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

The death of this valuable servant of the public was occasioned by the hand of an assassin, one of those men who brood over theirown injuries, orsupposed injuries, until they become the willing agents of malignity and revenge. This catastrophe happened on Monday, May 11, 1812. About five o'clock in the evening of that day, Mr. Perceval was entering the lobby of the house of commons, when he was shot by a person named John Bellingham, and almost instantly expired. The murderer, when apprehended, acknowledged his guilt, but pleaded that he had claims on administration which had been neglected; and it appeared, on his trial, that he had deliberately prepared to murder some person in administration, without any particular choice; and that when he was possessed by this hellish spirit, Mr. Perceval presented himself. No marks of insanity appeared either previous to or on his trial, nor could he be brought to any proper sense of his crime. He was executed on the Monday following.

, an eminent physician, was born at Warrington, September 29, 1740. Having lost both his parents in one day, he was placed at the age of four years under the protection of his uncle, Dr. Thomas Percival, a learned physician, resident at the same place; but of his parental guidance he was also deprived at the age of ten, after which his education was directed with the most kind and judicious attention by his eldest sister. His literary pursuits commenced at a private school in the neighbourhood of Warrington, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the free grammar-school of that town, where he exhibited great promise of talent, and much industry. In 1757 he became one of the first pupils of a dissenting academy then established at Warrington, where he pursued with unabating diligence the classical studies in which he had already made considerable progress, and in particular had attained, great facility and elegance in Latin composition, The study of ethics, however, appears to have principally engaged his attention here, as it did afterwards throughout the whole of -his life, and formed the basis of all his works, except those on professional subjects. It appears that before Mr. Perceval went to Warrington academy, his family was induced to quit communion with the church of England, and to espouse the tenets of protestant dissent. This was in one respect peculiarly unfortunate for him who had thoughts of entering the university of Oxford; but now, after studying the thirty-nine articles, he determined against subscription, and consequently relinquished the advantages of academical study at either English university. He therefore went in 1761 to Edinburgh, and commenced his studies in medical science, which he also carried on for a year in London. In 1765 he removed to the university of Leyden, with a view to complete his medical course, and to be admitted to the degree of doctor of physic. Having accordingly defended in the public schools his inaugural dissertation “De Frigore,” he was presented with the diploma of M. D. July 6, 1765. On his return, which was through France and Holland, at the close of the same year, he joined his family at Warrington, and soon after married Elizabeth, the daughter and only surviving child of Nathaniel Bassnett, esq. merchant, of London. In 1767 ho removed with his family to Manchester, and commenced his professional career with an uncommon degree of success,

Extensive as Dr. PercivaPs practice was, he found leisure to continue those publications on which his fame is founded, and by which he was soon known throughout Europe. Among these we may mention “Observations and Experiments on the Poison of Lead,” 1774; “A Father’s Instructions, consisting of tales, fables, and reflections, designed to promote the love of virtue, a taste for knowledge, and an early acquaintance with the works of nature,” 1775. Two years after he added another volume, completing the work, which is executed in a manner excellently adapted to its object. “On the Use of Flowers of Zinc in epileptic cases” (Medical Commentaries, vol. II.) “Miscellaneous practical Observations,” (ibid. V.) “Account of the Earthquake at Manchester,' (ibid.)” The Disadvantages of early Inoculation.“” Experiments and Observations on Water.“” Moral and literary Dissertations,“1784, 8vo.” On the Roman Colonies and Stations in Cheshire and Lancashire,“(Phil. Trans. XLVII. 216.)” Account of a double Child,“(ibid. 360.)” Experiments on the Peruvian Bark, (ibid. LVII. 2^1.) “Experiment! and Observations on the Waters of Buxton and Manche*­ter,” (ibid. LXII. 455.) On the Population of Manchester and other adjacent places,“(ibid. LXIV. 54; LXV. 322, and Supplement, LXVI. 160.)” New and cheap way of preparing Potash," (ibid. LXX. 545.)

The “Manchester Memoirs” were also frequently honoured by Dr. Percival’s communications. The society, indeed, by which they were published, derived its origin from the stated weekly meetings for conversation, which Dr. Percival held at his own house; the resort of the literary characters, the principal inhabitants, and of occasional strangers. As these meetings became more numerous, it was in time found convenient to transfer them to a tavern, and to constitute a few rules for the better direction of their proceedings. The members thus insensibly formed themselves into a club, which was supported with so much success, as at length, in 1781, to assume the title of “The Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester.” Dr. Percival was appointed joint president with James Massey, esq. and his literary contributions were frequent and valuable. When acting as president, his powers both of comprehension and discourse were sometimes called forth to considerable exercise; and perhaps on no occasion were his talents more fully exerted, than when he at once guided and systematized the topics of animated discussion. Another scheme which he patronized was for the establishment of public lectures on mathematics, the fine arts, and commerce, somewhat in the manner of the institutions lately attempted in London; but that of Manchester, after two winters of unfavourable trial, was at length reluctantly abandoned, and those of the metropolis have not yet much to T)oast on the score of encouragement or utility. Dr. Percival experienced two other disappointments, in his endeavours to support the dissenting academy at Warrington, and to establish one at Manchester in its room, neither of which schemes was found practicable.

