the vicarage of Codicote, and in 1744 was appointed chaplain to lord Cathcart. In the same year he took his degree of M. A. and drew up a catalogue of Mr. West’s series of coins, intending a prefatory account of them, and a catalogue of Dr. Ducarel’s English coins. With this last gentleman he continued his correspondence in 1748 and 1749, copious extracts from which are given in our authority. In the spring of 1750 he made a tour into the West; and on his return communicated very freely to Dr. Ducarel his ideas of the proceedings respecting a charter, then in agitation at the Society of Antiquaries, and of which he appears to have entertained very groundless fears. By one of his letters, in August 1750, it appears that he had not enjoyed three days of good health for more than a year; and was then labouring under several bodily complaints, and apprehensive of an epilepsy. He continued, however, as often as he was able, to indulge in literary pursuits, and extend his researches into every matter of antiquity that engaged the attention of his contemporaries and correspondents. In 1751, the rev. Charles Clarke, of Baiiol college, Oxford, published “Some Conjectures relative to a very antient Piece of Money lately found at Eltham in Kent, endeavouring to restore it to the place it merits in the Cimeliarch of English Coins, and to prove it a coin of Richard the first king of England of that name. To which are added, some Remarks on a dissertation (lately published) on Oriuna the supposed wife of Carausius, and on the Roman coins there mentioned,” 1751, 4to. To this Mr. North published an answer, entitled “Remarks on some Conjectures, &c. shewing the improbability of the notion therein advanced, that the arguments produced in support of it are inconclusive or irrelative to the pointin question,” 1752, 4to. In this answer, which was the first piece published by any of the society after their incorporation, Mr. North considered at large the standard and purity of our most ancient English coins, the state of the mints, and the beginning of sterling, from the public records; and added to it, “An Epistolary Dissertation (addressed to Mr. Vertue) on some supposed Saxon gold coins; read before the Society of Antiquaries, Dec. 19, 1751.” No man could be better qualified for this task than Mr. North, who, by his intimacy with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Folkes (the latter of whom he mentions in the highest terms), became perfectly acquainted with the records and whole state and history of the English coinage. Mr. Charles Clarke, however, a member of the Society, announced a design of proving Mr. North wrong in his “Epistolary Dissertation” but luckily for himself, discovered that his own premises would not support any such conclusion, and therefore his publication never appeared.

In 1752 Mr. North had made a considerable progress in “Remarks on the Money of Henry III.” which had then engaged his attention for more than three years, and for which he had actually engraved two plates, and hoped to have it ready for publication in the ensuing winter; but nothing on the subject was found among his Mss. after his death. The plates, however, which were purchased at Dr. Lort’s sale by Mr. Gough, who worked off a few impressions for his friends, are now in the possession of the . rev. Rogers Ruding, F. S. A. vicar of Maldon in Surrey, from whom the public may soon expect a very elaborate work on English coinage. In 1752 Mr. North was involved in law suits with his parishioners, some of whom had not paid him for tithes or offerings for many years, and obliged him to take the harshest steps to obtain justice, which was the more hard upon him, as his living was a very small one. 6n this painful subject he had frequent occasion to consult with Dr. Ducarel, to whom he also this year addressed several letters relative to the proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries; and others respecting the tour which Dr. Ducarel made to Normandy, for the purpose of inspecting its antiquities. In this correspondence, much of which is inserted in Mr. Nichols’s valuable work, the reader will find many curious remarks on subjects of architecture, and on scarce books and coins. To such matters his whole attention was devoted, except in one instance, in which he appears to have been under the influence of a more tender passion, and addressed some lines entitled Welwyn Spaw," lamenting the cold disdain of some apparently real Celia. These are inserted in the Literary Magazine for 1755, p. 209; in which year also he drew up the catalogue of Dr. Mead’s coins for public sale; and in the following year meditated some account of the Cromwell family.

Soon after this period he was afflicted with disease and melancholy, which seem to have interrupted his accustomed studies, as we hear no more of him until 1766, when he addressed to the earl of Morton, then president of the Royal Society, some valuable observations on the introduction of Arabic numerals into this kingdom. These were afterwards communicated to the Society of Antiqaaries by Mr. Gough, and are printed in the Archaeologia, vol. X. In 1769, when this society determined to publish their transactions, application was made to Mr. North for his materials towards compiling a history of its foundation. With this he complied, but the greater part of his collections for the purpose had been burnt, with his other papers, by himself, during a dangerous illness about four years before, “from a conviction,” he says, how ungenerously such things are commonly used after a person’s death."

Mr. North died June 17, 1772, having just completed his sixty-fifth year, at his parsonage-house at Codicote, where he had resided from the time of his taking orders, without any other preferment than this small vicarage, which did not produce him above 80l. a year, in addition to which he had a small patrimony. He was buried at the east end of the church-yard of the parish, in which he had lived in as much obscurity, as his astyes now rest. That such a man should have been neglected in the distribution of preferments, reflects no credit on the patrons of his time. He was learned, able, and industrious, beyond most of. his contemporaries; and his correspondence gives a very favourable idea of his private character. He left his library and his collection of English coins to Dr. Askew and Dr. Lort, the latter of whom, on the death of Dr. Askew, got more of the books, which, on the sale of his library in 1791, fell into the hands of Mr. Gough. Among these was a ms account of Saxon and English coins by him, with, drawings by Mr. Hodsol, now in possession of Mr. Ruding.

, esq. an inhabitant, if not a native, of Sharpen haule, or Sharpenhoe, in Bedfordshire, was a barrister at law, and a zealous Calvinist in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, as appears by several tracts, printed together in 1569, 8vo. He was counsel to the Stationers’ company, in whose books we find accounts of the fees paid to him set down, the last of which was between 1583 and 1584, within which period we imagine he died. He was contemporary with Sternhold and Hopkins, and assistant to them in their noted version of the Psalms, twenty-seven of which he turned into English metre, and in all the editions of them, the initials of his name are prefixed. He also translated into English, an epistle from Peter Martyr to Somerset the protector, in 1550; and under the same patronage, Calvin’s Institutes. Being a close intimate and fellow-student with Thomas Sackville, esq. afterwards earl of Dorset, he is said to have joined with him in the composing one dramatic piece, of which Mr. Norton wrote the three first acts, entitled “Ferrex and Porrex;” afterwards reprinted, with considerable alterations, under the title of “Gorboduc;” but Mr. Warton seems to doubt his having any, or at least much share in this drama.

, a physician and celebrated astrologer, was born Dec. 14, 1503, at St. Remy, in the diocese of Avignon. His father was a notary public, and his grandfather a physician, who instructed him in the elements of the mathematics. He Afterwards completed his courses of humanity and philosophy at Avignon, and studied physic at Montpelier; but the plague raging in 1525, he became a travelling physician for five years, and undertook all such patients as were willing to put themselves under his care. After this fee returned to Montpelier, and was created doctor of his faculty in 1529, and then revisited the places where he had practised physic before. At Agen, he contracted an acquaintance with Julius Caesar Scaliger, which induced him to make some stay in that town, where he married; but upon the death of his wife, four years after, he went first to Marseilles, and then, in 154-4, to Salon, where he married a second time.

In 1546, Aix being afflicted with the plague, he went thither, at the solicitation of the inhabitants, and was of so great service, by a powder of his own invention, that the town gave him a considerable pension for several years after the contagion ceased. He appears to have been equally successful in 1547, when the city of Lyons, being visited with the same distemper, had recourse to him; but upon his return to Salon, found that his popularity had decreased. This occasioned his having more leisure to apply to his studies; and now he began to think himself inspired, and miraculously illuminated with a prospect into futurity, notions which he had partially entertained for some time. When these pretended illuminations discovered to him any future evenl, he entered it in writing, in prose, but he afterwards thought the sentences would savour more of a prophetic spirit, if they were expressed in verse. This opinion determined him to throw them all into quatrains, and he afterwards ranged them into centuries. When this was done, he resolved to print them, with a dedication addressed to his son Caesar, an infant only some months old, in the form of a letter, or preface. This first edition, which is included in seven centuries, was printed by Rigault at Lyons in 1568, 8vo. He prefixed his name in Latin, but gave to his son Caesar the name as it is pronounced, Notradame. This work was reprinted twice in the same year, and while some considered him as an impostor, there were others, and among them persons of considerable rank aud influence, who believed him to be really endued with the supernatural gift of prophecy. However, Henry II. and queen Catharine of Medicis, his mother, very graciously received him at court; and, besides other marks of respect paid to him, he received a present of 200 crowns. He was sent afterwards to Blois, to visit his majesty’s children there, and report what he should be able to discover concerning their destinies; and thence he returned to Salon loaded with honours and presents. Animated with this success, he augmented his work from 300 quatrains to the number of a complete miliiade, and published it with adedication to the king in 1558. That prince dying the next year of a wound which he received, as is well known, at a tournament, the book of our prophet was immediately consulted; and this unfortunate event was found in the 35th quatrain of the first century, in these lines:

So remarkable a prediction not a little increased the credulity of the public, and he was honoured shortly after with a visit from Emanuel duke of Savoy, and the princess Margaret of France, his consort. Charles IX. coming to Salon, being eager to see him, Nostradamus complained of the little esteem his countrymen had for him, on which the monarch publicly declared, that he should hold the enemies of Nostradamus to be his enemies. In passing, not Jong after, through the city of Aries, he sent for Nostradamus, presented him with a purse of 200 crowns, together with a brevet, constituting him his physician in ordinary, with the same appointment as the rest. But our prophet enjoyed these honours only for the space of sixteen, months, for he died July 2, 1566, at Salon. Besides his “Centuries,” we have some other pieces of his composition, and his prophetical works have been translated into English. He left three sons and three daughters John, his second son, exercised with reputation the business of a proctor in the parliament of Provence: he wrote the “Lives of the ancient Provencal Poets, called Troubadours,” which was printed at Lyons in 1575, 8vo. Cæsar, the eldest son, was born at Salon in 1555, and died in 1629: he left a “Manuscript giving an Account ofthe most remarkable events in the History of Provence, from 1080 to 1494,” in which he inserted the lives of the poets of that country. These memoirs falling into the hands of his nephew Caesar Nostradamus, gentleman to the duke of Guise, he undertook to complete the work; and being encouraged by a present, of 3000 livres from the estates of the country, he carried the account up to the Celtic Gauls the impression was finished at Lyons, in 1614, and published under the title of “Chronique de l'Histoire de Provence,” The next son of Michel is said to have imitated his father, and ventured to predict, that Pouzin, which was then besieged; would be destroyed by fire. In order to prove the truth of his prophecy, he was seen, during the tumult, setting fire to all parts of the town; which so much enraged M. De Saint Luke, that he rode over him with his horse, and killed him. But this story has been justly called in question,

, comptroller of the royal edifices of France, and an eminent planner of gardens, was born at Paris in 1613. We know little of him, except that he was brought up as a gardener under his father, until about 1653, when he was first employed by the superintendant Fouquet, to lay out the magnificent gardens of Vaux-le-Vicomte, celebrated by La Fontaine in his poems. In this work he was the creator of those porticoes, covered walks, grottoes, labyrinths, &c. which then were thought the greatest ornaments of gardens, and particularly gratified the taste of Louis XIV. who employed him in the decoration of his favourite residences at Versailles, Trianon, Fontainbleau, &c. Le Nostre went to Rome in 1678, and afterwards travelled through Italy; and it is said he found nothing in the most celebrated gardens equal to what he had himself executed. While at Rome, pope Innocent XI, was desirous of seeing le Notre, and gave him a long audience, at the conclusion of which the latter exclaimed, “I have now seen the two greatest men in the world your holiness, and the king, my master” “There is a great difference between them,” replied the pope “the king is a great and victorious prince, and I am a poor priest, servant of the servants of God.” Le Notre, delighted with this answer, and forgetting by whom it was made, clapped his hand on the pope’s shoulder, saying, “My reverend father, you are in good health, and will bury all the sacred college;” and Le Notre, more and more charmed with the sovereign pontiff’s kindness, and the particular esteem he expressed for the king, fell upon his neck, and embraced him. It was his custom thus to embrace all who praised Louis XIV.; and he embraced that prince himself every time he returned from the country. He was some time in England, and, probably on the invitation of Charles II. laid out St. James’s and Greenwich parks. In 1675, when he was again in France, his long services were rewarded by letters of noblesse, and the cross of St. Michael. The king would have given him a coat of arms, but he replied that he had one already, “consisting of three snails surmounted by a cabbage.” At the age of four-score he desired permission to retire, which the king granted him, on condition that he would sometimes come and see him. He died at Paris, in 1700, at the age of 87. He is said to have had a fine taste for the arts in general, especially for that of painting; and some pieces of his execution are mentioned as existing in the royal cabinet.

, surnamed Bras de Fer (Iron Arm), a celebrated warrior, was born in Bretany, in 1531, In his youth he served in Italy, and, returning to France, joined the Calvinists, and rendered them the most important services by his courage, prudence, and integrity. He took Orleans from the catholics, Sept. 28, 1567; commanded the rear at the battle of Jarnac in 1569, and made himself master of several strong places. His left arm being broken at the taking of Fontenay in Poitou, it was cut off at Rochelle, and he had an iron one made, which he used with great ease, and was from thence surnamed Bras de Fer. In 1578, La Noue engaged in the service of the Netherlands, gave them great assistance, and made count Egmont prisoner at the capture of Ninove; but was himself taken prisoner in 1580, and not exchanged for the count till 1585. La Noue continued to serve with great glory under king Henry IV. but was mortally wounded in the head, by a musket-ball, at the siege of Lambale in 1591, and died a few days after. He left “Discours Politiques,” Geneva, 1587, 4to. His son, Odet de la Noue, who died between 1611 and 1620, was author of some “Poesies Chretiennes,” Geneva, 1504, 8vo.

, a learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at Dieppe in 1647$ and devoted his early years to the study of ecclesiastical antiquities, in which he was allowed to have attained very great knowledge. His first literary employment was on an edition of the works of Cassiodorus, which he prepared for the press in conjunction with father Garet, contributing the life, prefaces, and tables. He was next engaged on the works of St. Ambrose, published in 1686 1691. His most important work was his “Apparatus ad Bibliothecam max. veterum Patrum,” Paris, 1715, 2 vols. folio, intended as a supplement to Despont’s “Bibl. Patrum,” 27 vols. folio, but which is not always found with it. It contains a number of curious and learned dissertations on the lives, writings, and sentiments, of the fathers, with illustrations of many obscure passages. In 1710, Nourry published “Lucius Caecilius de mortibus persecutorum,” 8vo, which he contended was not the production of Lactantius (see Lactantius) but although he has supplied many useful notes and comments on this work, he failed in making converts to this last opinion. Nourry died at Paris, March 24, 1724, aged seventy-seven.

, a learned Italian monk, was born at Verona, in 1594. He entered among the Theatins when he was about eighteen years of age, and after passing his noviciate at Venice, took the vows in 1614. He afterwards studied philosophy and divinity, was ordained priest in 1621, and exercised the various functions of his office and order, applying at his leisure hours to study, and writing the many works enumerated by his biographers. The principal of these are, “Comment, in quatuor Evangel, et Acta Apostol.” in 4 vols. folio; “Adagia Sanctorum Patrum,” in 2 vols. folio; “Eiectra Sacra, in quibus qua ex Latino, Grseco, Hebraico, et Chaldaico fonte, qua ex antiquis Hebraeorum, Persarum, GnecoruiD, Romanorum, aliarumque Gentium ritibus, qusedam divinse Scripturae loca noviter explicantur et illustrantur,” in 3 vols. folio. He died at Verona Jan. 14, 1650, aged fifty-six.

, or Novatus, a priest of the church of Carthage, flourished in the third century, and was the author of a remarkable schism called after his name, or rather after the name of his associate Novatian, who, however, is also called Novatus by many ancient writers. He is represented by the orthodox as a person scandalous and infamous for perfidy, adulation, arrogance, and so sordidly covetous, that he even suffered his own father to perish with hunger, and spared not to pillage the goods of the church, the poor, and the orphans. It was in order to escape the punishment due to these crimes, and to support himself by raising disturbances, that he resolved to form a schism; and to that end entered into a cabal with Felicissimus, an African priest, who opposed St. Cyprian Novatus was summoned to appear before the prelate in the year 249; but the persecution, begun by Decius the following year, obliging that saint to retire for his own safety, Novatus was delivered from the danger of that process; and, not long after associating himself with Felicissimws, then a deacon, with him maintained the doctrine, that the lapsed ought to be received into the communion of the church without any form of penitence. In the year 2.51, he went to Rome, about the time of the election of pope Cornelius. There he met with Novatian, a priest, who had acquired a reputation for eloquence, and presently formed an alliance with him; and, although their sentiments with regard to the lapsed were diametrically opposite, they agreed to publish the most atrocious calumnies against the Roman clergy, which they coloured over so artfully, that many were deceived and joined their party. This done, they procured a congregation consisting of three obscure, simple, and ignorant bishops; and, plying them well with wine, prevailed upon them to elect Novatian bisuop of Rome. After this irregular election, Novatian addressed letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to Fabiuu of Antioch, and to Dionysius of Alexandria; but St. Cyprian refused to open his letter, and excommunicated his deputies: he had likewise sent to Rome before, ia order to procure the abolition of the schism. Fabius made himself pleasant at Novatian’s expence; and Dionysius declared to him, that the best way of convincing the world, that his election was made against his consent, would be to quit the see, for the sake of peace. On the contrary, Novatian now maintained his principal doctrine, that such as had fallen into any sin after baptism ought not to be re*­ceived into the church by penance; and he was joined in the same by Novatus, although he had originally maintained the contrary while in Africa. Novatian had been a Pagan philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and it does not appear that he and his party separated from the church, on any grounds of doctrine, but of discipline, and it is certain, from some writings of Novatian still extant, that he was sound in the doctrine of the Trinity. He lived to the time of Valerian, when he suffered martyrdom. He composed treatises upon the “Paschal Festival, or Easter,” of -the “Sabbath,” of “Circumcision,” of the “Supreme Pontiff,” of “Prayer,” of the “Jewish Meats,” and of “the Trinity.” It is highly probable, that the treatise upon the “Trinity,” and the book upon the “Jewish Meats,” inserted into the works of Tertullian, were written by Novatian, and they are well written. There is an edition of his works by Whiston, 1709; one by Welchman; and a third, of 1728, with notes, by Jackson. With respect to the followers of Novatian, at the first separation, they only refused communion with those who had fallen into idolatry: afterwards they went farther, and excluded, for ever, from their communion, all such as had committed crimes for which penance was required; and at last they took away from the church the power of the keys, of binding and loosing offenders, and rebaptised those who had been baptised by the church. This sect subsisted a long time both in the east and west; but chiefly became considerable in the east, where they had bishops, both in the great sees and the small ones, parish-churches, and a great number of followers. There were also Novatians in Africa in the time of St. Leo, and in the east some remains continued till the eighth century.

, an eminent English divine, and the last surviving father of the English Reformation, descended from an ancient family of Norman origin, was the son of John Nowejl, esq, of Read, in the parish of Whailey, a,nd county of Lancaster. This gentleman, who was twice married, had, by his first wife, Dowsabel, daughter of Robert Hesketh, esq. of Rufford, in Lancashire, an only son, Roger Noweli, whose issue male, in a direct line, enjoyed the family estates for more than two centuries. By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Kay of Rachdale, he had four sons, Alexander, the subject of this article, Laurence, Robert, and Nicholas; and several daughters. Alexander was born in 1507 or 1508, at Readhall, anciently Rivehead or Riverhead, a mansion on the Calder, a tributary branch of the Ribble. A view of this his birth-place, as it stood in 1750, is given in Mr. archdeacon Churton’s “Life of Alexander Noweli,” a work which has furnished the substance of this sketch.

He was educated at Middleton, about six miles from Manchester; but who was his preceptor there we have not learnt. That his elementary progress was rapid, we may reasonably presume, as he was deemed ripe for the university, where, however, early entrances were then more frequent, at the age of thirteen. Respecting this number a singular coincidence is mentioned, whether it were the result of choice, or of accident. He became a member of Brasen-nose college at the age of thirteen; he resided there thirteen years and he afterwards bestowed on the society thirteen scholarships. He is said to have been chamber-fellow with Fox, the martyrologist, and had perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden, or Harding, who was afterwards principal of the college. We are assured that he was a public reader of logic in the university, and taught the famous book of Rodolphus Agricola, when he was in the twentieth year of his age. He was then (and there seem to be examples of the same delay at that time), only an undergraduate, and was not admitted B. A. until May 29, 1536, when he was of ten or twelve years standing. He was elected fellow, of the college shortly afterwar, is, and proceeded M. A. June 10, 1540.

He had directed his intent to the church ever since he was sixteen years old; but it is not known when or bv whom he was admitted into holy orders. When he left the university he came to London, and obtained the office of second master of Westminster-school, on the new foundation, appointed in 1543. While he filled this important post, he is said to have been diligent in teaching his pupils pure language and true religion: using for the former purpose Terence, and for the latter St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, in the original Greek. He appears to have been licensed as a preacher in 1550, but where he exercised his talent we are not particularly informed: except that he preached, during this reign, “in some of the notablest places and auditories df the realm.” The first production of his pen that we have met with was some lines in honour of the memory of Bucer, who died at Cambridge in 1551, which shew that he was of congenial sentiments on the subject of religion with that celebrated reformer; and the same year he held an interesting conference with Redmayne, master of Trinity college, Cambridge, then on his death-bed, respecting the principal articles which separated the English from the Romish church. In that year also he succeeded Redmayne as one of the prebendaries of Westminster.