"The character of Dr. Percival was in every way calculated to secure for him that eminence in his profession, and that general respect, esteem, and attachment, which he every where obtained. A q:iick penetration, a discriminating judgment, a patient attention, a comprehensive knowledge, and, above all, a solemn sense of responsibility, were the endowments which so conspicuously fitted him at once to discharge the duties, and to extend the boundaries, of the healing art; and his external accomplishments and manners were alike happily adapted to the offices of his profession. In social discussion, he possessed powers of a very uncommon stamp, combining the accuracy of science, and the strictest precision of method, with the graces of a copious and unstudied elocution; and to these was superadded the polish of a refined urbanity, the joint result of innate benevolence, and of early and habitual intercourse with the most improved classes of society. In few words, he was an author without vanity, a philosopher without pride, a scholar without pedantry, and a Christian without guile. Affable in his manners, courteous in his conversation, dignified in his deportment, cheerful in his temper, warm in his affections, steady in his friendships, mild in his resentments, and unshaken in his principles; the grand object of his life was usefulness, and the grand spring of all his actions was religion.

, a late learned prelate, a descendant of the ancient earls of Northumberland, was born at Bridgenorth in Shropshire, in 1728, and educated at Christ church, Oxford. In July 1753 he took the degree of M.A.; and in 1756 he was presented by that college to the vicarage of Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, which he held with the rectory of Wilbye, in the same county, given him by the earl of Sussex. In 1761 he began his literary career, by publishing “Han Kiou Chouan,” a translation from the Chinese; which was followed, in 1762, by a collection of “Chinese Miscellanies,” and in 1763 by “Five Pieces of Runic Poetry,” translated from the Icelandic language. In 1764 he published a new version of the “Song of Solomon,” with a commentary and annotations. The year following he published the “Reliques of Antient English Poetry,” a work which constitutes an aera in the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the perusal of a folio volume of ancient manuscripts given to the bishop by a friend, in early life (from which he afterwards made large extracts in the “Reliques,”) led his mind to those studies in which he so eminently distinguished himself. It appears likewise that Shenstone encouraged him in publishing the “Reliques.” The same year he published “A Key to the New Testament,” a concise manual for Students of Sacred Literature, which has been adopted in the universities, and often reprinted. After the publication of the “Reliques,” he was invited by the late duke and duchess of Northumberland to reside with them as their domestic chaplain. In 1769 he published “A Sermon preached before the Sons of the Clergy at St. Paul’s.” In 1770 he conducted “The Northumberland Household Book” through the press; the same year he published “The Hermit of Wark worth,”' and a translation of Mallet’s “Northern Antiquities,” with notes. A second edition of the “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” was published in 1775, a third in 1794, and a fourth in 1814. In 1769 he was nominated chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1778 he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle; and in 1782 to the bishopric of Dromore in Ireland, where he constantly resided, promoting the instruction and comfort of the poor with unremitting attention, and superintending the sacred and civil interests of the diocese, with vigilance and assiduity; revered and beloved for his piety, liberality, benevolence, and hospitality, by persons of every rank and religious denomination. Under the loss of sight, of which he was gradually deprived some years before his death, he steadily maintained his habitual cheerfulness; and in his last painful illness he displayed such fortitude and strength of mind, such patience and resignation to the divine will, and expressed such heartfelt thankfulness for the goodness and mercy shewn to him in the course of a long and happy life, as were truly impressive and worthy of that pure Christian spirit, in him so eminently conspicuous. His only son died in 1783. Two daughters survive him; the eldest is married to Sarruiel Isted, esq. of Ecton, in Northamptonshire; and the youngest to the hon. and reV. Pierce Meade, archdeacon of Dromore. In 1777 the rev. John Bowie addressed a printed letter to Dr. Percy, announcing a new and classical edition of “Don Quixote.” In 1780 Mr. Nichols was indebted to him for many useful communications for the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems.” When elevated to the mitre, Mr. Nichols was also under further obligations in the “History of Hinckley,” 1782. In 1786 the edition of the Tatler, in six volumes, small 8vo, was benefited by the hints suggested by bishop Percy to the rev. Dr. Calder, the learned and industrious annotator and editor of those volumes. The subsequent editions of the Spectator and Guardian were also improved by some of his lordship’s notes. Between 1760 and 1764, Dr. Percy had proceededvery far at the press with an admirable edition of “Surrey’s Poems,” and also with a good edition of the Works of Villiers duke of Buckingham; both which, from a variety of causes, remained many years unfinished in the warehouse of Mr. Tonson in the Savoy; but were resumed in 1795, and nearly brought to a conclusion, when the whole impression of both works was unfortunately consumed by the fire in Red Lion Passage in 1808. His lordship died at his episcopal palace, Dromore, on Sept. 30, 1811, in his eighty-third year. So much of his life had passed in the literary world, strictly so called, that authentic memoirs of his life would form an interesting addition to our literary history, but nothing has yet appeared from the parties most able to contribute such information. The preceding particulars we believe to be correct, as far as they go, but we cannot offer them as satisfactory.

, a celebrated archbishop of Paris, and master of the Sorbonne, was son of a steward of the household to cardinal Richelieu, who took care of his education. He distinguished himself as a student, was admitted doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, preached with great applause, and was appointed preceptor to Louis XIV. and afterwards bishop of Rhodes, but resigned this bishopric because he could not reside in his diocese. In 1664, M, de Perefixe was made archbishop of Paris; and, soon after, by the advice of father Annat, a Jesuit, published a mandate for the pure and simple signature of the formularyof Alexander VII. His distinction between divine faith and human faith, made much noise, and was attacked by the celebrated Nicole. His attempt also to make the nuns of Port-Royal sign the formulary, met with great resistance,which occasioned many publications against him but his natural disposition was extremely mild, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he forced himself to proceed against these celebrated nuns. He died December 31, 1670, at Paris. He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1654. His works are, an excellent “Hist, of K. Henry IV.” Amst. 1661, 12mo. This and the edition of 1664 are scarce and in much request, but that of 1749 is more common. Some writers pretend that Mezerai was the real author of this history, and that M. de Perefixe only adopted it; but they bring no proofs of their assertion. He published also a book, entitled “Institutio Principis,” 1647, 16to, containing a collection of maxims relative to the duties of a king in his minority.

, one of the most excellent of the Italian composers, was born at Casoria in the kingdom of Naples, in 1701; and was educated at Naples under Gaetuno Greco, a very famous musician of that time. The prince of San-Agliano, or Stigiiano, becoming acquainted with the talents of yonng Pergolesi, took him under his protection, and, from 1730 to 1734, procured him employment in the new theatre at Naples, where his operas had prodigious success. He then visited Rome, for which place his “Olympiade” was composed, and there performed, but was by no means applauded as it deserved; after which he returned to Naples, and falling into a consumptive disorder, died in 1737, at the premature age of thirty-three. It is not true, as some authors have asserted, that he was poisoned by some of his rivals, nor indeed was thesuccess of his productions sufficiently great to render him an object of envy. His fame was posthumous. From the style of his composition, the Italians have called him the Domenichino of music. Ease, united with deep knowledge of harmony, and great richness of melody, forms the characteristic of his music. It expresses the passions with the very voice of nature, and speaks to the soul by the natural force of its effects. It has been thought, by some, of too melancholy a cast, which might arise, perhaps, from the depression produced by infirmity of constitution. His principal works are, 1. The “Stabat Mater,” usually considered as his most perfect work, and much better known than any other, in this country. 2. Another famous mass, beginning, “Dixit et laudate,” first heard with rapture at Naples, soon after his return from Rome. 3. The mass called “Salve Regina,” the last of his productions, composed at Torre del Greco, a very short time before his death, but as much admired as any of his compositions. 4. His opera of “Olympiade,” set to the words of Metastasio. 5. “La serva Padrona,” a comic opera. 6. His famous cantata of “Orfeo e Euridice.” The greater part of his other compositions were formed for pieces written in the Neapolitan dialect, and unintelligible to the rest of Italy. Pergolesi’s first and principal instrument was the violin. Dr. Burney says, that “he had, perhaps, more energy of genius, and a finer tact, than any of his predecessors; for though no labour appears in his productions, even for the church, where the parts are thin, and frequently in unison, yet greater and more beautiful effects are often produced in the performance than are promised in the score.” “The church-music of Pergolesi has been censured by his countryman, Padre Martini, as well as by some English musical critics, for too much levity of movement, aud a dramatic cast, even in some of his slow airs; while, on the contrary, Eximeno says, that he never heard, and perhaps never shall hear, sacred music accompanied with instruments, so learned and so divine, as the Stabat Mater.” Dr. Burney thinks it very doubtful whether the sonatas ascribed to this author are genuine; but observes, that the progress since made in instrumental music, ought not, at all events, to diminish the reputation of Pergolesi, “which,” he adds, “was not built on productions of that kind, but on vocal compositions, in which the clearness, simplicity, truth, and sweetness of expression, justly entitle him to supremacy over all his predecessors, and contemporary rivals; and to a niche in the temple of fame, among the great improvers of the art; as, if not the founder, the principal polisher of a style of composition both for the church and stage, which has been constantly cultivated by his successors; and which, at the distance of half a century from the short period in which he flourished, still reigns throughout Europe.” The learned historian, for this reason, justly considers the works of Pergolesi as forming a great sera in modern music.