In the first parliament of queen Mary, in 1553, Nowell was returned one of the burgesses for Loo, in Cornwall; but a committee being appointed to inquire into the validity of the return, they reported that *' Alexander Nowell being a prebendary of Westminster, and thereby having a voice in the convocation-house, cannot be a member of this house,“and a new writ was directed to” be issued accordingly. Nowell quietly submitted to this decision, although it was not correct as to the law; for none below the dignity of dean or archdeacon were bound to personal appearance in the convocation; but these were not times for men desirous of retaining peace and a good conscience, to insist rigidly on their right, against the prevailing party; and he soon afterwards found it necessary to join his countrymen who were exiles in Germany, from the persecuting spirit of popery. Of this event we are only told, that Bonner, having intended him as one of his victims, he was assisted in his escape by Francis Bowyer, at that time a merchant, and afterwards sheriff of London. In 1554, we find him at Strasburgh, with Jewell, Poinet, Grindal, Sandys, and other men of future eminence in the Reformed Church. In the unfortunate disputes which afterwards took place among these exiles, respecting church discipline, Nowell took a moderate part, sometimes, for the sake of peace, conceding to the presbyterian party: but at last, with equal wisdom and firmness, pressing unity in essentials, and’submission in smaller matters to authority duly appointed and legally exercised.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, Nowell returned to England, and was soon fixed upon, with Parker, Bill, Whitehead, Pilkington, Sandys, &c. to be promoted to the chief preferments then vacant. His first employment seems to have been that of one of the commissioners for visiting the various dioceses, in order to introduce such regulations as might establish the Reformation. One of these commissions, in which NowelL's name appears, was dated July 22, 1559. In December of that year, he was appointed chaplain to Grindal, and preached the sermon on the consecration of that divine to the bishopric of London. Preferments now began to flow in upon him. On Jan. 1, 1559-60, Grindal collated him to the archdeaconry of Middlesex; in February, archbishop Parker gave him the rectory of Saltwood, with the annexed chapel of Hythe, in Kent, and a prebend of Canterbury. Saltwood he resigned within the year, as he did a prebend of St. Peter’s Westminster, then erected into a collegiate church; but was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s in November 1560, and about the same time was collated to the prebend of Wildland or Willand in the same church.

He now became a frequent preacher at St. Paul’s cross, and on one occasion, a passage of his sermon was much talked of, and grossly misrepresented by the papists, as savouring of an uncharitable and persecuting spirit. He had little difficulty, however, in repelling this charge, which at least shews that his words were considered as of no small importance, and were carefully watched. One of his sermons at St. Paul’s cross was preached the Sunday following a very melancholy event, the burning of St. Paul’s cathedral by lightning, June 4, 1561. Such was. his reputation now, that in September of this year, when archbishop Parker visited Eton college, and ejected the provost, Richard Bruerne, for nonconformity, he recommended to secretary Cecil the choice of several persons fit to supply the place, with this remark, “that if the queen would have a married minister, none comparable to Mr. Nowell.” The bishop of London also seconded this recommendation; but the queen’s prejudice against the married clergy inclined her to give the place to Mr. Day, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was a bachelor, and in all respects worthy of the promotion. In the course of the ensuing year, 1562, No well was frequently in the pulpit on public occasions, before large auditories; but his labours in one respect commenced a little inauspiciously. On the new-year’s day, before the festival of the circumcision, he preached at St. Paul’s, whither the queen resorted. Here, says Strype, a remarkable passage happened, as it is recorded in a great man’s memorials (sir H. Sidney), who lived in those times. The dean having met with several fine engravings, representing the stories and passions of the saints and martyrs, had placed them against the epistles and gospels of their respective festivals, in a Common Prayer-book; which he caused to be richly bound, and laid on the cushion for the queen’s use, in the place where she commonly sat; intending it for a new-year’s gift to her majesty, and thinking to have pleased her fancy therewith. But it had a quite contrary effect. For she considered how this varied from her late injunctions and proclamations against the superstitious use of images in churches, and for the taking away all such reliques of popery. When she came to her place, and had opened the book, and saw the pictures, she frowned and blushed; and then shutting the book (of which several took notice) she called for the verger, and bade him bring her the old book, wherein she was formerly wont to read. After sermon, whereas she used to get immediately on horseback, or into her chariot, she went straight to the vestry, and applying herself to the dean, thus she spoke to him: “Mr. Dean, how came it to pas’s, that a new service-book was placed on my cushion r” To which the dean answered, “May it please your majesty, I caused it to be placed there.” Then said the queen, “Wherefore did you so” “To present your majesty with a new year?s gift.” “You could never present me with a worse.” “Why so, madam?” “You know I have an aversion to idolatry, to images, and pictures of this kind.” “Wherein is the idolatry, may it please your majesty?” “In the cuts resembling angels and saints; nay, grosser absurdities, pictures resembling the blessed Trinity.” “I meant nq harm; nor did I think it would offend your majesty, when I intended it for a new-year’s gift.” *“You must needs be ignorant then. Have you forgot our proclamation against images, pictures, and Romish reliques, in the churches? Was it not read in your deanery?” “It was read. But be your majesty assured I meant no harm when I caused the cuts to be bound with the service-book.” “You must needs be very ignorant to do this after our prohibition of them.” “It being my ignorance, your majesty may the better pardon me.” “I am sorry for it; yet glad to hear it was your ignorance rather than your opinion.” “Be your majesty assured it was my ignorance.” “If so, Mr. dean, God grant you his spirit, and more wisdom for the future.” “Amen, I pray God.” “I pray, Mr. Dean, how came you by these pictures who engraved them” “I know not who engraved them I bought them.” “From whom bought you them” “From a German.” “It is well it was from a stranger. Had it been any of our subjects, we should have questioned the matter. Pray let no more of these mistakes, or of this kind, be committed within the churches of our realm for the future.” “There shall not.” Strype adds to this curious dialogue, that it caused all the clergy in and about London, and the churchwardens of each parish, to search their churches and chapels; and to wash out of the walls all paintings that seemed to be Romish and idolatrous; in lieu whereof, suitable texts of Holy Scripture were written.

Towards the close of 1562, his patron Grindall, bishop of London, collated him to the valuable rectory of Great Hadham, in Hertfordshire, where the ample tithe-bara which he built still remains. Nowell was one of those eminent men mentioned by Isaac Walton, who were fond of angling; and to enable him more commodiously to indulge in this amusement, Dr. Sandys, the succeeding bishop of London, conferred on him a grant of the custody of the river, within the manor of Hadham, with leave to take fish, and to cut down timber, to make pits and dams, free of all expence whatsoever. When the memorable convocation, in which the Articles of Religion were revised and subscribed, met in 1563, Nowell was chosen prolocutor of the lower house. Among other more important matters, rites and ceremonies were warmly agitated in this house. On this occasion, Nowell, with about thirty others, chiefly such as had been exiles during queeu Mary’s reign, proposed that some other long garment should be used instead of the surplice, or that the minister should, in time of divine service, use the surplice only; that the sign of the cross should be omitted in baptism, and that kneeling at the holy communion should be left to the discretion of the ordinary; that saints’ days should be abrogated, and organs removed. But the majority would allow of no alterations in the liturgy or rules of Edward the Sixth’s service-book (knowing the wisdom, deliberation, and piety, with which it had been framed) as it was already received and enforced by the authority of parliament, in the first year of the queen. During the plague, the ravages of which this year were very extensive, he was appointed to draw up a homily suitable to the occasion, and a form of prayer for general use, both of which were set forth by the queen’s special commandment, July 10, 1563.

Nowell, who continued to be a very frequent, and one of the most approved of the public preachers at Paul’s Cross, introduced in one of his sermons, Harding’s answer to Jewell, reading some passages of it, and confuting them. This was no uncommon practice in those days, during the activity of the popish party, and before matters of controversy could be usefully committed to the press. In the same year he“noticed, in another of his sermons, Dorman’s answer to Jewell, and appears from this time to have employed his leisure in preparing a more formal answer to that heap of misrepresentations. It was in 1560 that Jewell made his famous challenge to the papists, that none of the peculiar and discriminating dogmas of popery could be proved, either by warrant of scripture, or by authority of the fathers or councils, during six hundred years from the birth of Christ. Attempts were made to answer this challenge by Rastell, and Harding, (see their articles) and now Mr. Dorman published what he called” A Proof of certain articles in Religion, denied by Mr. Jewell.“Against this, Nowell published,” A Reproof of a book, entitled “A Proof,' &c.” 1565, 4to, reprinted, with some additions, in little more than a month. In the same year appeared Dorman’s “Disproof of Nowell’s Reproof,” followed in 1566 by Nowell’s “Continuation of his Reproof,” and in 1567, by his “Confutation as well of Mr. Dorman’s last book, intituled * a Disproof,' &c.” as also of Dr. Sanders’s causes of Transubstantiation,“&c. In this controversy Nowell’s learning and deep knowledge of ecclesiastical history were not more conspicuous than the candour with which he treated his adversaries. He appears to have had the aid of the bishop of London and other high characters of the time in the publication of these works, which appeared to his learned contemporaries to be of such importance to the cause of the reformation and the character of the reformed church, as to merit their utmost care, even in the minutiae of typographical correction. This circumstance, says his biographer, shows” how solicitous the persons to whom, under God, we in great measure owe the final reformation of our church, were ut writes ipsa limaretur in disputatione, that genuine truth might be fully known, and accurately expressed."

The principal remaining monument of Nowell’s fame is his celebrated “Catechism,” of the history of which and of catechisms in general, his biographer has given a very interesting detail. The precise time when he wrote it has not been discovered; nor whether, as is not improbable, he first devised it (or some such summary) for the use of his pupils in Westminster-school, It is, however, certain that it was composed, and in readiness for publication, before the convocation sat in 1562, for, among the minutes of matters to be moved in that synod, we find two memorable papers, both of them noted by the archbishop of Canterbury’s hand (Parker), and one of them drawn up by one of his secretaries, in both of which there is express mention of Nowell’s catechism. For the proceedings of the convocation on the subject, we must refer to his excellent biographer. The work was not published until June 1570, 4to. This is what is called his “Larger Catechism,” and in the preface it is announced that he intended to publish it, reduced into a shorter compass, as soon as possible. The abridgment accordingly came out the same year, and both in Latin. They were soon after, for the sake of more extensive usefulness, translated into English, by Thomas Norton, of whom we have lately taken notice, and into Greek by the Dean’s nephew, Whitaker, but the Greek translation of the larger, which was first printed (along with the Latin) did not appear until 1573, and that of the smaller in 1575. His biographer gives some account of a third Catechism, attributed to Nowell, but its history seems involved in some obscurity. There seems reason to think that this was, in whole or in part, what is now called “The Church Catechism.” Nowell’s other catechisms were in such request as to go through a great many impressions, and long continued to be used in schools, and the use of them appears to have been frequently enjoined by the founders of schools, and mentioned expressly in the statutes drawn up for such seminaries. What public authority and private influence could do, was not wanting to recommend these catechisms as the foundation of religious knowledge. In fact, the church catechism, the homilies, and Nowell’s catechisms, appear to have long been the standard books, which were quoted as authorities for all that the church of England believed and taught; and Nowell’s were within these few years reprinted in the “Enchiridion Theologicum,” by Dr. Randolph, late bishop of London, and by Dr. Cleaver, late bishop of St. Asaph.

In 1572 he completed the endowment at one and the same time, of a free- school at Middleton in Lancashire, and of thirteen scholarships in Brazen-nose college and as these benefactions were both of them established by royal patent (her majesty also of her free bounty encouraging and assisting him), he chose that the school should be called queen Elizabeth’s school, and the scholars queen Elizabeth’s scholars. This benefaction to the college was peculiarly seasonable, as in consequence of a severe plague at Oxford, in the preceding year, and for want of exhibitions to assist them in their studies, some of the scholars were compelled to go about requesting alms, having licence so to do, as an act of parliament required, under the common seal of the university. Nowell was at all times a zealous patron of learning, and was much looked up to in that character, as appears not only by his being frequently consulted on schemes for the promotion of liberal education, but also by the numerous dedications of learned books to him. Books that had a tendency to inculcate the principles of the reformation were also frequently published under the protection of his name, as one acknowledged “to be a learned and faithful preacher of God’s word, and an earnest furtherer of all godliness.” In 1580 the queen granted him a licence of non-residence for three months and fourteen days, that he might visit his scholars of Brasen-nose, and the school at Middleton, her majesty “having long, by sure proof, known his experience and skill in business, as well as earnest desire and constant solicitude for the training up of youth in learning and virtue.” It was indeed his great success as a preacher, and his eminence as an opponent of popery, that procured him the honour of having his works proscribed in the “Index librorum prohibitorum;” and his name, together with that of Fox, Fleetwood the recorder, and others; inserted at Rome in a “bede-roll,” or list of persons, that were to be dispatched, and the particular mode of their death, as by burning or hanging, pointed out. Campion, the great emissary from Rome, being apprehended, Nowell, and May dean of Windsor, held, in August 1581, a conference with him in the Tower, of which an account was afterwards published under the title of “A True Report of the disputation or rather private conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Jesuite, &c.” Lond. 1583, 4 to. In 1588 Nowell quitted the prebend (Willand) he had so long held in St. Paul’s for another, that of Tottenham in the same church, and upon this occasion resigned his living of Hadham. In the following year the queen gave him the next presentation to a canonry of Windsor, “in consideration of his constant preaching of the word of God, during the space of almost forty years;” and because he had lately resigned the rectory of Hadham and prebend of Willand, as being, through age and imbecility of body, not equal to the duties of them; nor likely, on account of his extreme age and infirm health, long to enjoy either his present or any future preferment. He lived, however, to succeed to a canonry of Windsor in 1594. In 1595, on the death of Mr. Harris, the fourth principal of Brasennose college, Nowell was chosen to succeed him. This election of a man now on the verge of ninety was perhaps intended or accepted rather as a compliment, than with a view to the performance of much actual service, and ac-r cordingly he resigned it in a few months.

Dean Nowell died Feb. 13, 1601-2, in the ninety-fifth year of his age, almost forty years after he had begun to reckon himself an old man. “But notwithstanding his very great age and frequent sicknesses, such was the original strength of his constitution, and such the blessing of providence on a life of piety, peace, and temperance, that neither his memory nor any of his faculties were impaired; and to the last, it is said, he was able to read thesmallest print without the help of glasses.” He was interred in St. Mary’s chapel, at the back of the high altar in St. Paul’s, in the same grave where, thirty-three years before, he had buried his beloved brother Robert Nowell. He was twice married, but had no issue by either of his wives. ii For the minutiae of his character, the reader will find ample gratification in the elaborate life lately published by Mr. Archdeacon Churton. It concerns a long period of our ecclesiastical history, and in every history indeed mention is made of Nowell’s eminent services in promoting and establishing the reformed religion. Endowed, says Mr. Churton, with excellent parts, he was soon distinguished by the progress he made in the schools of Oxford; where he devoted thirteen years, the flower of his life and the best time for improvement, to the cultivation of classical elegance and useful knowledge. His capacity for teaching, tried first in the shade of the university, became more conspicuous when he was placed at the head of the first seminary in the metropolis; and at the same time his talents as a preacher were witnessed and approved by some of the principal auditories of the realm. Attainments such as these, and a life that adorned them, rendered him a fit object for Bonner’s hatred; but Providence rescued him from the fangs of the tyger, in the very act of springing upon his prey. Retirement, suffering, and study, in the company of Jewell, Grindal, and Sandys, stimulated by the conversation and example of Peter Martyr, and other famed divines of Germany, returned him to his native land, with recruited vigour and increasing lustre, when the days of tyranny were overpast. Elizabeth, and her sage counsellor Burghley, placed him at once in an eminent situation among those of secondary rank in the church, and accumulated other preferments upon him; and would probably have advanced him to the episcopal bench, had not his real modesty, together with the consciousness of approaching old age, been known to have created in him a fixt determination not to be raised to a station of greater dignity which, however, all things considered, could scarcely, in his case, have been a sphere of greater usefulness. Near to his friend and patron, the excellently pious and prudent archbishop Parker, and not distant from the court, he was an able coadjutor to each and to alj, in bringing forward and perfecting, what they all had at heart, the restoration of true and pure religion.

, younger brother to the preceding, and dean of Lichfield, was entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, in 1536, the same year in which his elder brother in the same college became B. A. After a little while, Wood says, he went to Cambridge, was admitted to the degree of B. A. in that university, and reincorporated at Oxford in July 1542, where he proceeded M. A. March 18, 1544. In 1546 he was appointed master of the grammar-school at Sutton Colfield, in Warwickshire; but was not yet, as Wood makes him, in sacred orders; for he was not ordained a deacon till 1550. He was not suffered to continue long in quiet possession of the school; for articles of complaint were exhibited against him by the corporation, as patrons of the school, in the court of chancery, upon a pretence of neglect of duty; though the real ground of offence appears to have been his zeal for the reformation; and therefore, on appeal to the king in council, he justified his character and conduct so well, that letters were issued to the warden and fellows of the King’s town of Sutton, not to remove him from his place of schoolmaster, nor to give him any farther molestation or disturbance.

During the troubles in Mary’s days he was concealed for some time in the house of sir John Perrot, at Carewcastle in Pembrokeshire; but before the queen died, he went to his brother Alexander and the exiles in Germany. On his return he was made archdeacon of Derby and dean of Lichfield, in April 1559; had the prebend of Ferring in the cathedral of Chichester in August 1563, and of Ampleford in York in 1566, and the rectory of Haughton and Drayton Basset, in the county of Stafford. He died in or about the month of October, 1576. He was, as Wood justly observes, “a most diligent searcher into venerable antiquity.” He bad also this peculiar merit, that he revived and encouraged the neglected study of the Saxon language, so essential to the accurate knowledge of our legal antiquities, as well as to the elucidation of ecclesiastical and civil history. In these studies, while he resided, as is said, in the chambers of his brother Robert Nowell (the queen’s attorney- general of the court of wards), he had the celebrated William Lambarde for his pupil, who availed himself of his notes and assistance in composing his learned work on the ancient laws of England. He wrote a Saxon vocabulary or dictionary, still extant in manuscript, which he gave to his pupil Lambarde, from whom it passed to Somner, the learned antiquary of Canterbury, who made use of it in compiling his Saxon dictionary. It then came into the hands of Mr. Selden, and is now, with other books of that great man, printed and manuscript, reposited in the Bodleian library at Oxford. Mr. Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, had a quarto ms. entitled “Polychronicon,” a miscellaneous collection, as it seems, containing perambulations of forests and other matters, in the hand-writing of Lawrence Nowell, 1565. There are also “Collectanea” by him, relating chietiy to ecclesiastical affairs, in the Cotton library. He appears to have been in learning, piety, and meekness of spirit, the worthy brother of the dean of St. Paul’s.

, attorney-general in the reign of Charles I. the son of William Noy, of St. Burian, in Cornwall, gent, was born in 1577. In 1593 he was entered of Exeter-college, where he continued three years in close application to his studies. Thence he was removed to Lincoln’s- inn, to study the common law, in the knowledge of which he became very eminent. He was chosen to represent the borough of Helston in his own country, towards the end of James’s reign, in two parliaments; in both of which he shewed himself a professed enemy to the king’s prerogative. In 1625 he was elected a burgess for St. Ives, in which parliament, and another following, he continued in the same sentiments, until he was made attorney-general in 1631, which produced a total change in his views, and he became not only a supporter of the prerogative where it ought to be supported, but carried his notions of this power so far as to advise the measure of ship-money, a tax levied without consent of parliament. He was unquestionably a man of great abilities, but flattered so much upon that account, that Clarendon says he thought “he could not give a clearer testimony that his knowledge in the law was greater than all other men’s, than by making that law, which all other men believed not to” be so. So he moulded, framed, and pursued the odious and crying project of soap; and with his own hand drew and prepared the writ for ship-money; both which will be the lasting monuments of his fame. In a word,“adds this excellent historian,” he was an unanswerable instance, how necessary a good education and knowledge of men is to make a wise man, at least a man fit for business.“Noy, however, did not live to see the full effect of his measures. In 1634 his health was much impaired by the fatigue arising from his professional duties, and he retired to Tunbridge Wells, where he died in August, and was buried at New Brentford. His will, which is dated June 3, about a month or six weeks before his death, contains the following singular clause:” All the rest of my estate I leave to my son Edward (who is executor to this my will), to be squandered as he shall think fit I leave it him for that purpose, and I hope no better from him.“Steele, in the Tatler, No. 9, observes that this” generous disdain, and reflection upon how little he deserved from so excellent a father, reformed the young man, and made Edward from an arrant rake become a fine gentleman." No such effect however followed; and within two years he was killed in a duel.

The king is said to have been much affected with attorney-general Noy’s death, and Laud paid him this compliment in his. “Diary:” “I have lost a near friend of him, and the Church the greatest she had of his condition, since she needed any such.” But the commons in general rejoiced; and the vintners, says Wood, or rather Howell, drank carouses, in hopes to dress meat again, and sell tobacco, beer, &c. which by a sullen capricio Noy restrained them from. The players too, for whom he had done no kindness, introduced him on the stage, and made him the subject of ridicule, in a comedy entitled, “A Projector lately dead, &c.” He was allowed, however, to have been a very profound lawyer . This character of him appears justifiable from the writings he left behind, and from the following books afterwards published, mostly during the common-wealth, when their merit only could have recommended them. 1. “A Treatise of the principal Grounds and Maxims of the Laws of England,” 1641, 4to, afterwards 8vo, and 12mo. 2. “Perfect Conveyancer; or, several select and choice Precedents,” 1655, 4to. “Reports of Cases in the time of Queen Elizabeth, K. James, and K. Charles the First; containing the most excellent Exceptions for all manner of Declarations, Pleadings, and Demurs, exactly examined and laid down,” 1656, fol. and reprinted in 1669. 4. “Complete Lawyer or, a Treatise concerning Tenures and Estates in Lands of Inheritance for Life, and other Hereditaments and Chattels real and personal,” c. 1661, 8vo. 5. “Arguments of Law and Speeches.”

, a distinguished Dutch physician and anatomist, but a German by birth, was greatly distinguished by his anatomical labours, both at the Hague and at Leyclen, in the latter part of the seventeenth cenr tury. He filled the office of professor of anatomy and surgery in the university of Leyden, and was also president of the college of surgeons. He pursued his dissections with great ardour, cultivating both human and comparative anatomy at every opportunity. In these pursuits, within eight years he dissected above sixty human bodies, besides those of the animal creation, and made many discoveries by means of injections, but at that time this art had not attained its full perfection, quicksilver being the only substance used. He died about 1692. The following is a catalogue of his publications: “De Vasis aquosis Oculi,” Leid. 1685;“De Ductu salivali novo, Salivfi, ductibus aquosis et humore aqueo oculorum,” ibid. 1686. Some subsequent editions of this work were entitled “Sialographia, et ductuum aquosorum Anatome nova;” “Adenographia curiosa, et Uteri foeminei Anatome nova, cum Epistola ad Amicum de Inventis novis,” ibid. 1692, &c. “Operationes et Experirnenta Chirurgica,” ibid. 1692, and frequently reprinted. The three last mentioned works were published together in 3 vols. 12 mo, at Lyons, in 1722. There are some Mss. under his name in the British Museum, in Ayscough’s Catalogue, but they do not appear to be originals.

, a nobleman of poetical celebrity, was a descendant from the Nugents of Carlanstown, in the county of Westmeath, and was a younger son of Michael Nugent, by Mary, daughter of Robert lord Trimleston. He was chosen M. P. for St. Mawes, in Cornwall, in 1741; appointed comptroller of the household of Frederick, prince of Wales, in 1747; a lord of the treasury in 1754; one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland in 1759; and a lord of trade in 1766. In 1767 he was created baron Nugent and viscount Clare, and in 1776 earl Nugent, with remainder to his son-in-law, the late marquis of Buckingham. His lordship was thrice married; his second wife was Anne, sister and heiress to secretary Craggs, the friend of Pope and Addison, by whom he acquired a large fortune. She was at the time of her marriage to him, in 1736, in her second widowhood, having

Earl Nugent cultivated literature not unsuccessfully, had agreeable talents for poetry, but never rose to great eminence as a politician. Yet he was a steady friend to his country (Ireland), and always a powerful pleader for her interests. This he evinced rather whimsically on one occasion in 1775, by addressing “Verses to the Queen, with a New Year’s Gift of Irish Manufacture,” a 4to poem, accompanied by a present of Irish grogram. The wits of the time asserted that her majesty was graciously pleased to thank the noble author for both his pieces of stuff. Lord Orford says that Earl Nugent “was one of those men of parts whose dawn was the brightest moment of a long life; and who, though possessed of different talents, employed them in depreciating his own fame, and destroying all opinion of his judgment, except in the point of raising bimself to honours. He was first known by the noble ode on his own conversion from popery; yet, strong as was the energy and reasoning in it, his arguments operated but temporary conviction on himself, for he died a member of the church he had exposed so severely.” So much was this ode admired that, as he was known to associate with the wits of Pope’s circle, and those who adorned the court of Frederick prince of Wales, he was supposed to have been assisted by some of them; but for this there seems no reasonable ground. Many of his poetical productions are good, and he was certainly known to be capable of the best of them, while he could at the same time descend to the worst, inconscious of their inferiority. A volume of his poems was published anonymously by Dodsley, and entitled “Odes and Epistles,” Lond. 1739, 8vo, 2d. edit. This contains the ode above mentioned on his religion, which is addressed to William Pulteney, esq. There are also other pieces by him in Dodsley’s collection, and the *' New Foundling Hospital for Wit.“His” Verses to the Queen,“and his” Faith, a poem," were the only ones published separately, the latter in 1774, and the former in 1775. The latter was a strange attempt to overturn the Epicurean doctrine by that of the Trinity, and was certainly one of those productions by which, as lord Orford observes, he depreciated his own fame.

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

This gentleman has often been confounded with Christopher Nugent, M. D. and F. R. S. who died Nov. 12, 1775, and whose daughter became the wife of the celebrated Edmund Burke. Sir John Hawkins says he was an ingenious, sensible, and learned man 1 of easy conversation, and elegant manners. Dr. Johnson had a high opinion of him, and always spoke of him in terms of great respect. We know of only one publication from his pen, which appeared ia 1753, an “Essay on the Hydrophobia.”

, one of the restorers of literature in Spain, flourished in the sixteenth century, and was born at Vailadolid, in Latin Pinciuniy whence he was sometimes called Pingianus. His father, of the illustrious family of Guzman, was superintendant of the finances, or treasurer to Ferdinand the catholic. As entitled by birth, he received, when of proper age, the honour of knighthood of St. Jago; but his earliest taste being decidedly for literature, he put himself under a regular course of instruction for that purpose, and having a particular desire to become acquainted with the Greek language, then little known in Spain, after some elementary instruction in grammar under Antonio Lebrixa, he went to Bologna, and applied with the greatest ardour to Greek and Latin under Jovian of Peloponesus, and Philip Beroaldus. Having learned what these celebrated masters were able to teach, he determined to improve himself by every means, and laid out large sums in the purchase of Greek books and Mss. with which he returned to Spain, and devoted the whole of his time and attention to the studies he had begun with so much success. He appears to have been first employed by cardinal Ximenes on his celebrated Polyglot, and executed the greater part of the Latin version. He then succeeded Demetrius Luca of Crete, as Greek professor in the university of Alcala, then founded by the cardinal; but some disputes which occurred in this university obliged him to seek a situation of more tranquillity. This he found at Salamanca, the most famous university of Spain, where he was appointed Greek professor, and also taught rhetoric, and lectured on Pliny’s natural history. Here he formed many distinguished scholars, acquired the esteem of the learned men of his time, and was for many years the great patron and teacher of classical studies. He assisted likewise in the correction and revision of some of the ancient authors. He died about the age of eighty, in 1553, according to Antonio, or 1552, according to Thuanus and others, bequeathing his valuable library to the university of Salamanca, and his other property to the poor. His private character appears to have been estimable; he kept a plain but hospitable table, at which he loved to see his friends and scholars, whom he delighted and edified by his conversation. Among his works are, 1. “Annotationes in Senecae Philosophi Opera,” Venice, 1536, which Lipsius calls a model of just criticism. 2. “Observationes in Pomponium Melam,” Salamanca, 1543, 8vo. 3. “Observationes in loca obscura et depravata Hist. Nat. C. Plinii, cum retractationibus quorundam locorum Geographiae Pomponii Melae, locisque aliis non paucis in diversis utriusque linguae authoribus castigatis et exposuis,” Antwerp,1547, fol. Antonio thinks there was a previous edition at Salamanca in 1544, as there certainly was a subsequent one at Francfort in 1596, fol. but Saxius calls the Antwerp edition an octavo. 3. “Glosa sobre las obras de Juan de Mena,” Saville, 1528, fol. and Toledo, 1547, fol. This^is a commentary in the Spanish language on the works of John de Mena, a poet of Cordova. 4. A collection of Spanish proverbs, beguti in his old age, and published under the title “Refranes, o Proverbios en Romance,” Salamanca, fol. 1555. Of this edition there is a copy in the British Museum with ms notes. It was reprinted at Madrid in 1619, 4to.

, a very ingenious man, was the son of Robert and Sarah Nutt, and born at Hinckley in September 1700. He was educated at the free grammar-school in that town, where he made a very considerable progress in learning; and at a proper age, was put apprentice to Mr. John Parr of Hinckley, an eminent apothecary; in, which station, by his diligence and industry, he gained great confidence and respect from his master and the whole family. After this, he attended the hospitals in London; and on his return to Hinckley, carried on for many years a considerable business with reputation and success. Some time about the middle of life he was chosen one of the surveyors of the highways for the parish, when he adopted a new method for improving the same, by turning over the roads the water that came from the town; which being considerably enriched by washing the streets and public sinks, what he could spare from the roads, or rather after it had done the business there, he conveyed upon the lands of those who approved of his proceedings. The consequence was, the land was greatly enriched. The effect of the water upon the road, in that part below the town that is now the Coventry turnpike-road, was, that it served like a boultingmill; the muddy foul parts upon the land being carried off, and the sandy, gravelly, and stony parts, remaining by their own gravity, were left firm; for the. road was sometimes wet, and sometimes dry, as he let it out of a reservoir for that purpose at pleasure. By this method it became good for saddle and pack-horses; the last of which were much used upon the roads at that time, the pit-coal from the Warwickshire mines being brought by them in considerable quantities. It was also much better for the draft horses; though when much used by these, especially in the coal business, the wheels of these carriages being at that time very narrow, and generally laying on great loads, were apt to disturb and cut the roads; for the materials used were commonly sand dug by the road side, which was done at a moderate expence. If upon this more gravelly or stony materials had been applied, there is no doubt, though the expence would have been greater, the road would have been much better. This, being a new way of proceeding, met with a difference of reception in the parish; and some enemies were ready on every occasion to insult and ridicule their surveyor. He spent much of his time in the valuation of land, and many persons entertained a good opinion of his abilities in this branch, particularly sir Dudley Ryder, when attorney-general, the ancestor of the present lord Harrowby.

, is the name of a family of painters, of whom Panfilo, the father, a Cremonese, was the favourite scholar of Trotti, and for some time the imitator of his style, but afterwards relinquished it for one more solid, though less alluring. Placentia and Milan possess his best works. He flourished about 1608. His eldest son, Charles Francis, was born in 1608, at Milan, and left the principles of G. C. Procaccino for the graces of Guido with a success that still insures him the name of the Lombard Guido. More choice than copious in composition, he forms his figures with grace and delicacy, and sweetly animates their countenances; hence his Madonnas always occupy a distinguished place in galleries. He died in. 1651. His younger brother, Joseph, who was born in 1619, with more fire and fancy, delighted in numerous composition, and sacrificed choice and delicacy to energy and effect. He painted much more than his brother, not only in Lombardy, but through theVenetian state and in various churches of Brescia. The large picture of a dead man resuscitated by S. Dominic, at Cremona, for expression and magnificence of arrangement, may be considered as one of his most powerful productions totally exempt from those symptoms of decay which disfigure or debilitate many of his later works; for he lived to a great age, and continued to paint till death surprised him in 1703.

, commonly known by the name of Mario da* Fiori, a flower-painter, was born in 1603, at Penna, in the kingdom of Naples. He was educated under his uncle Tomaso Salini, and being an exact observer of nature, he employed himself in copying the finest flowers, by which a dealer made an extraordinary profit in selling them again. Mario, informed of this circumstance, and also learning that his performances sold still higher at Home, resolved to visit that capital. Here he quickly rose to a high degree of reputation, and applied himself most diligently to attain perfection in his branch of the art. His representations of nature were equally exact and elegant; he chose his subjects with taste, handled his pencil with wonderful lightness, and coloured with singular beauty; but, according to Fuseli, “the charm which Mario spread over his flowers was not a permanent one: the impurity of the vehicle soon absorbed the freshness and the bloom of his glazings, and left a squalid surface.” Hence his pictures did not long maintain the extraordinary prices at which they were purchased. He was elected a member of St. Luke, and died in 1673, at the age of seventy.

, an English nonconformist, was a native of Sussex, descended of a genteel family there, and born about 1596. After a proper foundation at the grammarschool, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner of Brazen-nose college in 1615; whence he removed in a little time to Magdalen-hall, for the sake of a puritanical tutor to whom he was greatly attached. He took the degrees in arts in 1619 and 1622; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was, some time in 1620, admitted to officiate, it does not appear in what capacity, in St. Michael’s church, Cornhill, London. Here having disclosed some of those opinions which were hostile to the constitution of the Church of England, he became obnoxious to the censures of the episcopal court; to avoid which, he went, with others of his persuasion, to Holland, in 1633. He continued for the most part at Arnheim in Guelderland, till 1640; when, his party gaining the ascendancy, and he fancying that his services would not only be useful but safe, he returned home, and was soon after made minister of Kimbolton, in Huntingdonshire, by Edward earl of Manchester.

In 1643, he was appointed one of the assembly of divines, became a great champion of the Presbyterians, and a zealous assertor of the solemn league and covenant; and was sent, with Stephen Marshall, whose daughter he,had married, the same year, to procure the assistance of the Scotch, and join with them in their favourite covenant: and when r after his return, both houses of parliament took the covenant in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, he was the person who read it from the pulpit, and preached a sermon in defence of it, shewing its warrant from scripture, and was rewarded for his good service with the rectory of Acton near London. He was also one of the committee who drew up the preface to the “Directory,” which was ordered to be substituted for the Book of Common Prayer; but, when the majority of the assembly of divines determined on establishing the Presbyterian form of churchgovernment, he dissented from them; and, closing with the Independents, when they became the reigning faction, paid his court to the grandees of the army, who often made use of his advice. In December 1647, he was sent by them, with Stephen Marshall, to the king, at Carisbrookcastle, in the Isle of Wight, in attendance upon the commissioners then appointed to carry the four dethroning votes , as they are now called for which service they were rewarded with no less than 500l. a-piece. About the same time also Nye was employed by the same masters to get subscriptions from the apprentices in London, &c. against a personal treaty with the king, while the citizens of that metropolis were petitioning, for one. In April of the next year, he was employed, as well as Marshall and Joseph Caryl, by the Independents, to invite the secluded members to sit in the house again; but without success. In 1653, he was appointed one of the triers for the approbation of public preachers; in which office he not only procured his son to be clerk, but, with the assistance of his father-in-law, obtained for himself the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, worth 400l. a-year. In 1654, he was joined with Dr. Lazarus Seaman, Samuel Clark, Richard Vines, Obadiah Sedgwick, Joseph Caryl, &c. as an assistant to the commissioners appointed by parliament to eject such as were then called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters in the city of London. After Charles the Second’s restoration, in 1660, he was ejected from the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange; and it was even debated by the healing parliament, for several hours together, whether he, John Goodwin, and Hugh Peters, should be excepted for life: but the result was, that if Philip Nye, clerk, should, after the 1 st of September, in the same year 1660, accept, or exercise, any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, he should, to all intents and purposes in law, stand as if he had been totally excepted for life.

He died in the parish of St. Michael, Cornhill, London, in Sept. 27, 1672, and was buried in the upper vault of the said church. Wood represents him to have been a dangerous and seditious person, a politic pulpit-driver of independency, an insatiable esurient after riches, and what not, to raise a family, and to heap up wealth; and his friends, while they give him the praise of considerable learning and abilities, allow that he engaged more in politics than became his profession. Calamy says but little in favour of his character. His works were, 1. “A Letter from Scotland, to his Brethren in England, concerning his success of affairs there,” 1643. Stephen Marshall’s name is also subscribed to it. 2. “Exhortation to the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant, &c.” 1643. 3. “The excellency and lawfulness of the Solemn League and Covenant,” 1660, 2nd edit. 4. “Apologetical Narration, submitted to the honourable Houses of Parliament,” 1643. To this there came out an answer, entitled “An Anatomy of Independency,” 1644. 5. “An Epistolary Discourse about Toleration,” 1644. 6. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Power thereof,“&c. 1664. 7.” Mr. Anthony Sadler examined,“&c. by our author’s son, assisted by his father, 1654. 8.” The Principles of Faith presented by Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, &c. to the Committee of Parliament for Religion,“&c. 1654. 9.” Beams of former Light,“&c. 1660. 10.” Case of great and present Use,“1677. 11.” The Lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and Power of the King in Ecclesiastical Affairs, with queen Elizabeth’s admonition,“&c. 1683. It was then reprinted, and, being printed again in 1687, was dedicated by Henry Nye, our author’s son, to James II. 12.” Vindication of Dissenters,“&c. printed with the preceding, in 1683. 13.” Some account of the Nature, Constitution, and Power, of Ecclesiastical Courts," printed also with the former, in 1683, and other tracts,

Nyssenus, Gregory. See Gregory. Oates (Titus), a very singular character, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was born about 1619. He was the son of Samuel Gates, a popular preacher among the baptists, and a fierce bigot. His son was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he removed to Cambridge. When he left the university, he obtained orders in the church of England, though in his youth he had been a member of a baptist church in Virginia-street, Ratcliffe Highway, and even officiated some time as assistant to his father; he afterwards officiated as a curate in Kent and Sussex. In 1677, after residing some time in the duke of Norfolk’s family, he became a convert to the church of Rome, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesuits, with a view, as he professed, to betray them. Accordingly, he appeared as the chief informer in what was called the popish plot, or a plot, as he pretended to prove, that was promoted for the destruction of the protestant religion in England, by pope Innocent XL; cardinal Howard; John Paul de Oliva, general of the Jesuits at Rome; De Corduba, provincial of the Jesuits in New Castille; by the Jesuits and seminary priests in England; the lords Petre, Powis, Bellasis, Arundel of Wardour, Stafford, and other persons of quality, several of whom were tried and executed, chiefly on this man’s evidence; while public opinion was for a time very strongly in his favour. For this service he received a pension of 1200l. per annum, was lodged in Whitehall, and protected by the guards; but scarcely had king James ascended the throne, when he took ample revenge of the sufferings which his information had occasioned to the monarch’s friends: he was thrown into prison, and tried for perjury with respect to what he had asserted as to that plot. Being convicted, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory five times a year during his life, to be whipt from Aldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn; which sentence, says Neal, was exercised with a severity unknown to the English nation. “The impudence of the man,” says the historian Hume, “supported itself under the conviction; and his courage under the punishment. He made solemn appeals to heaven, and protestations of the veracity of his testimony. Though the whipping was so cruel that it was evidently the intention of the court to put him to death by that punishment, yet he was enabled by the care of his friends to recover, and he lived to king William’s reign, when a pension of 400l. a year was settled upon him. A considerable number of persons adhered to him in his distresses, and regarded him as a martyr to the protestant cause.” He was unquestionably a very infamous character, and those who regard the pretended popish plot as a mere fiction, say that he contrived it out of revenge to the Jesuits, who had expelled him from their body. After having left the whole body of dissenters for thirty years, he applied to be admitted again into the communion of the baptists, having first returned to the church of England, and continued a member of it sixteen years. In 1698, or 1699, he was restored to his place among the baptists, from whence he was excluded in a few months as a disorderly person and a hypocrite: he died in 1705. He is described by Granger as a man “of cunning, mere effrontery, and the most consummate falsehood.” And Hume describes him as “the most infamous of mankind that in early life he had been chaplain to colonel Pride was afterwards chaplain on board the fleet, whence he had been ignominiously dismissed on complaint of some unnatural practices; that he then became a convert to the Catholics; but that he afterwards boasted that his conversion was a mere pretence, in order to get into their secrets and to betray them.” It is certain that his character appears to have been always such as ought to have made his evidence be received with great caution; yet the success of his discoveries, and the credit given to him by the nation, by the parliament, by the courts of law, &c. and the favour to which he was restored after the revolution, are circumstances which require to be carefully weighed before we can pronounce the whole of his evidence a fiction, and all whom he accused innocent.

, an eminent classical scholar, editor, and antiquary, the son of a schoolmaster of Strasburgh, was born in that city Aug. 7, 1735. He entered the university in 1750, and applied with great assiduity to the usual studies, but his particular attention was directed to the lectures of the celebrated Schcepflin, who was so well pleased with his ardour for instruction, that he permitted him the use of his excellent library, and his cabinet of antiquities, and there he imbibed that taste for investigating the monuments of ancient times, which, became the ruling passion of his life. In 1757 he afforded the first indication of this, by sustaining a thesis on the ancient rites in burial, “Dissertatio philologica de veterum ritu condiendi inortuos.” During three subsequent years he studied theology, but apparently rather as a philologer than a divine; and when Dr. Kennicott was endeavouring to procure the variations of the 'Hebrew text of the Old Testament from all Europe, Oberlin collated for him four manuscripts in the library of the university of Strasburgh, of which he afterwards, in his “Miscellanea Literaria Argentoratensia,” published a description with specimens. In 1755 he became assistant to his father in the school which he taught at Strasburgh, and afterwards succeeded him in that situation, but his ambition was a professorship in the university, which, however, notwithstanding his growing reputation, he did not obtain for many years.

In the mean time, in 1763, he was appointed librarian to the university, a post highly agreeable to him on account of the advantages it afforded him in his literary pursuits, although it augmented his labours. In the same year permission was granted him of opening a public course of lectures on Latin style, and at length, in 1770, he was nominated adjunct to M. Loranz, in the chair of Latin eloquence. In this station he not only continued the lecture just mentioned, but opened courses on antiquities, ancient geography, diplomatics, &c. which were attended by considerable audiences. For the use of his pupils he published some valuable prim* linete of these sciences, which were adopted, for their great utility, in other universities. Among these we may notice his “Rituum Romanorum tabular,” “Orbis antiqui, monumentis suis illustrati, primae lineae” “Artis diplomaticæ primæ lineæ” “Literarum omnis ævi fata,” &c.