, an old French satirist, was born at Arnay-le-Duc, a small town of Burgundy, about the end of the fifteenth century. He went through his early studies with credit, and was advanced to the place of valet-de-chambre to the queen of Navarre, sister of Francis I. About this time a, considerable freedom of opinion prevailed at court, and the disputes of certain theologians had occasionally furnished subjects for ridicule. Des Periers, who was young and lively, wrote his celebrated work entitled “Cymbalum mundi,” in which the divines of the time found nothing but atheism and impiety, while others considered the satire as general and legitimate. A modern reader will perhaps discover more folly and extravagance than either impiety or wit. The work, however, was prohibited by an order of council soon after it appeared; and, according to De Bure and Brunet, but one copy is known to exist of the original edition. Des Periers did not lose his situation at court, but continued in the same favour with the queen of Navarre, and is supposed to have written some part of the tales which were published under the name of that princess. Des Periers is said to have indulged in excesses which ruined his health, and in the paroxysm of a fever he committed suicide in 1544. His works are, I. The “Andria” of Terence, translated into French rhyme, Lyons, 1537, 8vo. 2. “Cymbalum mundi, en Fran9ais, contenant quatres dialogues poetiques, fort antiques, joyeux, et facetieux,” Paris, 1537, 8vo. This, which was the first edition, he published under the name of Thomas du Clevier. It was reprinted at Lyons in 1538, 8vo, also a rare edition. In 1711, Prosper Marchand pubJished an edition in 12mo, with a long letter on the history of the work. Of this an English translation was published in 1712, 8vo. The last edition is that with notes by Falconet and Lancelot, which appeared in 1732, 12mo. 3. “Recueil desCEuvres de B. Desperiers,” Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This is the only edition of his works which contains his poetry. 4. “Nouvelles recreations et joyeux devis,” Lyons, 1558, 8vo, a collection of tales attributed to Des Periers, but which some think were the production of Nicolas Denisot, and James Peletier; and it is certain that there are some facts mentioned in them which did not occur until after the death of Des Periers. The reader may derive more information on this subject, if he think it interesting, from La Monnoye’s preliminary dissertation to the edition of these tales published at Amsterdam (Paris) in 1735, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a learned Northern antiquary, was born Oct. 6, 1654, at Strengnes in Sudermania, and was the son of Lawrence Frederic Peringer, professor of rhetoric and poetry. Having acquired great skill in northern antiquities, he was in 1689 appointed professor at Upsal; in 1693, secretary and antiquary to the king of Sweden, and in 1719 counsellor to the chancery for antiquities. When appointed secretary to the king he changed his name from Peringer to Peringskiold. He died March 24, 1720. His principal works, which are very much valued by Swedish historians and antiquaries, are, 1. “Snarronis Sturlonidac Hist, regum Septentrionalium,” with two translations, 1697, fol. 2. “Historia Wilkinensium, Theodorici Veronensis, ac Niflungorum,” c. copied from an ancient Scandinavian ms. with a translation, 1715, fol. 3. M Hist. Hialmari regis,“from a Runic ms. this is inserted in Hickes’s Thesaurus, 4.” Monumenta SuecoGothica," 2 vols. fol. 1710—1719, &c. &c.

, one of the most distinguished scholars and assistants of Raphael in the Vatican, was born in a Tuscan village in 1500. Vasari seems to consider him as the first designer of the Florentine school after Michael Angelo, and as the best of Raphael’s pupils: it is certain, that in a general grasp of the art, none approached Julio Romano so near, equally fit to render on a large scale the historic designs of his master, to work in stucco and grotesque ornaments with Giovanni da Udine, or with Polidoro to paint chiaroscuros. The Immolation of Isaac in the Stanze, the taking of Jericho, Joseph sold by his Brethren, Jacob with the Vision, the Drowning of Pharaoh, with others among the frescos of the Loggia, are his. That he had much of the Florentine style may be seen in the works of his own invention, such as the Birth of Eve in the church of St. Marcello, at Rome, a; high-wrought performance, with some Infants that have an air of life. At a monastery in Tivoli there is a St. John in the same style, with an admirable landscape, and many more in Lucca and Pisa.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was born at Cormery, in Touraine, in 1500. He took the Benedictine habit in the abbey of this name, 1517, and died there about 1559, aged near sixty. Among his writings are four “Dialogues,” in Latin, on the origin of the French language, and its resemblance to the Greek, Paris, 1555, 8vo; some tracts in defence of Aristotle and Cicero, against Peter Ranius, 8vo Latin translations of some books of Plato, Aristotle, St. John Damascenus, &c. “Loci Theologici,” Paris, 1549, 8vo. He wrote in more elegant Latin than was common with the divines of that age; but his accuracy and critical skill have been in many respects justly called in question.

, a learned German, was of a family originally of Teutorp, a small town in Westphalia: their name was Voorbrock; but being changed for Perizonius (a Greek word of similar import, implying something of the nature of a girdle) by one who published an “Epithalamium,” with this name subscribed, it was ever after retained by the learned part of the family. Anthony Perizonius, the father of the subject of this article, was rector of the school of Dam, professor of divinity and the Oriental languages, first at Ham, and afterwards at Deventer; at which last place he died in 1672, in his fortysixth year, he published, in 1669, a learned treatise, “De Ratione studii Theologici.”

James, his eldest son, was born at Dam, Oct. 26, 1651. He studied first under Gisbert Cuper, at Deventer, and was afterwards, in 1671, removed to Utrecht, where he attended the lectures of Gracvius. His father designed him for the church, but after his death he preferred the mixed studies of polite learning, history, and antiquity, and went, in 1674, to Leyden, where his preceptor was Theodore Ryckius, professor of history and eloquence in that city. He became afterwards rector of the Latin school at Delft, from which he was promoted in 1681 to the professorship of history and eloquence at Franeker. His reputation bringing a great concourse of scholars to this university, he was complimented by the addition to his stipend of an hundred crowns, and when on the death of Ryckius in 1690, Perizonius was offered the vacant professorship, the curators of Franeker were so desirous of his continuing with them that they added another hundred crowns to his stipend. He was, however, in 1693, persuaded to goto Leyden to fill the place of professor of history, eloquence, and the Greek language and in this employment continued till his death. He was a man of incredible diligence as well as accuracy, never committing any thing to the press without the strictest revisal and examination. Such uninterrupted application is said by his biographers to have shortened his life, which, however, extended to sixty-six years. He died April 6, 1717, and left a will that savoured a little of that whim and peculiarity which sometimes infects the learned in their retirements. He ordered, that as soon as he should expire, his body should be dressed in his clothes, then set up in a chair, and that a beard should be made for him. Some say this was done that a painter might finish his picture, already begun, in order to be placed over the manuscripts and books which he left to the library of the university. He was a man of a good mien, well made, of a grave and serious air, but far from any thing of pedantry and affectation; and so modest, that he never willingly spake of himself and his writings.

He published a great many works in Latin relating to history, antiquities, and classical literature, among which are, 1. “M. T. Ciceronis eruditio,” an inaugural oration, at his being installed professor of Franeker in 1681. 2. “Animadversiones Historicse, 1685,” 8vo, a valuable mis-, cellany of remarks on the mistakes of historians and critics. 3. “Q,. Curtius in integrum restitutus, et vindicatus ab immodica atque acerba nimis crisi viri ciarissimi Joannis Clerici,” 1703, 8vo. To this Le Clerc replied, in the third volume of his “Bibliotheque Choisee.” 4. “Rerum per Europam saeculo sexto-decirno maxime gestarum Commentarii Historici,” 1710, 8vo. 5. “Origines Ægyptiacae et Babylonicas,” 1711, 2 vols. 12m.o, being an attack on the “Chronological Systems” of Usher, Capellus, Pezron, but especially of sir John Marsham. Duker reprinted this work with additions in 1736. Perizonius wrote also several dissertations upon particular points of antiquity, which would have done no small credit to the collections of Groevius and Gronovius. Perizonius published an edition of “Ælian’s Various History,” corrected from the manuscripts, and illustrated with notes, in 1701, 2 vols. “8vo. James Gronovius having attacked a passage in his notes, a controversy ensued, which degenerated at length into such personal abuse, that the curators of the university of Leyden thought proper to put a stop to it by their authority. The edition, however, was reckoned the best until that of Gronovius appeared in 1731. He wrote also large notes upon” Sanctii Minerva, sive de causis linguae Latinae Commentarius; M the best edition of which is that of 1714, 8vo.

, a learned and pious divine, was born at Marton in Warwickshire, in 1558, and educated in Christ’s college, Cambridge. His conduct here was at iirst *o dissolute that he was pointed at as an object of contempt, which recalled him to his senses, and in a short time, by sobriety and diligent application, he regained his character both as a scholar and a man, and took his degrees at the statutable periods with approbation. In 1582 he was chosen fellow of his college, and entered into holy orders. His first ministrations were confined to the prisoners in Cambridge jail. Recollecting what he had been himself, with all the advantages of education, and good advice, he compassionated these more ignorant objects, and prevailed upon the keeper of the prison to assemble them in a spacious room, where he preached to them every sabbath. This was no sooner known than others came to hear him; and so much was he admired, that he was immediately chosen preacher at St. Andrew’s church, the first and only preferment he ever attained.