In 1778 he obtained a release from the labours of his father’s school, by being appointed professor extraordinary in the university, with a salary which indemnified him for the loss of his other place; and in March 1782, he succeeded to the chair of logic and metaphysics, which office he retained as long as the old university existed. To his publications he added between these years, an edition of “Vibius Sequester de fluminibus, fontibus,” &c. 1778, 8vo; an edition of Ovid’s “Tristia;” “Glossarium Germanicum medii aevi, potissimum dialecti Suevicae,” 1781—1784, 2 vols. fol. from the papers of professor Sherz, with illustrations and several dissertations on subjects of German antiquity; and a splendid and correct edition of Horace, 1788, 4to. In 1780 he first printed his Strasburgh almanack, and an almanack of the department of the Lower Rhine. Soon after the French republicans had begun their disorganizing work, Oberlin suffered in the calamities inflicted upon his native city, which he bore with resignation. In his latter days, life passed in more tranquillity, and during some visits he made to Paris, he was received as his great merit deserved. He died at Strasburgh, Oct. 10, 1806, in his seventy-second year.

He was a man of great simplicity of character, cheerful, benevolent, and virtuous. His whole life was- a course of unintermitted occupation, which he rendered easy to himself by an exact order in the minutest concerns, and the regular distribution of time and business. He was never opulent, but, by a prudent ceconomy was enabled to live in a decent competence. Literary honours were justly bestowed on him. He was a corresponding member of the French academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and of the academies of Rouen and Cortona,' the Societies of Antiquaries of London and Cassei, and of the National Institute, &c.

To the works already mentioned, we may add his excellent editions of “Tacitus” and “Caesar’s Commentaries,” and his “Annals of the Life of John Guttemberg, the inventor of printing,” in which he endeavoured to obviate all the objections that had been brought against Schcepflin’s assertion that Guttemberg was the first who employed moveable types.

, a learned German, was descended from a family, which came originally from Schlestadt, and had been raised to nobility in the person of his great-grandfather by the emperor Rodolphus II. in 1604. Ulric was born, July 23, 1646, at Strasburg, where he had the first part of his education, and then proceeded to study the sciences at Montbelliard and Altorf. He inherited both the inclination and taste of his ancestors, who were all distinguished by the posts they held, either in the university, or in the senate of Strasburg. The study of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues was almost the first amusement of his infancy; and he learned, with equal facility, French, Spanish, and Italian. At fifteen^ he was so good a rhetorician, that he composed and pronounced a Latin speech in public, with universal applause. The method prescribed by his preceptors was, to suffer him to read only the ancient authors, and to derive the principles of eloquence from the purest sources, Demosthenes, Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus, &c. He also pursued the same plan, in his course of philosophy; Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, being principally recommended to him. His general knowledge at length settled in jurisprudence and history: in both which he excelled, and filled the chairs of both in the university with great distinction, being admired, not more for the great extent of his knowledge, than for his perspicuity in communicating it. He gave an account of all ages as if he had lived in them; and of all laws as if he had been the maker of them. With all this, he spoke of such subjects as he knew best, like a man who sought rather to be informed than to decide. As soon as he had taken his licentiate’s degree, he resolved to travel for farther improvement. In this view, he went first to Vienna in Austria, with Mr. Kellerman, the Muscovite ambassador, and visited the libraries and learned men wherever he came. He commenced author at nineteen, when he published a kind of “Commentary upon Scipio’s Dream,” and “A Dissertation upon the Principles of Civil and Political Prude-nee.”

In the mean time, his growing reputation increased the number of his scholars from all parts of Germany, to whom he read lectures in law and history. This employment left him few spare moments to his own studies; and he never thought of offering anything to the public but from necessity, or in compliance with the intreaties of his friends. Having made great proficiency in the study of medals, there was presented to him a very curious one of Domitiai upon the reverse of which appeared a goddess, which he conjectured to be the figure of Isis; and on this occasion he published his “Conjectures,” in 1675, with the title of “Epistola de Nummo Domitiani Isiaco.” After this, he turned his thoughts to the “Augustan History,” and collected and arranged all its writers in a new edition, accompanied with important notes: accordingly, the piece appeared in print, under the title of “Prodromus rerum Alsaticarum,” in 1680. It was, indeed, only an introduction to a larger work which he was meditating upon Alsace, in order to discover the origin, limits, rights, customs, wars, revolutions, &c. of that country; but the multiplicity of his employments obliged him to lay this aside. He printed, however, some detached treatises, as that upon the right of bearing the standard of the empire, “De Vexillo Imperil” to which honour the republic of Strasburg claimed an equal share with the dukes of Wirtemberg, who were in possession of it. He published also another piece, concerning the treaties which the states and princes of the empire make in their own names, “De Imperil Germanic! ejusque Statuum fcederibus” and, lastly, one more upon the rights of war, and the guarantees of peace, “De jure belli, et sponsoribus pacis.”

Hitherto Obrecht had professed the Protestant religion; but the king of France having made himself master of Strasburg, he was induced, by the persuasions of the Jesuits, who were established at Strasburg by Lewis XIV. to abjure his religion in 1648, at Paris. Upon his return to Strasburg, he w resumed his profession in the law; and it was about this time that he wrote the notes which we see in some editions of Grotius, “De jure belli ac pacis.” In 1685, the king of France nominated him to preside, in his majesty’s name, in the senate of Strasburg, with the title of praetor-royal, in imitation of the old Romans; and from that time Obrecht applied himself entirely to public affairs. The judges of Strasburg, according to the principles of the reformed religion, were empowered to dissolve marriages in case of adultery, and to enable the injured party to marry again. In opposition to this custom, Obrecht translated, into the German tongue, St. Austin’s book of adulterous marriages; and obtained from the king a prohibition, upon pain of death, either to tolerate or solemnize the marriage, for the future, of any persons that were separated or divorced for adultery. This edict was made in 1687; and, in 1688, Obrecht translated into High Dutch the treatise of Father Dez Primier, rector of the Jesuits at Strasburg, entitled “The Re-union of the Protestants of the Church of Strasburg to the Catholic Church.”

Although, by the rights of his praetorship, every thing done in the senate must necessarily pass through his hands, yet he was so expeditious, and so good a manager of time, that there was some left for his studies, which served to him. as a relaxation from public business. During these intervals. he published an edition of “Dictys Cretensis,” with notes, in 1691. He afterwards intended to give a more correct edition of “Quintilian,” by the help of an excellent manuscript which he had recovered. He finished it, and had prepared the notes for the press, which were afterwards added to BurmanrTs valuable edition of 1720, 2 vols. 4to. In 1698, Obrecht was deputed to the court of France, to manage the interests of the city of Strasburg, and the king appointed him in 1700 his commissary and envoy to Francfort, upon affairs relating to the succession of the duchess of Orleans. Here also he undertook a most arduous task, respecting the eventual succession of the duke of Anjou to the crown of Spain; and made it his business to collect all the pieces that had been written, either by civilians or historians, upon the subject of establishing or regulating the rights of succession to that vast monarchy: all with a design to prove that the pretensions of the house of Austria were not well founded. The title of his work was “Excerptorum historicorum et juridicorum dre natura successionis in Monarchiam Hispaniae, mense Dec. 1700,” in 4to. Our author likewise drew up the plan of a particular treatise upon the succession to the duchy of Milan: the impression of which waited only for the publication of the emperor’s manifesto. His last publication was “A Translation of the life of Pythagoras,” from the Greek of Jamblichus. The multiplicity of these labours at length impaired his health, and after he had passed sentence upon the rights of the duchess of Orleans, he ordered himself to be conveyed to Strasburgh, where he died Aug. 6, 1701.

Among his other publications, not hitherto mentioned, were, “Dissertatio de abdicatione Caroli V. imperatoris;” “De electione Imperatoris Romana Germanici;” “De imitate reipublicae in sacro Romano imperio;” “De Clenodiis S. Rom. Imperil;'” “De legibus agrariis Pop. Romani;” “De verae philosophise origine;” “De philosophia Celtica” “De extraordinariis populi Romani imperils” “De ratione belli” “Sacra Termini” De censu Augusti“” De legione fulminatrice M. Antonini PhiL Imperatoris.“All these were published together in 1676, 4to. To these we may add his edition of Grotius” De Jure Belli," fol. 1696, &c. He left a son, who, at the time of his father’s death, was twenty-six years of age, and succeeded him in the post of praetor-royal of Strasburg, by the appointment of the French king.

, a Latin author, who flourished, as is conjectured, a little before the time of the emperor Honorius, abqut the year 395, wrote a book “De Prodigiis,” whence he is thought to be a Pagan. This work, which was only a list of such prodigies as are inserted in Livy, ends about the year of Rome 743, where Livy ends his “Decads;” whose words Obsequens often borrows, as well as his credulity. We have only a part of the work, published by Aldus Manutius in 1508, of which, there are several editions. Conrad Lycosthenes made some additions to it, which were published with the text at Basil, in 1552: he marked his additions with asterisms but the whole was published the following year, without any distinctions, by John de Tournes. From that time the book of Obsequens, and the supplement, appeared as done by the same hand; till Shefter, in 1679, published an edition, in which he printed what was compiled by Obsequens in the Roman letter, and the supplement of Lycosthenes in Italic. The best editions are that fry Hearne in 1703, and that of Leyden, 1720, 8vo.

, so called from the village of Ockham in Surrey, where he was born, was, according to Wood, a fellow of Merton college, Oxford, in the thirteenth century, and was a renowned teacher of the scholastic doctrines at that university. He had the offer of the archdeaconry of Stow in the diocese of Lincoln in January 1300, but refused it. In 1302 he was collated by bishop D'Alderby to the prebend of Bedford major in that church; and having thought proper to accept the archdeaconry on a second offer, was collated to it May 15, 1305, but seems to have vacated it about the latter end of 1319. He was a pupil of Duns Scotus, and was little inferior to his master in subtlety. The school of the Scotists had, till his time, followed the popular opinion of the realists; but Occam, probably from an ambition of becoming the head of a separate body, revived the opinions of the nominalists, and formed a sect under the name of Occamists, which vehemently opposed the Scotists, upon the abstract questions concerning universals, which had been formerly introduced by Rosceline.

He was styled by the pope “The invincible doctor;” by others “The venerable preceptor;” “The singular doctor;” and “The unparalleled doctor.” He was chosen minister provincial of the friars minors of England, and afterwards diffinitor of the whole order of St. Francis, and in that capacity was present at the general chapter held at Perusium in Tuscany in 1322, where the fathers declared their adherence to the decree of pope Nicholas III. maintaining the poverty of Christ and his apostles, and that they had “nihii propria.” This doctrine gave rise to that pleasant question called the bread of the Cordeliers; which consisted in determining, whether the dominion of things consumed in the using, such as bread and wine, belonged to them, or only the simple use of them, without the dominion? Their rule not permitting them to have any thing as property, pope Nicholas III. who had been of their order, devised a method to enrich them, without breaking their rule. To this end he made an ordinance, that they should have only the usufruct of the estates which should be given to them, and that the soil and fund of all such donations should belong to the church of Rome. By this means he put them into possession of an infinite number of estates in the name of the church of Rome: but, for that reason, pope Nicholas’s bull was revoked by John XXII. who condemned the use without the dominion, by his “Extravaganta ad Conditorem.” He also condemned, by another “Extravaganta cum inter,” the doctrine concerning the possession of estates by Christ and his apostles, Occam, however, persisted in defending his opinions, and so greatly offended the pope that he was obliged to fly from Avignon, in 1328, to Lewis of Bavaria, who assumed the title of emperor, and refusing the pope’s order to return, was excommunicated in 1329. Lewis, his protector, was under the same circumstance, aud Occam is reported to have said to him, “Oh emperor, defend me with your sword, and I will defend you with my pen.” He at last, it is said, returned to his duty, and was absolved. He died at Munich, the capital of Bavaria, and was buried in the convent of his order, as appears by the following inscription on his tomb in the choir, on the right hand of the altar; viz. “Anno Domini 1347, 7mo Aprilis obijt eximius Doctor Sacrae Theologise Fr. Gulielmus dictus Occham de Anglia.” He wrote a Commentary upon the Predicables of Porphyry, and the Categories of Aristotle, and many treatises in scholastic theology and ecclesiastical law; which, if they be admired for their ingenuity, must at the same time be censured for their extreme subtlety and obscurity. But whatever may be thought of these, he deserves praise for the courage with which he opposed the tyranny of the papal over the civil power, in his book “De Potestate Ecclesiastica et Seculare.” Of this, or a part of it, “A dialogue between a knight and a clerke, concerning the Power Spiritual and Temporal,” the reader will find an account in Oldys’s “Librarian,” p. 5. It was printed by Berthelet, with Henry VIII.'s privilege. Fox, in his Martyrology, says that Occam was “of a right sincere judgment, as the times would then either give or suffer.” He was the only schoolman whom Luther studied, or kept in his library.

, one of a family' of physicians of considerable eminence, was born at Augsburgh, Oct. 17, 1524. When he had finished his medical studies under his father, a physician of Augsburgh, who died in 1572, and at the university, he soon became noted as a practitioner, and in 1564 was appointed inspector of the apothecaries, and perpetual vicar to the dean of the college of physicians. He died in 1605. He published a “Pharmacopoeia” in 1574, which continued to be reprinted as late as 1734; and “Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata a Pompeio M. ad Heraclium,” Strasburgh, 4to and folio. This is an excellent book of general reference, being a list of all the coins in every reign, digested into the years in which they were apparently struck. It was first printed in 1579, and again in 1600, which is the best edition. One afterwards published by Mezzabarba is not so highly valued, as this editor’s additions are of doubtful authority. Among Gesner’s letters is a learned “Epistola Graeca de Oxymeli helleborato, aiiisque ad rem medicam spectantibus,” written by Occo, who was an excellent Greek scholar.

, surnamed Lucanus, as being a native of Lucania, was a philosopher of the Pythagorean school, and lived about the time or soon after Pythagoras first opened his school in Italy, 500 B. C. He wrote a book “On the Universe,” which is still extant, and from which Aristotle seems to have borrowed freely in his treatise on generation and corruption. It is not, indeed, written after the usual manner of the Pythagoreans, in the Doric dialect; but probably it has undergone a change, and, at the period when the writings of the Pythagoreans became obscure on account of the dialect in which they were written, was converted, by the industry of some learned grammarian, from the Doric to the Attic dialect. That it was originally written in the Doric, appears from several fragments preserved by Stobaeus. Little attention, therefore, Brucker thinks is due to the opinion, that this book was compiled from the writings of Aristotle, and is to be considered only as an epitome of the Peripatetic doctrine concerning nature. Whatever Aristotelian appearance the treatise in its present form may bear, is to be ascribed to the pains taken by transcribers to elucidate the work. If its doctrine be carefully compared with what has been advanced concerning the Pythagorean system, there will be little room left to doubt that it was written by a disciple of Pythagoras. The fundamental dogmas of Ocellus perfectly agree with those of the Italic school. His subtle speculations concerning the changes of the elements are consonant to the manner of the Pythagoreans, after they exchanged the obscure method of philosophising by numbers into a less disguised explanation of the causes of natural phenomena. As this book passed out of the hands of Archytas into those of Plato, it is evident that it was in being before the time of Aristotle; and it becomes probable that the Stagyrite, after his usual manner, borrowed many things from Ocellus, but in a sense very different from that of their first author. This remnant of philosophical antiquity is therefore to be received as a curious specimen of the Pythagorean doctrine, mixed, however, with some tenets peculiar to the author. Ocellus’s work was first printed in 1539, and editions have since been given by Commelin, Visanius, Gale, the abbe Batteux, and the marquis D'Argens. Of these, the best is that by Gale in his “Opuscula,” with the Latin translation of Nogarola.

, a celebrated Italian, was born at Sienna in 1487, and first took the habit of a Cordelier; but throwing it off in a short time, and returning into the world, applied himself to the study of physic, and acquired the esteem of cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII. At length, changing his mind again, he resumed his monk’s habit, and embraced, in 1534, the reformed sect of the Capuchins. He practised, with a most rigorous exactness, all the rules of this order; which, being then in its infancy, he contributed so much to improve and enlarge, that some writers have called him the founder of it. It is certain he was made vicar-general of it, and became in the highest degree eminent for his talents in the pulpit. He delivered his sermons with great eloquence, success, and applause. His extraordinary merit procured him the favour of pope Paul III. who, it is said, made him his father-confessor and preacher; and he was thus the favourite of both prince and people, when, falling into the company of one John Valdes, a Spaniard, who had imbibed Luther’s doctrine in Germany, he became a proselyte. He was then at Naples, and began to preach in favour of protestant doctrines with so much boldness, that he was summoned to appear at Rome, and was in his way thither, when he met at Florence Peter Martyr, with whom, it is probable, he had contracted an acquaintance at Naples. This friend persuaded him not to put himself into the pope’s power; and they both agreed to withdraw into some place of safety. Ochinus went first to Ferrara, where he disguised himself in the habit of a soldier; and, proceeding thence to Geneva, arrived thither in 1542, and married at Lucca, whence he went to Augsburg, and published some sermons.

In 1547 he was invited, together with Peter Martyr, into England by abp. Cranmer, to have their joint assistance in carrying on the reformation. They arrived in December that year; and, repairing to Lambeth, were kindly received by Cranmer. They were entertained there for some time along with Bucer, Fagius, and others; and Ochinus, as well as Martyr, was made a prebendary of Canterbury. He laboured heartily in the business of the Reformation; and his dialogue, upon the unjust usurped primacy of the bishop of Rome, was translated into Latin by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, and published in 1549. But, upon the death of Edward VI. being forced, as well as Martyr, to leave England, he retired to Strasburg with that friend, where they arrived in 1553. In his absence he was, among other persons who had preferments in Canterbury, declared contumacious. From Strasburg he went to Basil, and was called thence, in 1555, to Zurich, to be minister of an Italian church which was forming there. This church consisted of some refugees from Locarno, one of the four bailiwics which the Switzers possess in Italy, who were hindered from the public exercise of the reformed religion by the opposition of the popish cantons. Ochinus made no difficulty to subscribe the articles of faith agreed upon by the church of Zurich, and governed this Italian church till 1563; when he was banished thence by the magistrates of the town, on account of some dialogues he published, in which he maintained the doctrine of polygamy. He is said to have been prompted to this by the infidelity of his wife. From Zurich, he went to Basil; but, not being suffered to stay there, he fled in great distress into Moravia, where he fell in with the Socinians, and joined them. Stanislaus Lubienietski, the great patron of this sect, gives the following account of his last days, in his “Hist. Reformat. Polori.” Ochinus, says he, retired into Moravia, and into Poland, and even there he was not out of the reach of Calvin’s letters. He returned into Moravia, after king Sigismund’s edict; who, in!564, punished with banishment all those that were called Tritheists, Atheists, &c. Some gentlemen endeavoured to keep him in Poland; but he answered, that men must obey the magistrates, and that he would obey them, even were he to die among the wolves in the woods. During his travels, he fell sick of the plague at Pincksow, and received there all possible offices of kindness from one of the brethren, named Philippovius. His daughter and two sons, whom he carried along with him, died of the plague; but he had buried his wife before he had left Zurich. As for himself, he continued his journey to Moravia, and within three weeks died at Slakow, in 1564, aged 77. His character is variously represented by different authors, and certainly appears not to have been very consistent. Bayle observes, that the confession he made publicly, on the change of his religion, is remarkable. He acknowledged, in a preface, that, if he could have continued, without danger of his life, to preach the truth, after the manner he had preached it for some years, he would never have laid down the habit of his order; but, as he did not find within himself that courage which is requisite to undergo martyrdom, he took sanctuary in England, where he probably might have remained in reputation, had not the reformation been disturbed on the accession of Mary. Abroad, after he had given offence to the Catvinists, the Socinians afforded him some protection for a while, but even to them he became obnoxious, and at last sunk into a species of heresy which the boasted charity of Socinianism itself could not tolerate. They class him, however, among their writers, as appears by Sandius’s “Bibl. Anti-trinitariorum.” His writings are rather numerous than bulky. Besides the “Dialogues,” there are “Italian Sermons,” in 4 vols. printed 1543; an “Italian. Letter to the Lords of Sienna, containing an Account of his Faith and Doctrine;” another, “Letter to Mutio of Justinopolis, containing the reason of his departure from Italy;” “Sermons upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians,” in Italian; “An Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in Italian; “Apologues against the abuses, errors, &c. of the Papal Synagogue, their Priests, Monks, &c.” in Italian, and translated into Latin by Castalio as were his “Dialogues,” &c. &c. which last, it may be mentioned, were answered by Beza.

, an eminent Orientalist, and professor of Arabic in Cambridge, was of a gentleman’s family, at Great Ellingham in Norfolk, where his father lived; but was accidentally born at Exeter in 1678. After a proper foundation laid in school-learning, he was sent, in 1693, to Queen’s college in Cambridge, where he soon distinguished himself by great quickness of parts as well as intense application to literature; to the Oriental languages more particularly, for his uncommon skill in which he afterwards became famous. He took, at the usual time, the degrees in arts, and that of bachelor in divinity. Having taken orders also, he was, in 1705, through the interest of Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely, presented by Jesus college, in Cambridge, to the vicarage of Swavesey, in that county; and, in 1711, chosen Arabic professor of the university. These preferments he held to the day of his death, which happened at Swavesey, Aug. 9, 1720, immaturely to himself, but more so to his family.

Ockley had the culture of Oriental learning very much at heart; and the several publications which he made were intended solely to promote it. In 1706, he printed, at Cambridge, an useful little book, entitled, “Introductio ad Linguas Orientales, in qua iis discendis via munitur, et earum usus ostenditur. Accedit index auctorum, tarn illorum, quorum in hoc libello mentio fit, quam aliorum, qui harum rerum studiosis usui esse possint.” Prefixed is a dedication to his friend the bishop of Ely, and a preface, addressed to the Juventus Academica, whom he labours to excite by various arguments to the pursuit of Oriental learning; assuring them in general, that no man ever was, or ever will be, truly great in divinity, without at least some portion of skill in it: “Orientalia studia, sine quorum aliquali saltern peritia nemo unquam in theologia vere magnus evasit, imo nunquam evasurus est.” There is a chapter in this work, relating to the celebrated controversy between Buxtorf and Capellus, upon the antiquity of the Hebrew points, where Ockley professes to think with Buxtorf, who contended for it: but he afterwards changed his opinion, and went over to Capellus, although he had not any opportunity of publicly declaring it. And indeed it is plain, from his manner of closing that chapter upon the points, that he was then far enough from having any settled persuasion about them “his in praesentia assentior; nolo tamen aliquid temere affirmare, quod, si posthac sententiam meam mutare mihi visum fuerit, nollem ut quispiam ea quse hie scripsi mihi exprobret.”

I ago,* by Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail:“translated from the Arabic, and illustrated with figures, 8vo. The design of the author, who was a Mahometan philosopher, is to shew, how human reason may, by observation and experience, arrive at the knowledge of natural things, and thence to supernatural, and particularly the knowledge of God and a future state: the design of the translator, to give those who might be unacquainted with it, a specimen of the genius of the Arabian philosophers, and to excite young scholars to the reading of eastern authors. This was the point our Rabbi had Constantly in view; and, therefore, in his” Oratio Inauguralis,“for the professorship, it was with no small pleasure, as we imagine, that he insisted upon the beauty, copiousness, and antiquity, of the Arabic tongue in particular, and upon the use of Oriental learning in general; and that he dwelt upon the praises of Erpenius, Golius, Pocock, Herbelot, and all who had any ways contributed to promote the study of it. In 1713, his name appeared to a little book, with this title,” An Account of South-West Barbary, containing what is most remarkable in the territories of the king of Fez and Morocco; written by a person who had been a slave there a considerable time, and published from his authentic manuscript: to which are added, two Letters; one from the present king of Morocco to colonel Kirk; the other to sir Cloudesly Shovell, with sir Cloudesly’s answer,“&c. 8vo. While we are enumerating these small publications of the professor, it will be but proper to mention two sermons one,” Upon the Dignity and Authority of the Christian Priesthood,“preached at Ormond chapel, London, in 1710; another,” Upon the Necessity of instructing Children in the Scriptures,“at St. Ives, in Huntingtonshire, 1713. To these we must add a new translation of the second” Apocryphal Book of Esdras,“from the Arabic version of it, as that which we have in our common Bibles is from the vulgar Latin, 1716. Mr. Whiston, we are told, was the person who employed him in this translation, upon a strong suspicion, that it must needs make for the Arian cause he was then reviving; and he, accordingly, published it in one of his volumes of” Primitive Christianity Revived.“Ockley, however, was firmly of opinion, that it could serve nothing at all to his purpose; as appears from a printed letter of his to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thirl by, in which are the following words:” You shall have my ' Esdras’ in a little time; 200 of which I reserved, when Mr. Whiston reprinted his, purely upon this account, because I was loth that any thing with my name to it should be extant only in his heretical volumes. I only stay, till the learned author of the c History of Montanism' has finished a dissertation which he has promised me to prefix to that book*.“A learned Letter of Ockley’s to Mr. W. Wotton is printed among the” Miscellaneous Tracts of Mr. Bowyer, 1784."

But the most considerable by far of all the professor’s performances is, “The History of the Saracens;” begun from the death of Mahomet, the founder of the Saracenical empire, which happened in 632, and carried down through a succession of Caliphs, to 705. This “History,” which illustrates the religion, rites, customs, and manner of living of that warlike people, is very curious and entertaining; and Ockley was at vast pains in collecting materials from the most authentic Arabic authors, especially manuscripts, not hitherto published in any European language; and for that purpose resided a long time at Oxford, to be near the Bodleian library, where those manuscripts were reposited. It is in 2 vols. 8vo; the first of which was published in 1708; the second, in 1718: and both were soon after republished. A third edition was printed, in the same size, at Cambridge, in 1757; to which is prefixed, “An Account of the Arabians or Saracens, of the Life of Mahomet, and the Mahometan Religion, by a learned hand:” that is, by the learned Dr. Long, master of Pembroke-hall, in Cambridge.

While at Oxford, preparing this work, he sent a letter to his daughter, part of which is worth transcribing,as characteristic both of him and his labours. " My condition here is this: one of the most useful and necessary authors I have is written in such a wretched hand, that the very reading of it is perfect decyphering. I am forced sometimes to take three or four lines together, and then pull them all to pieces to find where the words begin and end; for oftentimes it is so written, that a word is divided as if the former part of it was the nd of the foregoing word, and the latter part the beginning of another; besides innumerable other difficulties known only to those that understand the language. Add to this the pains of

In the mean time, Ockley was one of those unfortunate persons, whom Pierius Valerianus would have recorded, in his book “Be infelicitate literatorum.” In his “Inaugural Oration,” printed in 1711, he calls fortune venefica and noverca, speaks of mordaces euro 1 as things long familiar to him; and, in Dec. 1717, we find him actually under confinement for debt. In the introduction to the second volume of his “Saracenical History,” he not only tells us so, but even stoically dates from Cambridge-castle. His biographer thus accounts for his unfortunate situation: Having married very young, he was encumbered with a family early in life; his preferment in the church was not answerable to his reputation as a scholar; his patron, the earl of Oxford, fell into disgrace when he wanted him most; and, lastly, he had some share of that common infirmity among the learned, which makes them negligent of oeconomy, and a prudential regard to outward things, without which, however, all the wit, and all the learning, in the world, will but serve to render a man the more miserable.

As to his literary character, it is certain that he was extremely well skilled in all the ancient languages, and particularly the Oriental; so that the very learned Reland thought it not too much to declare, that he was “vir, si quis alius, harum literarum peritus.” He was, likewise, very knowing in modern languages, as in the French, Spanish, Italian, &c. and, upon the whole, considered as a linguist, we may presume that very few have exceeded him.

, or Walter of Evesham, a monk of that monastery in Worcestershire, was eminent in the early part of the thirteenth century, during the reign of Henry III. not only for his profound knowledge in music, but astronomy, and mathematics in general. The translator and continuator of Dugdale’s Monasticon, speaks of him among; learned Englishmen of the order of St. Benedict in the following manner:

“Walter, monk of Evesham, a man of a facetious wit, who applying himself to literature, lest he should sink under the lahour of the day, the watching at night, and continual observance of regular discipline, used at spare hours to divert himself with the decent and commendable diversion of music, to render himself the more cheerful for other duties.” This apology, however, for the time he bestowed on music, was needless; for it was, and is still, so much the business of a Romish priest, that to be ignorant of it disqualifies him for his profession. And at all times, where an ecclesiastic thought it necessary to trace the whole circle of the sciences, music having the second or third rank, could not be neglected. But what this author adds farther concerning Odington is still less defensible: “Whether,” says he, “this application to music drew him off from other studies I know not, but there appears no other work of his than a piece entitled ‘Of the Speculation of Music’.” Yet we are told by Pits, Bale, Tanner, Moreri, and all his biographers, that he wrote fc De Motibus Planetarum, et de Mutatione Aeris," as well as on other learned subjects. His treatise on music is preserved in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, and is, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, so copious and complete, with respect to every part of music when it was written, that if all other musical tracts, from the time of Boethius to Franco and John Cotton, were lost, our knowledge would not be much diminished, if this ms. was accessible. The musical examples, adds Dr. Burney, as usual in old manuscripts, are incorrect, and frequently inexplicable, owing to the ignorance of music in the transcribers; but if this tract were corrected, and such of the examples as are recoverable, regulated, and restored, it would be the most ample, satisfactory, and valuable, which the middle ages can boast; as the curious inquirer into the state of music at this early period may discover in it not only what progress our countrymen had made in the art themselves, but he chief part of what was then known elsewhere.

, the second abbot of Clugni in France, illustrious for his learning and piety, and certainly as learned and pious as the ignorance and superstition of the times would permit, was born at Tours in 879. He was educated by Foluques, count of Anjou, and became a canon of St. Martin, at Tours, at nineteen years of age, after which he went to Paris, and was the disciple of St. Remy of Auxerre. He was fond of solitude, and took the monk’s habit in the convent of Beaume, in the diocese of Besangon. After which, he became prior and abbot of St. Clugni, in 927, where he introduced a new discipline, or set of ceremonies of a severe and rigorous kind, which, however, with the sanctity of his life contributed greatly to increase the congregation of Clugni; and such was the influence of his personal character, that popes, bishops, and secular princes, usually chose him for the arbitrator of their disputes, and the order or discipline of Clugni attained a very high degree of eminence and authority. He died about 943. He applied himself to study as well as to the aggrandizing of his order; but his original works are filled with the grossest superstitions. While he was canon, he abridged the “Morals of St. Gregory,” and the “Hymns in honour of St. Martin.” While a simple monk, he composed three books of “The Priesthood;” and another upon the “Prophecy of Jeremy,” dedicated to Turpion bishop of Limoges, which bore the title of “Collations or Conferences, or Occupations.” After he became abbot, he wrote the “Life of St. Gerard,” and of “St. Martial of Limoges,” and several sermons, and a “Panegyric upon St. Benedict.” All these are prinfed in the.“Bibliotheque of Clugni,” together with some “Hymns upon the Sacrament,” and “The Magdelain;” but the “History of St. Martyn’s Translation” is improperly ascribed to him. It appears also that he understood music; and besides some hymns, chaunts, and anthems, still preserved in the Romish church, there are two copies of a ms tract on music, of his writing, in the royal library of Paris, and one in Bene't college, Cambridge. This is noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music.

, or of Kent, so called because he was a native of that county in England, where he flourished in the twelfth century, was a Benedictine monk, of which order his learning and eloquence raised him to be prior and abbot, first of St. Saviour’s, and afterwards of Battleabbey. He died in March 1200. Thomas a Becket was his friend, and his panegyric was made by John of Salisbury. He composed several works, as “Commentaries upon the Pentateuch;” “Moral Reflections upon the Psalms, the Old Testament, and the Gospels;” a treatise entitled, “De onere Philistini;” another, “De raoribus ecclesiasticis” a third, “De vitiis & virtutibus animae,” &c. Besides these, a “Letter to a brother novitiate,” in the abbey of Igny, is printed by Mabillon in the first tome of “Analects;” and another “Letter to Philip earl of Flanders,” about 1171, upon the miracles of St. Thomas, is in the “Collectio amplissima veterum monumentorum,” p. 882, published by the fathers Martenne and Durand, Benedictines.

, a German divine, and eminent among the reformers of the church, was born in 1482, according to Dupin at Auschein in Switzerland, but others say at Weinsberg in Francouia, which is more probable, as it is only five miles from Heilbrun, where he went to school. His father intended to breed him a merchant; but, changing that resolution, devoted him to letters. He was sent first to the school of Heilbran, and thence removed to the university of Heidelberg, where he took the degree of bachelor of philosophy, at fourteen years of age. He went next to Bologna; but, the air of Italy not agreeing with him, he returned in six months to Heidelberg, and applied himself diligently to divinity. He turned over the works of Aquinas, Richard, and Gerson; but did not relish the subtleties of Scotus, and the scholastic disputations. He soon, however, acquired a reputation for learning, which, with his personal virtues, induced prince Philip, the elector Palatine, to chuse him preceptor to his youngest son: after discharging which office some time, he became tired of the gaieties of a court, and resumed his theological studies. On his return home, he was presented to a benefice in the church; but, not then thinking himself sufficiently qualified for such a charge, he quitted it, and went to Tubingen, and afterwards to Stutgard, where he improved himself in the Greek under Reuchlin, having learned Hebrew before at Heidelberg, and after this ventured to take possession of hte living.

He was afterwards invited to Basil in 1515, where his 6 erudition procured him so high a reputation, that they honoured him with the degree of D. D. About the same time Erasmus came to Basil to publish his annotations on the New Testament, and confesses that he profited by the assistance of Oecolampadius, who, when Erasmus’s work was finished, went to Augsburgh, but did not remain there long, for having conceived a favourable opinion of the reformation, partly to avoid the necessity of declaring his sentiments before they should be fully matured, and partly from theTlove of retirement and study, in 1520, when he was thirty-eight years old, he entered into a convent near Augsbourg. Here, in the first instance, he stipulated with the brethren to have liberty both for his faith and studies, and then informed Erasmus of his change of life. Erasmus, in his reply, wished his new situation might be answerable to his hopes, but was afraid he would find himself disappointed; and such indeed proved to be the case, when Oecolampadius began to speak his sentiments with freedom. He had not been there long, before he wrote a letter to a friend, in which he says, “I will now speak my mind freely of Martin (Luther), as I have often done before. I am so fully persuaded of the truth of several of his doctrines, that I should not be driven from my opinion, even though an angel of heaven should contradict it.” He proceeded even to publish a book on “Confession,” containing such doctrines as were not well relished by his fraternity; and he had not been among them much more than a year, when the stipulated liberty was denied him. Upon this, he quitted the convent , and arrived safe at Basil m 1522.

Here he translated “St. Chrysostom’s Commentaries upon Genesis” into Latin, and was made professor of divinity and city-preacher by the council; by whose consent he began the execution of his trust, with abolishing several usages of the Roman church. In particular, he commanded the sacrament of baptism to be administered in the mother-tongue, and that of the Lord’s supper to be received in both kinds, He taught that the mass was not a sacrifice for the living and the dead, or for those who were in purgatory, hut that perfect satisfaction was made for all believers by the passion and merits of Christ. He dissuaded them from the use of holy water, and other superstitious observances, and was thus employed when the dispute about the Eucharist commenced between Luther and Zuinglius. In that controversy, he strenuously defended the opinion of the lat.ter, in a piece entitled, “De vero intellectu verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum,” which did him great honour. But although he agreed with Zuinglius in the nature of the doctrine, he gave a different sense of our Lord’s words. Zuinglius placed the figure of these words, “This is my body,” in the verb is, which he held to be taken for signifies. Oecolampadius laid it upon the noun, body, and affirmed that the bread is called, the body, by a metonymy, which allows the name of the thing signified to be given to the sign. Such were the arguments by which transubstantiation was combated at that distant period. The Lutherans in Suabia and Bavaria, decried the doctrine of Oecolampadius in their sermons, which obliged him to dedicate a treatise upon the words of the institution of the Lord’s supper to them, printed at Strasburg in 1525. Whether this was a different work from the “De vero, &c.” or only a new edition, does not appear, as his biographers have not affixed dates to all hispublications. Erasmus, however, speaking of this book, says, “That it was written with so much skill, such good reasoning, and persuasive eloquence, that, if God should not interpose, even the elect might be seduced by it.” As soon as it appeared, the magistrates of Basil consulted two divines and two lawyers, to know whether the public sale of it might be permitted. Erasmus, who was one of these divines, says, “That, in giving his answer upon the point, he made no invectives against Oecolampadius” and so the book was allowed to be sold. The matter, however, did not rest so. The Lutherans answered our author’s book in another, entitled “Syngrarnma;” to which he replied in apiece called “Antisyngramnra.” In proceeding, he disputed publicly with Eckius at Baden, and entered also into another dispute afterwards at Berne.

In 1528 he entered into the matrimonial state, and the same year entirely finished the reformation of the church at Basil ) as he did also, jointly with others, that of Ulm. In 1529, he assisted in the conference at Marspurg; and, returning thence to Basil, fell sick, and died, December 1, 1531, aged 49. His disorder was the plague; and, from the moment he was seized, he shewed sentiments of solid and consistent piety, in the presence of many ministers, who attended him at his dissolution. He was interred in the cathedral of Basil, where there is a monument to his memory. He died in poor circumstances, leaving a son and two daughters. His wife, who had been the widow of Cellarius, according to Hoffman’s account, was afterwards married to Wolfgangus Capito, and to Martin Bucer, all men of great eminence.

, an ancient Greek commentator on the Scriptures, was bishop of Trica in Thessaly in the tenth century, but of his personal history nothing is known. His commentaries upon the Acts of the Apostles, and the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, and the seven Catholic episties, contain, besides his own remarks and notes, a cornpilation of the notes and observations of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, and others. He is thought also to have written a commentary upon the four gospels, but this is not now extant. The works of Oecumenius were first published in Greek at Verona in 1532, and in Greek and Latin at Paris in 1631, in two volumes folio. To the second volume of the Paris edition is added the “Commentary” of Arethas upon the book of Revelation.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Anspach, Feb. 3, 1728, and studied physic, but particularly botany, at Gottingen, under the celebrated Haller, through whose recommendation he was appointed professor of botany at Copenhagen. While in this station the “Flora Danica” was intrusted to him, of which he completed three volumes, containing 540 plates, when he resigned the chair, and the work was consigned to Muller, and afterwards to Vahl. He was induced, by the patronage of the unfortunate Struensee, to quit his situation and pursuits in 1773, Struensee having procured for him a considerable appointment in the college of finances, but on the death of his patron soon after, he left this place. He was afterwards appointed to the office of landvogt at Oldenburgh, which he retained until his death, Feb. 10, 1791. His other botanical publications are, “Elementa Botanica,” published at Copenhagen, in two parts, in 1764- and 1766; “Nomenclator Botanicus,” 1769; and “Enumeratio Plantarum Florae Danicge,” 1770. The Oedera, of Linnæus, was so called in honour of him.

, professor of painting, and director of the electoral academy of painting at Leipsic, was born at Presburgh in Hungary, in 1717. He became a student in the academy of painting at Vienna, and his “Sacrifice of Abraham” won the first prize, when he was in his eighteenth year. He learnt modelling of Raphael Donner, the sculptor. In 1739 he went to Dresden, and acquired some celebrity by his historic pictures. When the academy at Leipsic was founded by the elector Christian, Oeser was appointed director; and his best works are in St. Nicholas church in that city, where he died March 18, 1799. Fuseli is of opinion that, had he seen Italy, studied tfoe antique with greater assiduity, and submitted less to the dastard taste of his age, he probably would have more than rivalled Mengs, whom he excelled in invention and fire. Winkleman, with whom he became acquainted at Dresden, appears to have been indebted to him for the formation of his taste. Oeser has etched some of his own compositions in a free and picturesque manner.

, archbishop of Tuam, was otherwise called Maurice de Portu, from having been born near the port of Baltimore, in the county of Cork, though others say he was born at Down, or Galway. He was some time a student at Oxford, where he became a Franciscan. He afterwards travelled to Italy, and studied philosophy, and school-divinity at Padua. About 1480 he removed to Venice, where he was employed by Octavian, Scott, and Locatelli, as corrector of the press, which was then considered as an employment worthy of the greatest scholars. In 1506, after he had taken his degree of D. D. at Padua, pope Julius II. made him archbishop of Tuam in Ireland. In 1512 he assisted at the first two sessions of the Lateran council, and in the following year set out for Ireland, but died at Galway, May 25, 1513, where he landed, before he could take possession of his archbishopric. He was at this time not quite fifty years of age. He was buried in a church at Galway, where his humble monument is yet shown. He was a learned, pious, and amiable prelate, and held in such veneration by some authors, that they have given him the name of “Flos Mundi,” the flower of the world. His works are, 1. “Expositio in questiones dialecticas Divi Joan. Scoti in Isagogen Porphyrii,” Ferrara, 1499; Venice, 1512, fol. 2. “Commentaria doct. subtilis Joan. Scoti in XII. lib. metaphysics Aristotelis,” &c. Venet. 1507, fol. 3. “Epithemata in insigne formalitatum opus de mente doctoris subtilis,” &c. Venice, 1514, fol. This is what Possevin calls “Theorems for the explanation of the sense of Scotus.” 4. “Dictionarium sacra? scripturee,” &c. Venice, 1603, fol. which reaches no farther than the word extinguere, but there is said to be a complete ms. of it in the Bodleian, as far as the word zona. 5. “Enchiridion fidei,” 1509, 4to. &c. &c.