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

, was born Feb. 15, 1716, at Roanne, in Forez. He entered into the order of Benedictines, and devoted himself to study, and the composition of numerous works, some of which are correct and useful, and others deformed by absurd hypotheses, and that affectation of novelty which gained many French writers in his day the title of philosophers. These whims are principally found in his “Fables Egyptiennes et Greques devoilees,” 1786, 2 vols. 8vo, and in his “Dictionnairer mythohermetique.” His more useful publications were, his “Dictionnaire de Peinture, Sculpture, et Gravure,” 1757; “Discours sur la Physionomie;” “Journal Historique d'un Voyage faite aux iles Malouines, en 1763 et 1764,” 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. This account of a voyage made by himself was translated into English, and read with some interest at the time of the dispute with Spain, relative to these islands, which are the same with the Falkland islands. “Dissertation sur TAmerique et les Americains:” in this work and in his “Examen des Recherches Philosophiques de Pauvv sur les Americains,” he controverts the opinions of Pauw. He was author of many other works, and communicated several memoirs to the academy of Berlin, of which he was a member, and in which capital he resided a long time as librarian to Frederic II. He at length returned to Valence, in the department of La Drome, where he died about the close of the century.

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

, an able but unfortunate navigator, was born at Albi in 1741. He entered into the French navy when he was only in his fifteenth year, and acquired such professional skill, that he was regarded as fit for the most arduous enterprises. The triumphs of the French marine were few in his time; yet he commanded in the successful attempt to destroy the English settlement in Hudson’s Bay in 1782. On the restoration of peace, it was resolved by the French ministry that a voyage of discovery should be undertaken to supply what had been left defective in the voyages of our illustrious navigator captain James Cook, and his associates. Louis XVI. drew up the plan of the intended expedition with great judgment and intelligence, and La Perouse was the person fixtd upon to conduct it. With two frigates, la Boussole, et PAstrolabe, the first under his own command, the second under that of M. de Langle, but subject to his orders, they sailed from Brest in August 1785; touched at Madeira and Teneriffe, and in November anchored on the coast of Brazil. Thence they proceeded round Cape Horn into the South Sea, and in February 1786 cast anchor in the bay of Conception, on the coast of Chili. At this time, so well had the means of preserving health been employed, that they had not a man sick. The ships reached Easter island in the month of April, and thence sailed, without touching at any land, to the Sandwich islands. On June 23d they anchored on the American coast, in lat. 58 37‘, and landed on an island to explore the country and make observations. At this place M. Perouse had the misfortune of having two boats wrecked, with the loss of all their crew. Thence he ran down to California, and in September anchored in the bay of Monterey, whence they took their departure across the Pacific ocean, and in January 1787 arrived in the Macao roads. In February they reached Manilla, which they quitted in April, shaping their course for the islands of Japan. Passing the coasts of Corea and Japan, they fell in with Chinese Tartary, in lat. 42|, and ran to the northward. They anchored in a bay of the island of Sagalien, and thence proceeded up the shallow channel between that island and the continent as far as 51 29’. Returning thence they reached the southern extremity of Sagalien in August, and passed a strait between it and Jesso, since named Perouse strait, into the North Pacific. On the sixth of September they anchored in the harbour of St. Peter and Paul in Kamtschatka. The ships having refitted, they set sail, and arrived at the Navigators Islands in December. In the bay of Maouna they met with a friendly reception from numerous natives, and began to take in refreshments. A party of sixty, under the command of M. de Langle, went ashore to procure fresh water, when a most unfortunate occurrence took place, in which they were attacked by the natives, and M. de Langle and eleven of his men lost their lives. Quitting this place without any attempts at vengeance, Perouse proceeded to New Holland, and arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788, and here terminates all that is known of the voyage of this navigator, from the journal which he transmitted to France. He had many and very important objects of research remaining, but was never more heard of. The vessels were probably wrecked, and all the crews perished, since all efforts made to obtain information of them have been fruitless. In 1798 was published, at the expence of the French nation, and for the benefit of the widow of Perouse, “Voyage autour du Monde par J. F. G. cle la Perouse,” in three vols. 4to. It was translated into the English. The discoveries of this navigator are chiefly in the seas between Japan and China, and China and Tartary.