, an English divine, was born at Manchester, in 1716, and was educated at the free-school there. In 1733 he was admitted a poor scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed for a Manchester exhibition to St. John’s in 1736. In the following year he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 was elected fellow. He was ordained deacon at Chester in 1740; and in the following year he took his degree of M. A. and was ordained priest by the bishop of Lincoln. In 1744 he was elected master of the free-school at Halifax in Yorkshire. In 1753 he resigned his school, and went to reside at Cambridge; and at the ensuing commencement he took the degree of D. D. The late duke of Newcastle, who was chancellor of the university, having been present at the exercise he performed for the degree, was so much satisfied with it, that he soon after presented him with the vicarage of Damerham in Wiltshire, which was tenable with his fellowship. In 1764, Dr. Ogden was appointed Woodwardian professor. In June 1766 he was presented to the rectory of Lawford in Essex, and in the following month to that of Stansfield in Suffolk. He died March 23, 1778, in the sixty-second year of his age, and was buried in St. Sepulchre’s church, Cambridge, of which he had the cure, and where he preached most of his published sermons. In common life there was a real or apparent rusticity attending Dr. Ogden’s address, which disgusted those who were strangers to his character; but this prejudice soon wore off, as the intimacy with him increased; and, notwithstanding the sternness, and even ferocity, he would sometimes throw into his countenance, he was in truth one oC the most humane and tender-hearted men ever known. To his relations who wanted his assistance, he was remarkably kind in his life, and in the legacies he left them at his death. His father and mother, who both lived to an exceeding old age, owed almost their whole support to his piety. During the latter part of Dr. Ogden’s life he laboured under much ill health. About a year before he died he was seized with a paralytic fit as he was stepping into his chariot, and was judged to be in immediate and extreme danger, but he sustained this shock with cheerfulness, and calmly gave the necessary orders on the event of his dissolution. Such is the character given of Dr. Ogden by his learned friend Dr. (afterwards bishop) Halifax, Originally prefixed to an edition of his “Sermons, with a Vindication of his Writings against some late Objections,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. It seems to be fully confirmed by the testimony of two Cambridge gentlemen of very opposite sentiments, Mr. Cole, to whom we are so often indebted for memoranda of the eminent men of that university, and Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. The latter, who heard Dr. Ogden preach most of the discourses since published, says that “his person, manner, and character of composition, were exactly suited to each other. He exhibited a large Black, scowling, grisly figure, a ponderous body with a lowering visage, embrowned by the horrors of a sable perriwig. His voice was growling and morose; and his sentences desultory, tart, and snappish.” Mr. Wakefield adds that his “uncivilized appearance, and bluntness of demeanour, were the grand obstacles to his elevation in the church.” The duke of Newcastle would have brought him to court to prefer him; but found, as he expressed it, that the doctor was not a producible man. In all these particulars Mr. Cole agrees, as in some other singularities. Mr. Cole informs us that Dr. Ogden’s father had been in the army, and when he retired lived at Mansfield, where he married. Some time before his death he went to Mansfield, and put up, a monument to his father, in gratitude for having given him a good education, as he expressed it, and left the bulk of his fortune to the family into which his father married. His Arabic books he left to Mr, Craven, of St. John’s, the Arabic professor, who very disinterestedly refused the residuary legateeship, which Dr. Ogden had long designed for him. Dr. Ogden’s reputation as a divine rests on two small volumes of sermons, collected by Dr. Halifax, whose “Vindication” of them, above mentioned, respects the remarks of Mr. Mainwaring, in a “Dissertation” on the composition of sermons, prefixed to his own sermons, 1780, 8vo. Dr. Halifax’s vindication is warm, zealous, and friendly, like his character of Dr. Ogden, but not altogether satisfactory as to the principal objections to the style of his author; and even if allowed to be elegant, Dr. Ogden’s sermons are of very slight texture, and rather hortatory than instructive or doctrinal.

, a very industrious adventurer in literary speculations, was born in or near Edinburgh in November 1600. He was of an ancient family in that country; but his father, having spent the estate, became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, and could give his son but little education. The youth, however, being very industrious, acquired some little knowledge of Latin grammar; and afterwards got so much money, as not only to release his father from the gaol, but also to bind himself apprentice to one Draper, a dancing-master in London. He had not been long under this master before he made himself perfect in the art, and by his obliging behaviour to the scholars, acquired money enough from them to buy out the remainder of his time. He now began teaching on his own account, and being soon accounted one of the best masters in the profession, he was selected to dance in the duke of Buckingham’s great masque; in which, by an unlucky step in high capering, the mode of that time, he hurt the inside of his leg, which occasioned some degree of lameness, but did not prevent his teaching. Among others, he taught the sisters of sir Ralph, afterwards lord Hopton, at Wytham in Somersetshire and at leisure hours he learned of that accomplished knight how to handle the pike and musket. In 1633, when Wentworth earl of Stafford became lord deputy of Ireland, he took him into his family to teach his children; and Ogilby, writing an excellent hand, was frequently employed by the earl to transcribe papers for him.

While in this family he first gave a proof of his inclination rather than genius for poetry, by translating some of “Æsop’s Fables” into English verse and, being then one of the troop of guard belonging to his lord, he composed a humourous piece, entitled “The character of a Trooper.” As a poet, however, he ranks among the very lowest. About that time he was appointed deputy-master of the revels in Ireland; built a little theatre in Dublin, and was much encouraged; but, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in 1641, this scheme was interrupted, and he lost all his property. To add to his misfortune he was shiprecked in his passage from Ireland, and arrived in London in a most destitute condition. He had an enterprizing spirit, however, and was not easily discouraged. After a short stay in London he went on foot to Cambridge; where his great industry, and greater love of learning, being discovered, he was encouraged by several scholars in that university. By their assistance he became so complete a master of Latin, that he translated the “Works of Virgil,” and published them with his portrait in a large octavo volume, London, 1649-50; with a dedication to William marquis of Hertford, whom he calls his most noble patron. Wood observes that thereby he obtained a considerable sum of money in his pocket. Thus encouraged, he proceeded to print “Æsop’s Fables” in verse, in 1651 f. This was published in 4to; and, as Wood archly observes, procured him a degree among the minor poets, being recommended in some verses for the purpose, both by sir William Davenant and James Shirley.

About 1654 he learned the Greek tongue of one of his countrymen, David Whitford, or Whitfield, at that time usher to James Shirley, who then taught school in White Friers. This was a remarkable instance of indefatigable industry at his age; and he made the best use of his new acquisition, by translating into English verse “Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey” J *, in which, however, he was assisted by his friend Shirley. This was printed in a most pompous manner, with a dedication to Charles II. in 1660; and the same year he edited at Cambridge, with the assistance of Dr. John Worthington, and other learned men, a finer edition of the “English Bible” than had been extant before. This he adorned with chorographical and other sculptures, and presented a sumptuous copy of it to his majesty, on his first coming to the royal chapel at Whitehall, He presented another copy to the House of Commons, for which he received a gratuity of 50l. from that house; as he did also, not improbably, from the convocation, to whom he presented a petition, with the king’s recommendatory letters concerning the expence of printing the book. He also petitioned the House of Commons that his Bible “might be recommended to be made use of in all churches.” It was printed by Field.

In the same year (1661) he received orders from the commissioners for the solemnity of his majesty’s coronation, to conduct the poetical part, viz. the speeches, emblems, mottoes, and inscriptions upon which he drew up “The relation of his Majesty’s Entertainment, passing through the city of London to his Coronation with a description of the triumphal Arches and Solemnity” in ten sheets folio. This he also published, by his majesty’s command, in a large folio volume, on royal paper, with fine engravings, and speeches at large, in 1662; and it has been made use of in succeeding coronations. His interest was now so powerful with the king, that he obtained this year the patent for master of the revels in Ireland, against sir William Davenant, who was his competitor. This post carried him once more into that kingdom; and, his former theatre in Dublin being destroyed in the troubles, he built a new one, at the expence of 100O/. On his return to London he continued the employment of translating and composing books in poetry , till the fire of London in. 1666, in which his house in White Friers was consumed, and his whole fortune, except to the value of 5l. destroyed. He soon, however, procured his house to be re-built, set up a printing-house, was appointed his majesty’s cosmographer and geographic printer, and printed several great works, translated or collected by himself and his assistance t; all which were printed on imperial paper, adorned with maps and curious engravings, by Hollar and others, and were carried on by way of proposals and standing lotteries. The scheme of one of his lotteries, a very curious article, was lately published in the Gent. Mag. vol. LXXXIV. Part I. page 646. He died September 4, 1676, and was interred in St. Bride’s church, Fleet-street, leaving the character of a very industrious, enterprizing, and honest man.

, a distinguished English officer, was the fourth and youngest son of sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, of Godalmin, in the county of Surrey, by Eleonora his wife, daughter of Richard Wall, of Rogane, in Ireland. He was born in the parish of St. James, iri 1698, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1714, but it would appear that his destination in life was soon changed, as in the same year we find he was captainlieutenant in the first troop of the queen’s guards. He afterwards employed himself in acquiring the art of war under the famous prince Eugene of Savoy, and other eminent commanders, among whom the great duke of Argyle, his patron, may be named. In his several campaigns in Germany and Hungary, having been recommended by John duke of Marlborough, he acted as secretary and aid-de-camp to the prince, and stored up much useful knowledge and if we are not mistaken, he received some preferment in the German service, in which he might have continued with as great advantages as his companion, the Veldth Marshal, afterwards obtained. But with a man of his sentiments, the obligations due to his native country, and the services it required, could not be dispensed with: he quitted his foreign engagements, and long exercised the virtues of the unbiassed senator at home. In the parliament which met May 10, 1722, he was returned member for Haslemere; as he was again in 1727, 1734, 1741, and 1747; and during that period many regulations in our laws, for the benefit of our trade, &c. were proposed and promoted by him in the senate. In the committee of parliament for inquiring into the state of the jails, formed in Feb. 1728, and of which he was chairman, he was enabled to detect many horrible abuses in some of the jails of the metropolis. But he was most instrumental in founding the colony of Georgia, situate between South Carolina and Florida, which was established by a royal charter; the fund for settling it was to arise from charitable contributions: collections were made throughout the kingdom, the bank contributed a handsome sum, and the parliament gave 10,000l. which enabled the trustees, of whom general Oglethorpe was one, to entertain many poor families, and provide for their accommodation and removal to America.

In the month of November about 100 persons embarked at Gravesend on board the Anne of 200 tons, commanded by capt. Thomas, and with them Mr. Oglethorpe. They arrived at Carolina on the 15th January following, from whence they sailed to Port-Royal, and Mr. Oglethorpe went up the Savannah River, and pitched upon a convenient spot of ground to form a settlement. He then went to Charles-Town, to solicit assistance for his colony, in which he had success, and returned to Savannah, where he was met by the chiefs of the Lower Creek nation, who claimed from the Savannah river as far as St. Augustine, and up Flint river, which runs into the bay of Mexico. A treaty of alliance and commerce was made and signed with them. He also concluded a treaty with the two nations of the Cherokees and Chickesaws, relating to their part of the same province; and a provisional treaty with the governor of Augustine and general of Florida, relating to the boundaries between the English and the Spaniards, until the sentiments of the two crowns could be known. In 1734 he returned to England, and brought with him some of the Indian chiefs, particularly Tomo Chiqui and his family, who were graciously received by the king, well entertained by the trustees, and returned to their native country full of the utmost respect for their British friends and allies.

On the 5th May, 173^, Mr, Oglethorpe embarked again for Georgia, with 300 passengers. The colony continued to flourish under his direction, materials were provided for building a church, and a wharf for landing of goods, as also for finishing the fortifications, and clearing the roads. A town called New Ebenezer was erected by the German settlers, under the direction of Mr. Oglethorpe, who next visited the Scotch at Darien, and then went to the island of Saint Simon, which is in the mouth of the river Alatamaha, about thirteen miles long, and twenty leagues north of Saint Augustine. He also discovered Amelia islands, about 236 miles by water from the mouth of the Savannah river, and caused the town of Augusta to be built there.

Soon afterwards Mr. Oglethorpe again returned to England; but differences arising between the Spanish and English courts, he was preparing to go to America, when don Thomas Geraldino, the Spanish ambassador at the court of London, presented a memorial in 1737, demanding all the land to 35 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude in North America, and requiring the government to order the English subjects to withdraw; but if this could not be done, insisting that no troops should be sent there, and particularly remonstrating against the return of Mr. Oglethorpe. Advices being at the same time received that the Spaniards were meditating hostilities, no regard was paid to the requisition of their court. Mr. Oglethorpe was appointed general and commander in chief of the English forces in Carolina and Georgia. He was ordered accordingly to raise a regiment, and repair thither. On the 25th August he had a commission as colonel made out, and arrived just in time to prevent the execution of the Spanish designs, although a considerable number of their troops had already got to Augustine.

On his return to Frederica in January, he met captain, afterwards sir Peter, Warren, who was lately arrived with the Squirrel man of war. When their consultation was concluded, the captain went and cruised off the bay of St. Augustine, while the general with a detachment of troops on board of the boats, and some artillery, went up the lakes of Florida, and attacked and took the forts of Pickalata and St. Francis.

Encouraged by this success, and by the information from some prisoners of the weak condition of Augustine, he meditated the reduction of that place; and accordingly went to Charles-Town to desire assistance of the people of Carolina. His plan, at first, was to block up the place before the Spaniards could receive provisions and relief from Cuba. He also spirited up the Creek Indians to join him, and entered into a correspondence with some discontented chiefs in the service of Spain. He soon after acquainted the Assembly of Carolina, that if they could, by March following, join the troops upon the river St. Mattheo or St. John with 600 white men, a troop of horse, another of rangers, and 600 negroes for pioneers, with a proper train of artillery, and necessaries, there would be a probability of taking the place, or at least of preventing the Spaniards from undertaking anything against Carolina, provided the men of war would block up the ports from receiving succours by sea.

The first interruption this plan met with, was from the Bupineness of the Assembly of Carolina, who delayed the assistance they had promised, until the garrison of Angustine had received both men and provisions from the Havannah. This delay had almost occasioned the destruction of captain Warren, who, not knowing of the succours which the place had obtained, went and lay off it to prevent their coming in; but, in the dark of a calm night, was attacked by six half gallies, whom he engaged with great spirit; and in the end sunk one, and drove the rest into port. General Oglethorpe, disgusted at the inactivity of the people of Carolina, left Charles-town in order to make the best disposition he could amongst his own people: he crossed St. John’s river with a party of his regiment, and landed in Florida on the 10th of May. He immediately invested and took Fort Diego, about ‘three leagues from Augustine. Soon afterwards 400 men arrived from Carolina, but without any horse, rangers, negroes, or pioneers. About the same time came a body of Cherokee Indians, as also captain Dunbar, with a party of Chickesaws, and the rangers and highlanders from Georgia, under captain M’Intosh.

The fleet, in the mean while, arrived off St. Mattheo or St. John’s river, to assist upon the expedition. The general went on board the commodore, where a consultation was held, and it was agreed to anchor off Augustine, and to attempt an entry into the harbour. The general immediately marched by land, and in three days arrived at Moosa, a fort built by the Spaniards for the deserted ne-­"groes from Carolina: from hence he sent a small detachment to take possession of the town, having had a private intimation that it would be delivered up to him but this scheme, by an untimely discovery, was frustrated.

In the mean time, the commodore found that there was a battery upon the island of Anastasia, which defended the entry of the harbour. This obliged the general to march to the coast with a party of 200 men. He had before sent the highlanders, rangers, and a party of Indians under colonal Palmer, with orders to lie in the woods, near Augustine, and hinder the Spanish parties from coming out by land; but with positive orders not to come to any general action, nor lie two nights in the same place. The general then came up to the commodore, and held a consultation: a landing was determined to be attempted, and captain Warren, who on this occasion had a commission given him to command as lieutenant-colonel, offered his service. Anastasia was immediately attacked and taken; for it was soon found that the river which runs between that island and the castle, near which the town lay, was too wide to better in breach. It was then resolved to attempt to cross the river, and land near the town; but now the half-gallies were a floating battery, so that there was no possibility of landing without first taking or driving them away. This, however, the general offered to attempt with the boats of the squadron: but so many obstacles arose to impede the progress of the siege, that general Oglethorpe finally failed in his principal aim, although he succeeded in his other views,- which were to intimidate the Spaniards from invading Georgia and Carolina, They remained inactive within their own territories until 1742, when they collected a body of troops and entered Georgia, where they committed many ravages; but they were obliged to quit their enterprize with disgrace, by the bravery and conduct of general Oglethorpe.

The ill success of the attack on St. Augustine was ascribed to different causes, as the interests and passions of several of the persons concerned in the business operated. By some it was imputed to treachery: by others, to the misconduct of the general. A controversy, carried on with much acrimony, ensued; and, on the general’s return to England, nineteen articles of complaint were delivered in against him by lieutenant-colonel William Cooke, on which a board of officers sat a considerable time, when, after hearing the evidence, they, on the 7th of June, 1744, dismissed the charges as groundless and malicious, and declared the accuser incapable of serving his majesty. In the month of September in this year the general married the only daughter of sir Nathan Wright, bart. of Cranhamhall, in Essex.

On the 30th of March, 1745, he was promoted to the rank of major-general; and the rebellion breaking out in that year, we find him in December with his regiment very actively employed in following the rebels; but though he was frequently close to them, he did not overtake them, and in February 1746 he arrived in London. His conduct again became the subject of inquiry. On the 29th of September his trial came on at the Horse Guards, and ended the 7th of October, when he was again honourably acquitted; and the Gazette of the 21st of that month declared, that his majesty was graciously pleased to confirm the sentence.

Here his military character seems to have ended; for we do not find that he was any way employed in the war of 1756. On the establishing the British Herring Fishery in 1750, he took a very considerable part, and became one of the council in which situation he, on the 25th of October, delivered to the prince of Wales the charter of incorporation, in a speech printed in the journals of that year. In 1754 he was candidate for the borough of Haslemere, which he had represented in former parliaments; but on the close of the poll the numbers were found to be for J. More Molyneux 75, Phil. Carteret Webb 76, Peter Burrel 46, and for himself only 45.

It has been said, that after this period he was reduced to great difficulties in his fortune, and to the necessity of practising in some manner the science of physic as a profession. We know, however, of no authority for this assertion. On Feb. 22, 1765, he was advanced to the rank of genera], and lived to be the oldest officer in the king’s service. He died at Cranham, June 30, 1785.

He is represented to have been a man of great benevolence, and has been immortalized both by Thomson and Pope. He was at once, says Dr. Warton, a great hero and a great legislator. The vigour of his mind and body has seldom been equalled. The vivacity of his genius continued to a great old age. The variety of his adventures, and the very different scenes in which he had been engaged, merit a more full narrative than we have been able to furnish. Dr. Johnson once offered to write his life, if the general would furnish the materials. Johnson had a great regard for him, for he was one of the first persons that highly, in all companies, praised his “London.” But the greatest lustre of his life was derived from his benevolent and judicious settlement of the colony of Georgia.

, a learned civilian, was born at Dantzic May 4, 1631. His father originally intended him for commercial life, and sent him to Holland with that view; but as he betrayed a stronger inclination to study, and employed all his leisure hours in acquiring knowledge that could be of no use in trade, he was permitted to enter upon a regular course of academic instruction at Leyden. At this university, which he entered in 1650, he was enabled to profit by the instructions of those learned contemporaries, Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius, Boxhornius, Golius, &c. and he had not been here above two years before he published an excellent edition of Minutius Felix, in quarto, dedicated to Christina queen of Sweden. Both Niceron and Morhoff accuse him of plagiarism in this work; but Chaufepie defends him, and apparently with justice. Besides the belles-lettres, he studied law, both at Leyden and Utrecht, and took his doctor’s degree at the former in 1654. Next year he visited England and France, and meant to have proceeded to Italy; but hearing at Geneva that the plague raged there, he went a second time to England and France, and returned to Holland in 1657. He afterwards resided, partly at Utrecht, and partly at Leyden and the Hague, until 1667, when he was appointed professor of law at Grofiingen. The conformity of his ideas with those of Puffendorf occasioned a great intimacy between them. Oisel accumulated a large library, a catalogue of which was published about the time of his death, which happened June 20, 1686. His other works were principally an edition of Aulus Gellius, Leyden, 1666, 8vo, and a treatise entitled “Thesaurus selectorum numismatum antiquorum aere expressorum,” Amst. 1677, 4to, a curious and scarce performance; but originally suggested to him by some booksellers who had purchased the plates of a similar work in German by Joachim Oudaan, and requested Oisel to illustrate them in the Latin language. He had a nephew Philip Oisel, a divine, who published some works on the Hebrew accents and on. the Decalogue.

, a learned, but somewhat enthusiastic divine, was born in 1718, and educated at the Charter-house, and at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1739. At this time he appears to have conceived those notions which interrupted his regular ad*­vancement, and was ordained deacon in the Moravian church. He afterwards offered himself as a candidate for priest’s orders in the church of England; but, when the bishop intimated the invalidity of his first orders, Mr. Okely would not be ordained priest on such terms, and therefore adhered, through life, to the Moravian congregations, and was highly esteemed by the few who lived in communion with him, on account of his piety, benign temper, and liberal sentiments. He died at Bedford May 9, 1794, in his seventy-sixth year. The peculiar turn of his mind may be understood from the titles of his publications: 1. A translation from the High Dutch, of “Twenty-one Discourses, or Dissertations, upon the Augsburgh Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith, delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s Churches before the seminary,” &c. 1754, 8vo. 2. “Psalmorum aliquot Davidis Metaphrasis Graeca Joannis Serrani,” &c. 1770, 12mo. 3. “The Nature and Necessity of the new creature in Christ, stated and described, according to the heart’s experience and true practice, by Johanna Eleanora de Mellari translated from the German,” 1772, 8vo, 4, “The divine visions of John Englebrecht,” 1781, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “A faithful Narrative of God’s gracious dealings with Kiel,” 1781, 8vo. 6. “A Display of God’s Wonders, done upon the person, &c. of John Englebrecht,” &c. 1781. 7. “The indispensable necessity of Faith, in order to the pleasing God being the^ substance of a discourse preached at Eydon in Northamptonshire,” 1781, 8vo.

, a Dominican, was a native of Russia, and became provincial of his order in Poland, in 1649. He published, in 1641, at Cracow, a work entitled “Orbis Polonus,” in three volumes folio, being a history of the Polish nation, to which the author is somewhat partial, with learned researches concerning the origin of the Sarmatians. The work is rare, but of no high value. He was author also of a work entitled “Preco divini verb! Albertus episcopus Ratisponenis,” printed at Cracow in 1649.