, an eminent French architect, was the son of an advocate of parliament, and born at Paris, in 1613. He was bred a physician, but practised only among his relations, his friends, and the poor. He discovered early a correct taste for the sciences and fine arts; of which he acquired a consummate knowledge, without the assistance of a master, and was particularly skilled in architecture, painting, sculpture, and mechanics. He still continues to be reckoned one of the greatest architects France ever produced. Louis XIV. who had a good taste for architecture, sent for Bernini from Rome, and other architects; but Perrault was preferred to them all; and what he did at the Louvre justified this preference. The facade of that palace, which was designed by him, “is,” says Voltaire, “one of the most august monuments of architecture in the world. We sometimes,” adds he, “go a great way in search of what we have at home. There is not one of the palaces at Rome, whose entrance is comparable to this of the Louvre; for which we are obliged to Perrault, whom Boileau has attempted to turn into ridicule.” Boileau indeed went so far as to deny that Perrault was the real author of those great designs in architecture that passed for his. Perrault was involved in the quarrel his brother Charles had with Boileau, who, however, when they became reconciled, acknowledged Claude’s merit.

Colbert, the celebrated French minister, who loved architecture, and patronized architects, advised Perrault to undertake the translation of Vitruvius into French, and illustrate it with notes; which he did, and published it in 1673, folio, with engravings from designs of his own, which have been esteemed master-pieces. Perrault was supposed to have succeeded in this work beyond all who went before him, who were either architects without learning, or learned men without any skill in architecture. He united a. knowledge of every science directly or remotely connected with architecture, and had so extraordinary a genius for mechanics, that he invented the machines by which those stones of fifty-two feet in length, of which the front of the Louvre is formed, were raised. A second edition of his Vitruvius, revised, corrected, and augmented, was printed at Paris, 1684, in folio; and he afterwards published an abridgment for the use of students; and another valuable architectural work, entitled “Ordonnance des cinq Especes de Colonnes, selon la methode des Anciens,” 1683, fol.

When the academy of sciences was established, he was chosen one of its first members, and was chiefly depended upon in what related to mechanics and natural philosophy. He gave proofs of his great knowledge in these, by the publication of several works; among which were, “Memoires pour servir a Phistoire naturelle des animaux,” 1671 76, 2 vols. fol. with fine plates; “Essais de Physique,” in 4 vols. 12mo, the three first of which came out in 1680, and the fourth in 1688 c< Recueil de plusieurs machines de nouvelle invention," 1700, 4to, &c. He died Oct. 9, 1688, aged seventy-five. Although he had never publicly practised physic, yet the faculty of Paris, of which he was a member, had such an opinion of his skill, and so much esteem for the man, that after his death they desired his picture of his heirs, and placed it in their public schools with that of Fernelius, Riolanus, and others, who had done honour to their profession.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Jan. 12, 1628, and at the age of eight was placed in the college of Beauvais, where he distinguished himself in the belles-lettres, and had a considerable turn to that kind of philosophy which consisted mostly in the disputatious jargon of the schools. He also wrote verses, aud indulged himself in burlesque, which was then much in vogue; on one occasion he amused himself in turning the sixth book of the flLiieid into burlesque verse. He had, however, too much sense when his ideas became matured by reflection, to attach the least value to such effusions. When his studies were completed, he was admitted an advocate, and pleaded two causes with a success sufficient to induce the magistrates to wish to see him au tached to the bar. But Colbert, the French minister, wh was acquainted with his merit, soon deprived the law of his services. He chose him for secretary to a small academy of four or five men of letters, who assembled at his house twice a week. This was the cradle of that learned society afterwards called “Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.” The little academy employed itself on the medals and devices required from it by Colbert, in the king’s name; and those proposed by Charles Perrault were almost always preferred. He had a singular talent for compositions of this kind, which require more intellectual qualities than is generally supposed. In the number of his happy devices may be ranked that of the medal struck on account of the apartments given by the king to the French academy in the Louvre itself. This was Apollo Palatinus; an ingenious allusion to the temple of Apollo, erected within the precincts of the palace of Augustus. Perrault not only was the author of this device, but likewise procured the academy the apartments it obtained from the monarch, who at the same time was pleased to declare himself its protector. Colbert, enlightened by the wise counsels of Perrault, inculcated upon the king, that the protection due to genius i s one of the noblest prerogatives of supreme authority. He also procured the establishment of the academy of sciences, which at first had the same form with the French academy, that of perfect equality among its members. His brother Claude had also a considerable share in this useful establishment.