, a learned prelate, was born at Hermanstadt, in 1493. After various preferments, he was nominated by Ferdinand, king of Hungary, bishop of Zagrat, and chancellor of the kingdom. He was afterwards elevated to the see of Agria, and being present at the famous siege of that town by the Turks in 1552, he contributed greatly to the spirited and successful defence made by the inhabitants. In 1553 he was appointed archbishop of Strigonia, and held two national councils at Tyrnau, the acts of which were printed at Vienna in 1560, and was instrumental in founding the first Jesuits’ college in Hungary $rt Tyrnau. In 1562 he was created palatine of the kingdom, in which quality he crowned Maximilian as king of Hungary. He died at Tyrnau in 1568; leaving behind him, as monuments of his industry and learning, “A Chronicle of his own Times:” “A History of Attila,” Presb. 1538, and “A Description of Hungary.” His life is given in father Muszka’s history of the Palatines of Hungary, printed in 1752, folio.

, called the good lord Cobham, the first author, as well as the first martyr, among our nobility, was born in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. He obtained his peerage by marrying the heiress of that lord Cobham, who, with so much virtue and patriotism opposed the tyranny of Richard IL and, with the estate and title of his father-in-law, seems also to have taken possession of his virtue and independent spirit. The famous statute against provisors was by his means revived, and guarded by severer penalties. He was one of the leaders in the reforming party, who drew up a number of articles against the corruptions which then prevailed among churchmen, and presented them, in the form of a remonstrance, to the Commons. He was at great expence in collecting and transcribing the works of Wickliff, which he dispersed among the people; and he maintained a great number of his disciples as itinerant preachers in many parts of the country. These things naturally awakened the resentment of the clergy against him. In the reign of Henry IV. he had the command of an English army in France, which was at that time a scene of great confusion, through the competition of the Orleanand Burgundian factions; and obliged the duke of Orleans to raise the siege of Paris. In the reign of Henry V. he was accused of heresy, and the growth of it was particularly attributed to his influence. The king, with whom lord Cobham was a domestic in his court, delayed the prosecution against him; and undertook to reason with him himself, and to reduce him from his errors. Lord Cobham’s answer is upon record. “I ever was,” said he, “a dutiful subject to your majesty, and ever will be. Next to God, I profess obedience to my king; but as to the spiritual dominion of the pope, I never could see on what foundation it is claimed, nor can I pay him any obedience. It is sure as God’s word is true, he is the great antichrist foretold in holy writ.” This answer so exceedingly shocked the king, that, turning away in visible displeasure, he withdrew his favour from him, and left him to the censures of the church. He was summoned to appear before the archbishop; and, not appearing, was pronounced contumacious, and excommunicated. In hopes to avoid the impending storm, he waited upon the king with a confession of nis faith in writing, in his hand; and, while he was in his presence, a person entered the chamber, cited him to appear before the archbishop, and he was immediately hurried to the Tower. He was soon after brought before the archbishop, and read his opinion of these articles, on which he supposed he was called in question, viz. the Lord’s supper, penance, images, and pilgrimages. Hewas told, that in some parts he had not been sufficiently explicit that on all these points holy church had determined by which determinations all Christians ought to abide and that these determinations should be given him as a direction of his faith; and in a few days he must appear again and give his opinion. At the time, he said among other things, “that he knew none holier than Christ and the apostles and that these determinations were surely none of theirs, as they were against scripture.” In conclusion, he was condemned as an heretic, and remanded to the Tower, from which place he escaped, and lay concealed in Wales. The clergy, with great zeal for the royal person, informed the king, then at Eltham, that 20,000 Lollards were assembled at St. Giles’s for his destruction, with lord Cobham at their head. This pretended conspiracy, though there were not above 100 persons found, and those poor Lollards assembled for devotion, was entirely credited by the king, and fully answered the designs of the clergy; but there is not the smallest authority for it, in any author of reputation. A bill of attainder passed against lord Cobham; a price of a thousand marks was set upon his head; and a perpetual exemption from taxes promised to any town that should secure him. After he had been four years in Wales, he was taken at last by the vigilance of his enemies, brought to London in triumph, and dragged to execution in St. Giles’s-fields. As a traitor, and a heretic, he was hung up in chains alive upon a gallows; and, fire being put under him, was burnt to death, in December, 1417.

He wrote, “Twelve Conclusions addressed to the parliament of England.” At the end of the first book he wrote some monkish rhymes in Latin, which Bale has preserved, and which, he says, “were copyed out by dyverse men, and set upon theyr wyndowes, gates, and dores, which were then knowen for obstynate hypocrytes and fleshlye livers, which made the prelates madde.” Bale published “A brefe Chronycle concernynge the Examynacyon and death of the blessed martyr of Christ, syr Johan Oldecastell the lorde Cobham,” which was reprinted under the care of Mr. Lewis, of Margate, in 1729. His life has been since elegantly written by Mr. Gilpin. “Lord Cobham, says this biographer,” had been much conversant in the world; and had probably been engaged in the early part of his life, in the licence of it. His religion, however, put a thorough restraint upon a disposition naturally inclined to the allurements of pleasure. He was a man of a very high spirit, and warm temper; neither of which his sufferings could subdue. With very little temporizing he might have escaped the indignities he received from the clergy, who always considered him as an object beyond them; but the greatness of his soul could not brook concession. In all his examinations, and through the whole of his behaviour, we see an authority and dignity in his manner, which speak him the great man in all his afflictions. He was a person of uncommon parts, and very extensive talents; well qualified either for the cabinet or the field. In conversation he was remarkable for his ready and poignant wit. His acquirements were equal to his parts. No species of learning which was at that time in esteem had escaped his attention. It was his thirst of knowledge, indeed, which first brought him acquainted with the opinions of Wickliff.' The novelty of them engaged his curiosity. He examined them as a philosopher, and in the course of his examination became a Christian."

, who wrote his name sometimes Grubendol, reversing the letters, was a learned German, and born in 1626, in the duchy of Bremen, in the Lower Saxony, being descended from the counts of Oldenburg, in Westphalia, whence his name. During the long English parliament in Charles I.'s time, he was appointed consul for his countrymen, in which post he continued at London after the usurpation of Cromwell; but, being discharged from that employment, he was made tutor to the lord Henry Obrien, an Irish nobleman, whom he attended to the university of Oxford, and in 1656 entered himself a student, chiefly for the sake of admission to the Bodleian library. He was afterwards tutor to William lord Cavendish, and was acquainted with Milton, among whose “Epistolae familiares,” are four letters to Oldenburg. During his residence at Oxford he became also acquainted with the members of that little association which gave birth to the royal society; and, upon the foundation of this latter, he was elected fellow; and, when the society found it necessary to have two secretaries, he was chosen assistant to Dr. Wilkins. He applied himself with extraordinary diligence to the business of this office, and began the publication of the “Philosophical Transactions;” with No. 1. in 1664. In order to discharge this task with greater credit to himself and the society, he held a correspondence with more than seventy learned persons, and others, upon a vast variety of subjects, in different parts of the world. This fatigue would have been insupportable, had he not, as he told Dr. Lister, answered every letter the moment he received it, a rule which cannot be too warmly recommended, whether in cases of business, literature, or pleasure. Among Oldenburg’s correspondents may be mentioned the celebrated Robert Boyle, with whom he had a very intimate friendship; and he translated several of that gentleman’s works into Latin.

About 1674 he was drawn into a dispute with Mr. Robert Hooke; who complained, that the secretary had not done him justice in the “Transactions,” with respect to the invention of the spiral spring for pocket-watches. The contest was carried on with great warmth on both sides for two years, when it was determined, much to Oldenburg’s honour, by a delaration of the council of the royal society, Nov. 20, 1676, in these words: “Whereas the publisher of the Philosophical Transactions hath made complaint to the council of the royal society, of some passages in a late book of Mr. Hooke, entitled ‘ Lampas,’ c. and printed by the printer of the said society, reflecting on the integrity and faithfulness of the said publisher, in his management of the intelligence of the said society this council had thought fit to declare, in the behalf of the publisher aforesaid, that they knew nothing of the publication of the said book; and farther, that the said publisher hath carried himself faithfully and honestly in the management of the intelligence of the royal society, and given no just cause for such reflections.”

Mr. Oldenburg continued to publish the Transactions as before, to No. CXXXVI, June 25, 1677, after which the publication was discontinued till Jan. following; then resumed by his successor in the secretary’s office, Mr. Nehemiah Grew, who carried it on till Feb. 1678. Our author dying at his house at Charlton, near Greenwich, in Kent, in August that year, was interred there. Besides the works already mentioned, he translated into English, 1. “The Prodromus to a Dissertation by Nich. Steno, concerning Solids naturally contained within Solids,” &C.1671, 8vo. 2. “A genuine explication of the Book of Revelations,' 7 &c. 1671, 8vo, written by A. B. Piganius.” The Life of the Duchess of Mazarine," in 8vo, translated from the French. He left a son, named Rupert, from prince Rupert his godfather, and a daughter, named Sophia, by his wife, who was daughter and sole heir to the famous John Dury, a Scotch divine.

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

A little before this time, she formed an illicit connection with Arthur May n waring, esq. who interested himself greatly in the figure she made upon the stage; and it was in some measure owing to the pains he took in improving her natural talents, that she became, as she soon did, the delight and chief ornament of it. After the death of this gentleman, which happened in Nov. 1712, she engaged in a like commerce with brigadier-gen. Charles Churchill, esq. She had one son by Maynwaring; and another by Churchill, who afterwards married the lady Anna Maria Walpole, natural daughter of the earl of Orford. About 1718, Savage, the poet, being reduced to extreme necessity, his very singular case so affected Mrs. Oldfield, that she settled on him a pension of 50L per annum, which was regularly paid as long as she lived. This, added to other generous actions, together with a distinguished taste in elegance of dress, conversation, and manners, have generally been spread as a veil over her failings; and such was her reputation, that upon her death, which happened Oct. 23, 1730, her corpse was carried from her house in Grosvenor-street to the Jerusalem Chamber, and after lying in state, was conveyed to Westminster abbey, the pall being supported by lord De la Warr, lord Hervey, the right hon* George Bubb Doddington, Charles Hedges, esq. Walter Carey, esq. and captain Elliot; her eldest son Arthur Maynwaring, esq. being chief mourner. She was interred towards the west end of the south aile, between the monumerits of Craggs and Congreve. At her own desire, she was elegantly dressed in her coffip, with a very fine Brussels laced head, a Holland shift, with a tucker and double ruffles of the same lace, a pair of new kid gloves, and her body wrapt up in a winding-sheet. On this account, Pope introduced her, in the character of Narcissa, in Epistle I. line 245,

In her person, we are told by her contemporaries, that she was of a stature just rising to that height where the graceful can only begin to shew itself; of a lively aspect and command in her mien. Nature had given her this peculiar happiness, that she looked and maintained the agreeable at a time of life when other fine women only raise admirers by their understanding. The qualities she had acquired were the genteel and the elegant; the one in her air, the other in her dress. The Tatler, taking notice of her dress, says, “That, whatever character she represented, she was always well dressed. The make mind very much contributed to the ornament of her body. This made every thing look native about her; and her clothes were so exactly fitted, that they appeared, as it were, part of her person. Her most elegant deportment was owing to her manner, and not to her habit. Her beauty was full of attraction, but more of allurement There was such a composure in her looks, and propriety in her dress, that you would think it impossible she should change the garb you one day saw her in for any thing so becoming, till you next day saw her in another. There was no other mystery in this, but that, however she was apparelled, herself was the same; for, there is an immediate relation between our thoughts and gestures, that. a woman must think well to look well.”

, an English prelate, and an eminent benefactor to Corpus college, Oxford, is supposed to have been born at Manchester, or more probably at Oldham, near Manchester. He was educated at Oxford, whence, after remaining some time, he removed to Cambridge, completed his studies, and took the degree of D. D. In 1493, Margaret countess of Richmond, whose chaplain he was, presented him to the rectory of Swinshead in Lincolnshire, and in July 1494, to the valuable living of Cheshunt, of which he was the last rector, as it was appropriated shortly after to the convent of Westminster. In the same year we find him prebendary of Collwich in the church of Lichfield, and of Freeford in that church in 1501. In 1497, he was prebendary of Leighton-Bosard in the church of Lincoln, and in 1499 prebendary of South Cave in York. In 1504, he was, by the interest of his patroness the countess of Richmond, advanced to the see of Exeter, in which he sat till his death, June 15, 1519. He is said not to have been a man of profound learning, but a great encourager of it. Wood says that he had an intention of joining with bishop Smyth in the foundation of Brazen-^nose college, but mentions no authority, yet since his arms were displayed in the windows of the original library of that college, there can be no doubt that he contributed to finish or furnish the room. His principal benefactions, however, were bestowed on the contemporary foundation of Corpus Christi college. The design of Fox, the founder of Corpus, originally went no farther than to found a college for a warden, and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Swithin in Winchester; but our prelate induced him to enlarge his plan to one of more usefulness and durability. He is said to have addressed Fox thus: “What, my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods for a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see! No, no: it is more meet a great deal that we should have care to provide for, the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” This wise and liberal advice being taken, Oldham became the second great benefactor to Corpus, by contributing six thousand marks, besides lands. He also founded the grammar-school of Manchester, still a flourishing seminary, and connected with the three colleges of Corpus and Brazen-nose in Oxford, and St. John’s in Cambridge,

, an English poet, was born Aug. 9, 1653, at Shipton, near Tedbury in Gloucestershire, where his father was a nonconformist minister, and had a congregation. He educated his son in grammar-learning, and afterwards sent him to Tedbury school, where he spent about two years. In June 1670, he was admitted of Edmund-hall, Oxford, where he was soon distinguished for a good Latinist, and made poetry and polite literature his chief study. In May 1674, he proceeded B. A. but soon after was called home, much against his inclination. He continued sometime with his father, still cultivating his muse: one of the first fruits of which was “A Pindaric Ode,” the next year, upon the death of his friend and constant companion, Mr. Charles Morvent. Shortly after this, he became usher to the free-school at Croydon in Surrey, yet found leisure to compose several copies of verses; some of which, being seen in ms. by the earls of Rochester and Dorset, sir Charles Sedley, and other wits of distinction, were so much admired, that they surprised him with an unexpected visit at Croydon. Mr. Shepherd (then master of the school) attributed the honour of this visit to himself; but they soon convinced him, that he was not the object of their curiosity. The visit, however, brought Oldham acquainted with other persons of wit and distinction, and probably by their means, he was, in 1678, removed from Croydon, and appointed tutor to the two grandsons of sir Edward Thurland, a judge, near Rygate in-' Surrey. He continued in this family till 1681; when, being out of employment, he passed some time in London among the wits, and was afterwards engaged as tutor to a son of sir William Hickes. This gentleman, living near London, was intimately acquainted with Dr. Richard Lower, an eminent physician there, and who encouraged Oldharn to study physic, in which he made some progress; but he had no relish for protracted study, and preferred the occasional exercise of his pen on temporaty subjects. f Having discharged his trust, in qualifying young Hickes for foreign travels, he declined, though earnestly pressed, to go abroad with him, and took leave of the family. With, a small sum of money which he had saved, he now hastened to London, where company seduced him into intemperance, yet in other respects he neither degraded nor disgraced his character. Before he had been long in the metropolis, he was found out by the noblemen who had visited him at Croydon, and who now brought him acquainted with Dryden, who highly esteemed him, conceived a very great opinion of his talents, and honoured his memory with some very pathetic and beautiful lines.

But what turned to his greater advantage was, his being made known to the earl of Kingston, who became his patron, and entertained him with great respect at his seat at Holme-Pierpoint; apparently in the view of making him his chaplain, if he would qualify himself for it by entering into orders. But he had the utmost aversion for that office, as appears from his “Satire,” addressed to a friend, who was about to leave the university, and come abroad into the world; in which he lets him know, that he was deterred from the thought of such an office by the servility too often expected from it. He remained, however, an inmate in the earPs house, till his death, which was occasioned by the small-pox, Dec. 9, 1683, in his 30th year. He was buried in the church of Holme-Pierpoint, the earl attending as chief mourner, who soon after erected a monument to his memory, with an inscription expressing his eloge in Latin, to this effect: “No poet was more inspired with the sacred furor, none more sublime in sentiments, none more happily bold in expression, than he.” In his person, he was tall of stature, very thin, long-visaged, with a high nose and prominent; his aspect unpromising, but satire was in his eye. His constitution was tender, and inclined to a consumption; and not a little injured by apJication to learned authors, in whom he was well versed. His genius lay chiefly to satire, where, however, he did not always keep within the bounds of decency.

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

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

Mr. Oldmixon, though rigid to others, is far from unblameable himself, in the very particulars concerning which he is so free in his accusations, and that sometimes even without the least regard to truth; one remarkable instance of this kind was his infamous attempt to charge three eminent persons with interpolation in Lord Clarendon’s “History.” This, however, was fully and satisfactorily disproved by bp. Atterbury, the only survivor of them; and the pretended interpolation, after a space of almost ninety years, was produced in his lordship’s own hand-writing. Yet, notwithstanding Oldmixon’s indignation against this pretended crime, it is a fact that when employed by bishop Kennet in publishing the historians in his “Collection,” he made no scruple to pervert “Daniel’s Chronicle” in numberless places, which renders Rennet’s first edition of little value. His principal works were, the “History of the Stuarts,” folio, and “the Critical History of England;” besides which he wrote, 1. “Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English Language,” 1712, 8vo. 2. “A volume of Poems,” 1714. 3. “The Life of Arthur Maynwaring, esq.” whose “Posthumous Works” were collected by Mr. Oldmixon in 1715, and whom he had considerably assisted in “The Medley.” 4. “The Life of Queen Anne.” 5. “A Review of Dr. Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern Historians.” He wrote also a tragedy, an opera, and two pastorals; and his name is to one of Curll’s infamous publications, called “Court tales, or a History of the Amours of the present Nobility,” of which a second edition was published in 1731.

, a bibliographer of great industry and accuracy, was born July 14, 1696. He was the natural son of Dr. William Oldys, chancellor of Lincoln, commissary of St. Catharine’s, official of St. Alban’s, and advocate of the Admiralty, by a woman who was maintained by her keeper in a very penurious and private manner, and whose son, it is probable, had but little assistance in his education from parents so circumstanced.

This Dr. Oldys, who was connected with Dryden and others in a translation of Plutarch’s lives, to which he contributed the life of Pompey, was advocate of the Admiralty to James II. and served king William in the same department, though he was not fully convinced of the validity of that prince’s claim to the crown. When^ he was ordered, in 1693, to prosecute those seamen as pirates who had attacked the English ships by virtue of a commission from James, he refused to obey; alleging, when he was examined by a committee of the privy council, that they were not traitors or pirates, that they had only acted animo hostili, not anitno furandi; that, though James was supposed in England to have abdicated the throne', his authority was still believed to be legitimate by those who had followed him in his exile, as well as by the people of that country from which the commissions had issued; and that, even if his pretensions were false, a reputed power was equivalent to a real one, according to an established maxim communis error facitjus. Sir John Trenchard, the secretary of state, declared, that these reasons amounted to high treason; but Dr. Oldys would not retract his opinion, in which sir Thomas fynfold readily concurred. The doctors Littleton and Tindal, on the contrary, maintained that James had no right to grant such commissions, and that all who acted under them were pirates. Oldys was now deprived of his office, which was given to Littleton, and some of the prisoners were condemned and executed. Though not a favourite at court, Dr. Oldys continued to practice as an advocate with great reputation and success, until his death in 1708. As a scholar, he was respectable; as a civilian, he was learned; as a pleader, eloquent and judicious.

Of the early part of his son’s life little is known, except that he lost his parents soon, and, probably, was left to make his way in life unassisted by every thing but his own talents. Captain Grose says he soon squandered away a small patrimony, and afterwards became an attendant on lord Oxford’s library, of which, after Wanley’s death, in 1726, it may be conjectured, he had the principal care. During this period he produced his most valuable works; and, while in this situation, had every opportunity of gratifying his passion for ancient and curious books. On the death of lord Oxford, in 1741, his valuable library fell into the hands of Osborne the bookseller, who dispersed it by a catalogue, in the formation of which Mr. Oldys was employed, as he was also in the selection made from the pamphlets, in a work in eight volumes 4to, entitled “The Harleiau 'Miscellany.” In compiling the catalogue, it is supposed he proceeded only to the end of the second volume. Dr. Johnson was afterwards employed.

His circumstances through life seem to have been at the best times moderate, and often approaching to necessitous. At one period, which, sir John Hawkins says, was while he was employed on Osborne’s catalogue, he was confined in the Fleet-prison, and acquired such a liking for the company he found there, that to the end of his life, he used to spend his evenings in a house within the rules, with persons who, though confined within a certain district, were exempted from actual imprisonment. The only post he ever held was that of Norroy king of arms, given him by the duke of Norfolk, in return for the pleasure he had received from his Life of sir Walter Raleigh, which is undoubtedly his best biographical work. The chief part of his subsistence was derived from the booksellers, by whom he appears to have been constantly employed. He seems to have had but little classical learning, and his style is very uncouth, but his knowledge of English books has hardly been exceeded.

Captain Grose, who was acquainted with him, says he was a man of great good-nature, honour, and integrity, particularly in his character of an historian. “Nothing,” adds he, “I firmly believe, would ever have biassed him to insert any fact in his writings he did not believe, or tcv suppress any he did. Of this delicacy he gave an instance at a time when he was in great distress, After his publication of the Life of sir Walter Raleigh, some booksellers, thinking his name would sell a piece they were publishing, offered him a considerable sum to father it, which he rejected with the greatest indignation.” From the same authority we learn, that Mr. Oldys, if$ the latter part of his life, abandoned himself to drinking, and was almost continually in a state of intoxication. At the funeral of the princess Caroline he was in such a situation as to be scarcely able to walk, and actually reeled about with a crown on a cushion, to the great scandal of his brethren . He is said also to have been much addicted to low company.

His excesses, however, seem not to have shortened his life, though they might render his old age unrespected: he died April 15, 1761, at the age of sixty-five, and was buried the 19th following in the North aisle of the church of St. Bennet, Paul’s -wharf, towards the upper end of the aisle. He left no will; and the property he possessed was barely sufficient to defray his debts and funeral expences: administration therefore was claimed by, and granted to, a creditor, Dr. Taylor the oculist, to whose family he was under obligations for acts of kindness to him beyond the loan of the money for which he was indebted.

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

, a learned traveller, whose German name was Oelschlager, was born in 1599, or 1600, at Aschersieben, a small town in the principality of Anhalt. 43is parents were very poor, and scarcely able to maintain him, yet by some means he was enabled to enter as a student at Leipsic, where he took his degrees in arts and philosophy, but never was a professor, as some biographers have asserted. He quitted Leipsic for Holsteiu, where the duke Frederic, hearing of his merit and capacity, wished to employ him. This prince having a wish to extend the commerce of his country to the East, determined to send an embassy to the Czar Michael Federowitz, and the king of Persia, and having chosen for this purpose two of his counsellors, Philip Crusius and Otto Bruggeman, he appointed Olearius to accompany them as secretary. Their travels lasted six years, during which Olearius collected a great fund of information respecting the various countries they visited. The Czar of Moscovy on his return wished to have retained him in his service, with the appointment of astronomer and mathematician; not, however, his biographers tell us, so much on account of his skill in these sciences, as because the Czar knew that Olearius had very exactly traced the course of the Volga, which the Russians then wished to keep a secret from foreigners. Olearius had an inclination, however, to have accepted this offer, but after his return to the court of Holstein, he was dissuaded from it, and the duke having apologized to the Czar, attached him to himself as mathematician and antiquary. In 1643, the duke sent him on a commission to Moscow, where, as before, his ingenuity made him be taken for a magician, especially as on this occasion he exhibited a camera obscura. In 1650 the duke appointed him his librarian, and keeper of his curiosities. The library he enriched with many Oriental Mss. which he had procured in his travels, and made also considerable additions to the duke’s museum, particularly of the collection of Paludanns, a Dutch physician, which the duke sent him to Holland ta purchase; and he drew up a description of the whole, which was published at Sleswick in 1666, 4to. He also constructed the famous globe of Gottorp, and an armillary sphere of copper, which was not less admired, and proved how much mathematics had been his study. He died Feb. 22, 1671. He published, in German, his travels, 1647, 1656, 1669, fol. Besides these three editions, they were translated into English by Davies, and into Dutch and Italian. The most complete translation is that, in French, by Wicquefort, Amst. 1727, 2 vols. fol. who also translated Olearius’s edition of Mandelso’s “Voyages to Persia,” c. fol. Among his other and less known works, are some lives of eminent Germans “The Valley of Persian Roses,” from the Persian; “An abridged Chronicle of Holstein,” &c

, the most considerable of a family of learned men of thU name, originally of Saxony, was horn at Leipsic July 23, 1672. He was the son of John Olearius, professor of Greek and theology in that university, and the grandson of Godfrey Olearius, a learned Lutheran divine. From his earliest years he discovered a thirst for knowledge, and a capacity which enabled him to rm.ke a distinguished figure during his studies. When his academic course was completed, in his twenty-first year he went to Holland, and then to England, attracted by the reputation of the university of Oxford and the Bodleian library, to which he gained admittance, and pursued his learned inquiries there a year. On his return home he was appointed professor of Greek at Leipsic; and in 1708 succeeded to the theological chair. In 1709 he obtained a canonry at Meissen; was appointed inspector of the students maintained by the elector, and in 1714 assessor to the electoral and ducal consistory. He died Nov. 10, 1715, when only forty-three years of age. He was an able divine and philosopher, and particularly distinguished for a critical knowledge of the Greek language. Among his works are, I.-“Dissertatio de miraculo Piscinae Bethesdae,” Leipsic, 1706, 4to. 2 “Dissert, de adoratione Dei Patris per Jesum Christum,” ibid. 1709, 4to, against the Socinians. 3. “Introduction to the Roman and German history, from the foundation of Rome to the year 1699,” ibid. 1699, 8vo, in German. 4. A Latin translation of sir Peter King’s “History of the Apostles’ Creed,” 1708, 8vo. 5. An edition, reckoned the best, of “Philostratus,” Gr. & Lat. Leipsic, 1709, fol. 6. A translation of Stanley’s “History of Philosophy,” ibid. 1712, 4to, with valuable notes and corrections, which were consulted in the reprint of the original at London in 1743, 4to. 7 “Observationes sacrae in Evangelium Matthaei,” Leipsic, 1713, 4to. He left various Mss. 2

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

, a learned Portuguese Dominican of the sixteenth century, was born at Azambaja. In 1545 he attended the council of Trent, as Theologian from John III. king of Portugal. He refused a bishopric at his return; but consented to the appointment of inquisitor of the faith, and held the principal offices of the Dominican order in his province. He died in 1563. He has Jeft “Commentaries on the Pentateuch,” Lisbon, 1556, 1558$ 5 parts in one volume, fol. and on “Isaiah,” Paris, 1628, fol. from which it appears that he was an able Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar.

, M. A. president of Clare r haH in Cambridge, and vicar of Great Gransden in Huntingdonshire, was born at Thorp, near Wakefield in Yorkshire (of which place his father was vicar), and was proctor of the university in 1635. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he was very active in collecting the university-plate, and was intrusted in conveying it to the king at Nottingham in August, 1642; but for this, and other acts of loyalty, he was turned out of his fellowship by the earl of Manchester, April 8, 1644, and forced to quit his vicarage. After having suffered much during the usurpation, he was, in 1660, restored both to his fellowship and vicarage; and Sept. 4, that year, installed prebendary of Worcester; and bishop Gunning (to whom he had formerly been tutor), collated him to the archdeaconry of Ely, Nov. 8, into which he was inducted, by proxy, Nov. 17, 1679. This dignity, however, after a little more than a year’s possession, he voluntarily resigned, not thinking himself, in his great humility, sufficient to discharge the duty of it. He was a Jearned man, and no less eminent for his piety and charities. He published “Dr. Jackson’s works,” and Mr. Herbert’s “Country Parson,” to each of which he prefixed a preface. He dred Feb. 20, 1C 86, and was interred in Great Gransden church, where is an inscription to his memory, recording his various charities.

, general of the Augustin monks, and a celebrated cardinal, was born at Saxoferato, in 1408, of poor parents. He was admitted young amongst the monks of Augustin, and studied at Rimini, Bologna, and Perugia: in which last place he was first made professor of philosophy, and afterwards appointed to teach divinity. At length he was chosen provincial, and some time after accepted, not without reluctance, the post of solicitor-general of his order. This office obliged him to go to Rome, where his learning and virtue became greatly admired, notwithstanding he took all possible methods, out of an extreme humility, to conceal them. The cardinal of Tarentum, the protector of his order, could not prevail upon him to engage in any of the public disputations, where every body wished to see his great erudition shine; they had, however, the gratification to hear his frequent sermons, which were highly applauded. He appeared in the pulpits of the principal cities in Italy, as Rome, Naples, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Mantua, and Ferrara; was elected first vicar-general, and then general of his order, in 1459; and at last created cardinal, in 1460, by pope Pius II. This learned pontiff gave him afterwards the bishopric of Camerino, and made use of his abilities on several occasions. Oliva died shortly after at Tivola, where the court of Rome then resided, in 1463. His corpse was carried to the church of the Augustin monks at Rome, where there is a marble monument, with an epitaph, and a Latin tetrastic by way of eulogium. His works are, “De Christi ortu sermones centum”' “De ccena cum apostolis facta;” “De peccato in spiritum sanctum; Orationes elegantes.”

, an Italian antiquary, was born July 11, 1689, at Rovigo, in the Venetian state. Having been ordained priest in 1711, he became professor of ethics at Azzoio, which office he filled for eight years, and went to Rome in 1715, where Clement XI. received him very kindly. After this pontiff’s decease, Oliva being made secretary to the conclave, obtained the notice of cardinal de Rohan, who patronized him, and in 1722 appointed him his librarian, which he held till his death, March 19, 1757, at Paris. He translated the abbe Fleury’s “Tr. des Etudes,” into Italian, and left a dissertation, in Latin, “On the necessity of joining the study of ancient medals to that of history;” another, “On the progress and decay of learning among the Romans;” and a third, “On a monument of the goddess Isis.” These three, under the title of “CEuvres diverses,” were printed at Paris, 1758, 8vo. He also published an edition of a ms. of Sylvestri’s, concerning an ancient monument of Castor and Pollux, with the author’s Life, 8vo; an edition in 4to, of several Letters written by Poggio, never published before; and formed a ms catalogue of cardinal de Rohan’s library, in 25 vols. fol.

, one of the first English miniature painters, was born in this country in 1556, and studied under Hilliard, but received some farther instructions from Frederick Zucchero, and became a painter of great eminence, His principal employment was in portraits, which he painted for the most distinguished personages of his time; but he likewise attempted historical subjects with success. He was a good designer, and very correct; his touch was neat and delicate; and although he generally worked in miniature, yet he frequently painted in a large size. His drawings are highly finished, and exceedingly valued, many of them being copies after Parmigiano. Several very fine miniatures of this master are to be seen in the collections of the English nobility and gentry. Dr. Mead’s collection was very rich in them: some of them are portraits of himself, others of queen Elizabeth, Mary queen of Scots, prince Henry, and Ben Jonson, which are admirably finished. There is also a whole length of sir Philip Sidney, of great merit. These are now in the king’s collection. At Strawberry-hill are some fine specimens, and in the closet of queen Caroline at Kensington, there is a capital drawing of Oliver’s, of which the subject is, the placing of Christ in the Sepulchre; and another drawing after Raphael’s design of the Murder of the Innocents, which has a great deal of merit. He died in 1617, aged sixty- one, and was buried in St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, where his son erected a monument to his memory, which was destroyed in the great fire. He wrote a treatise on limning, partly printed in Sanderson’s “Graphice.”

, son and disciple of the preceding, was born in 1601, and by the precepts and example of his father, he arrived at a degree of perfection in miniature portrait painting confessedly superior to his instructor, or any of his contemporaries, as he did not confine his subjects to a head only. His pictures, like his father’s, are spread among the houses of the nobility and gentry, and are alike justly esteemed. The works which he executed upon a larger scale are much more valuable than those of his father, and are also more numerous, though not very frequently to be met with. L6rd Orford mentions that there were thirteen works of Peter Oliver in the collection of Charles I. and of James II.; and that seven of them are preserved in queen Caroline’s closet at Kensington; and he also speaks of a portrait of Mrs. Oliver by her husband, in possession of the duchess of Portland, as his finest work. Lord Orford thinks it extraordinary that more of the works of this excellent master are not known, as he commonly made duplicates of his pictures, reserving one of each for himself. On this subject, he adds, that Russel the painter, related to or connected with the Olivers, told Vertue a remarkable story. The greater part of the collection of king Charles I. being dispersed in the troubles, among which were several of the Olivers, Charles II. who remembered, and was desirous of recovering them, made many inquiries about them after the Restoration; at last, he was told by one Rogers of Islevvorth, that both the father and son were dead, but that the son’s widow was living at Isleworth, and had many of their works. The king went very privately and unknown with Rogers, to see them; the widow shewed several finished and unfinished; with many of which the king being pleased, he asked if she would sell them; she replied she had a mind the king should see them first, and if he did not purchase them, she should think of disposing of them. The king discovered himself; on which she produced some more pictures, which she seldom shewed. The king desired her to set a price she said she did not care to make a price with his majesty she would leave it to him but promised to look over her husband’s books, and let his majesty know what prices his father, the late king, had paid. The king took away what he liked, and sent Rogers to Mrs. Oliver with the options of \OOOl. or an annuity of 30Q/. for her life. She chose the latter. Some years afterwards it happened that the king’s mistresses having begged aril or most of these pietures r Mrs. Oliver said, on hearing it, that if she had thought the king would have given them to such whores and strutn* pets and bastards, he never should have had them. This reached the court, the poor woman’s salary was stopped* and she never received it afterwards. The rest of the Winnings which the king had not taken, fell into the hands of Mrs. Russel’s father. Peter Oliver is supposed to have died before the restoration, probably about 1654. Isaac Oliver, the glass -painter, appears to have been of this family.

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

His first publications were his translations from Cicero and Demosthenes, which have supponed their reputation through various editions. That of “De Natura Deorum,” “Entretiens de Ciceron sur la nature des Dieux,” was first published in 1726. In this, and in some other of his translations, he was assisted by the president Bouhier, but is thought, in France, to have excelled him in grammatical knowledge, and in transfusing the spirit of his author. Encouraged by the success of this work, D'Olivet published in 1727 the Philippics of Demosthenes, and Cicero’s orations against Cataline. Of all these translations he published for the last time an elegant edition, at the press of Barbou, in 1765 and 1766, 6 vols.

His next employment was a continuation of the history of the French academy, from 1652, where Pelisson left off, to 1700. This he published in 1729, 4to, and the following year, in 2 vols. 12mo. Having been always a diligent student of the grammar of the French language, he published some works on that subject, which were much approved in France, although, like a few other of his detached pieces, they are less interesting to an English reader. He had however, long meditated what has rendered his name dear to scholars of all nations, his edition of Cicero, which has served as a standard of correctness and critical utility. It appeared first in 1740, 9 vols. 4to, splendidly printed at the expence of the French govern ­jnent. It is formed on the editions of Victorius, Manntius, Lambinus, and Gruter, and has the *' Clavis Ernestina." This truly valuable edition was reprinted at Geneva, 1758, y vols. 4to, and at Oxford, with the addition of various readings from twenty-nine manuscripts, collated by Hearne, and others more recently examined, 1783, 10 vols. 4to. The abbe* Olivet, whose personal character appears to have been as amiable as his labours were valuable, died of a fit of apoplexy, Oct. 8, 1768.

, a person of whose history little is known, was a relation of the celebrated Calvin, and the first who translated the Bible into French, which he printed at Neufchatel, in 1535, fol. His translation is not very accurate, but it was improved in subsequent editions by Calvin, Beza, and others, and formed the foundation of what was called the Geneva translation. The edition of 1540, 4to, called “La Bible de l'Epee,” is very scarce, Olivetan died in 1538, in consequence, as some say, of having been poisoned at Rome.

, knight of the military order of Christ, and gentleman of the king of Portugal’s household, was born at Lisbon, May 21, 1702. His father, Joseph de Oliveyra e Souza, held a principal post in the exchequer of Portugal, and was for twenty five years secretary of embassy at the courts of London, the Hague, and Vienna. No expence was spared on the education of his son, whom he procured to be admitted into the exchequer at an early age, and who, in recompense for his own as well as his father’s services, was in Dec. 1729, invested with the order of knighthood. In 1732 he visited Madrid, and was introduced at the Spanish court. On his father’s death, which happened at Vienna in 1734, he was appointed to succeed him as secretary of embassy, and during his residence in this city, first began to perceive the absurdities of the popish superstition, from the difficulty that he found (as he has himself expressed) in defending it from the attacks of some Lutheran friends in occasional conversation.

Soon after this, some disputes between him and count de Tarouca, plenipotentiary at the imperial court from that of Lisbon, induced him to give up his post as secretary. What the nature of these disputes were, we are not informed, but it appears that they exposed him to the hostility of a powerful party of that nobleman’s relations and friends at the court of Lisbon, while his growing attachment to Protestantism making him less guarded in his expressions, the inquisition of Lisbon found a pretence to censure him. Accordingly, when the first volume of the “Memoirs of his Travels” was published at Amsterdam m 1741, though much esteemed by the Portuguese in general, it was soon prohibited by the inquisition; and the three volumes of his “Letters, familiar, historical, political, and critical,” printed at the Hague, in 1741 and 1742, underwent the same fate. These works being writ-r ten in the Portuguese language, a stop was thus put to the sale of them; but his “Memoires concernant le Portugal,” Hague, 1741—1743, 2 vols. 8vo, in the French language, were well received by the public, and gained him great reputation.

After four years residence in Holland, having obtained but a partial redress from the court of Portugal in the matter of his dispute with count de Tarouca, he came in 1744 to London, to avail himself of the interest of the Porttu guese envoy, Mons. de Carvalho, afterwards marquis of Ponabal, but although this gentleman professed to admit the justice of his claims, he did him no substantial service. The chevalier, however* had another affair at this time more at heart, and after carefully weighing all the consequences of the step he was about to take, he determined to sacrifice every thing to the dictates of his conscience, and accordingly in June 1746 he publicly abjured the Roman catholic religion, and embraced that of the church of England. As he was now cut off from all his resources in Portugal, he for socoe time encountered many difficulties; but that Providence in which he always trusted, raised him several friends in this country, and to the interest of some of these it is supposed he owed the pension granted him by the late Frederick, prince of Wales, which was continued by the princess dowager, and after her decease, by the present queen. He also acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Majendie, lord Grantham, lord Townshend, the duchess dowager of Somerset, and the archbishops Seeker and Herring.

His mind becoming easier by degrees, he returned to his favourite studies, and through the course of the year 1751, he published his “Amusements Periodiques,” a monthly publication, in which he entered with great freedom into the controversy between the protestant and Romish churches, and they were therefore soon prohibited both in Portugal and Rome. In 1753 he retired to a house at Kentish town, where he divided his time between the care of a small garden, the pursuit of his studies, and the conversation of several learned friends who frequently visited him. When the news arrived of the dreadful earthquake at Lisbon in December 1755, he published his “Discours Pathetique” early in 1756, addressed to his countrymen, but particularly to the king of Portugal. The rapid sale of several editions of this work, both in French and English, in the course of a few weeks, was no inconsiderable proof of its merit; but while it made him more known and esteemed in this and other countries, it drew upon him the resentment of some of his countrymen, and particularly of the inquisitors, who now laid a prohibition on all his works in geaeral. Even his brother, Thomas de Aquinas, a Benedictine monk, wrote to exhort him to retract his errors. This occasioned the chevalier to publish a second part, or “Suite de Discours pathetique,” 1757, in which he not only answered the objections made to the “Discours,” but inserted his brother’s letter, with a suitable answer.

Here the contest between the chevalier and the inquisition seemed to rest, but that tribunal was at the same time proceeding secretly with all its force against him. A discontinuance of the “Acts of Faith,” as that horrid ceremony is impiously palled, for a while prevented theii? proceedings from appearing, but at length, at the “Act of Faith” celebrated at Lisbon in Sept. 1762, he was declared au heretic, and sentenced to be burnt in effigy. As soon as he beard of this he published a small tract entitled “Le. Chevalier D'Oliveyra brule ervefiigie cornrne Heretique, comment et pourquoi? Anecdotes et Reflections sur ee sujet donnes an public par lui meme,” Lond. 1762. In the introduction to this work the chevalier gives some account of his life, and exposes the irregularity of the proceedings of the inquisition against him.

About this time he. removed from Kentish town to Krughtsb ridge, for the convenience of his friends; but time having robbed him of a number of these, he left that situation in 1775 to reside at Hackney, where he continued to pursue his studies, constantly employing the mornings in writing, and the evenings in reading. Besides the works already mentioned, he occasionally published several others, not of less merit, though of less importance to the memoirs of his life. The manuscripts he left vvere very numerous, and their subjects as various. Among them are what he calls “Oliveyrana, ou Memoires historiques, litteraires,” &c. which, in 27 vols. 4to, contain, as he often mentioned, the fruits of his reading and observations for the space of twenty-five years. These were, in 1734, in the possession of his widow, an English lady, whom he married in 1746, and who survived him, but how long we have not discovered. The chevalier died Oct. 18th, 1783, and was interred in the burial ground of the parish of Hackney, with a privacy suitable to his worldly circumstances, but much below liis merit, virtues, and piety.

, a learned Italian antiquary, honorary chamberlain to Clement the XHIth, and perpetual secretary of the academy of Pesaro, in the Marche of Ancona, was born in that city on the 17th of June, 1708, of an ancient and illustrious family. His lively and active disposition, and an uncommon thirst for information, gave an early promise of his subsequent progress in the career of literature. After receiving at home the rudiments of a learned education, he went through the usual studies of polite literature, at the college of noblemen at Bologna. He then applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law at the university of Pisa, under the tuition of the illustrious civilian and literator Averani, until 1727, when he went to Rome in order to practise at the bar.

During this interval, however, he was far from being idle in other respects, as he was employed in collecting materials for his successive works. He had formed with infinite labour, an ample collection of inscriptions, diplomas, and manuscripts of every kind, many of which, by permission of pope Benedict XIV, he had obtained from the several archives of the papal dominions. In the vestibule and hall of his palace he had collected a vast numbec of statues, busts, marbles, and other monuments of civil and ecclesiastical history; and had arranged in his museum an immense quantity of coins, seals, cameos, engraved stones, pieces of glass and ivory, and other curious works of antiquity; and it is worthy of remark, that the whole of this collection related in some measure to his own native city, Pesaro, to the illustration of whose history he had devoted his talents. At length, in 1774, he published, in 4to, his “Memoirs of the ancient Port of Pesaro,” of which an honourable account was given by Tiraboschi, in the new literary journal of Modena, as tending to illustrate many important particulars in the history of the latter period of the Roman empire.