Scarcely was the academy of sciences established, when Colbert set apart a yearly fund of 100,000 livres, to be distributed by the king’s order among celebrated men of letters, whether French or foreigners. Charles Perrault partook likewise in the scheme of these donatives, and in their distribution. It was extended throughout Europe, to the remotest north, although we do not find any English among the number. Colbert, whose esteem for the talents and character of Perrault continually increased, soon employed him in an important and confidential office. Being himself snperintendant of the royal buildings, he appointed him their comptroller general; and this office-, in the hands of Perrau't, procured a new favour to the arts, that of the establishment of the academies of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Then it was that his brother Claude produced the celebrated design of the front of the Louvre. The credit Perrault enjoyed, and the gratitude due to him from men of letters, had from 1671 given him admission into the French academy. On the day of his reception, he returned thanks in an harangue which gave so much satisfaction to the society, that they from that time resolved to make public the admission -discourses of their members. But as the favour of the great is rarely lasting, Perrault underwent some mortifications from Colbert, which compelled him to retire; and although the minister, sensible of his loss, solicited him to return, he refused, and went to inhabit a house in the suburbs of St. Jacques, the vicinity of which to the colleges facilitated the superintendance of the education of his sons. After the death of Colbert, he received a fresh mortification, that of having his name erased from the academy of medals, by Louvois. This minister did not love Colbert; and his hatred to the patron fell upon the person patronized, though he had ceased to be so.

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

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

When the quarrel between Boileau and Perrault had lasted long enough to make them both almost equally in the wrong, and the two adversaries had satiated themselves, the one with reproaches, the other with epigrams; when even the public began to grow weary of it; common friends, who ought sooner to have interposed, endeavoured to effect a reconciliation. They were indeed entitled to mutual esteem, which the one commanded by his uncommon powers, the other by his knowledge and understanding, and both by their probity. On the side of Perrault, the reconciliation was sincere. He even suppressed several strokes against the ancients, which he had in reserve for the fourth volume of his “Parallels,” “choosing rather,” said he, “to deprive himself of the satisfaction of producing fresh proofs of the goodness of his cause, than longer to embroil himself with persons of merit like that of his adversaries, whose friendship could not be purchased at too high a rate.” With respect to Boileau, he wrote what he termed a letter of reconciliation to Perrault; but in which, through its forced compliments, he could not avoid displaying that relic of gall or malignity, of which it is so difficult for a professed satirist entirely to discharge himself. This letter might almost pass for a new critique on Perrault, so equivocal was the turn of its reparation. Accordingly, a friend of Boileau said to him, “I doubt not that we shall always keep upon good terms together, but if ever, after a difference, we should be reconciled, no reparation! I beg: I fear your reparations more than your reproaches.”

We shall at present pass over some works of Perrault, less considerable than the two, which made him most talked of, and most clisturbed his repose. We shall only mention his “History of Illustrious Men of the Age of Lewis XIV.” Freed from his controversy with Boileau, but still a zealous partizan for his age, Perrault celebrated its glory in this work, which did equal honour to his understanding and his impartiality. Somewhat more life and colouring might be desired in it, but not more sincerity and justice. The author even confesses that he has denied himself ornament, for the purpose of giving more truth to his narration, by limiting encomium to the si,.iple recital of facts. “I was not ignorant,” says he, “that if I had made these eulogies more eloquent, I should have derived more glory from them; but 1 thought only of the glory of those whom I commemorate. It is well known, that funeral orations in general are more the eulogy of the preacher than of the deceased; and that if the reputation of the composer i$ often augmented by them, that of the subject almost always remains what it was before.”

We have hitherto followed D'Alembert, in our account of M. Perrault. It may be necessary now to add a few particulars from other authorities. With respect to his “Age of Lewis the Great,” it was a kind of prelude to a war with all the learned. In this poem he set the modern authors above the ancient, an attempt which would of course appear shocking to the majority, who considered the ancients as superior in every species of composition. Boileau was present at the academy when this poem was read there, in 1687, and was greatly disgusted; yet took no farther notice of it, than answering it by an epigram, as did also Menagn in another, to which Perrault replied in a letter, which he reprinted the same year, and added to it his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns,” in regard to arts and sciences. A second volume of this appeared in 1690, where the subject of their eloquence is considered; a third, in 1692, to determine their poetical merit; and a fourth, in 1696, which treats of their astronomy, geography, navigation, manner of warring, philosophy, music, medicine, &c. 12mo. In the third volume, which relates to poetry, Perrault had not only equalled the modern poets with the ancient, and partu ularly Boileau, but had also set up Chapelain, Quinault, and other French poets, whom Boileau in his Satires had treated with contempt. This brought on the animosity of which we have already given an account. Voltaire says, with regard to this famous controversy, which was carried on at the same time in England, by sir William Temple and others, that “Perrault has been reproached with having found too many faults with the ancients, but that his great fault was the having criticised them injudiciously.”

Perrault' s work, the “History of the Illustrious Men, 17 is now chiefly valued of all his writings, and not the less for the fine portraits from the collection of the celebrated Begon. Of the letter-press, we have an English translation by Ozell, 1704 5, 2 vols. 8vo. Perrault was determined by the public voice in the choice of his heroes, whom he confined to an hundred; but there are an hundred and two in the collection; the reason of which was this. Arnauld and Pascal were deservedly in his list; but the Jesuits made interest to have them excluded, and prevailed. Perrault thought it necessary to substitute two fresh ones; but the public refused to accept the work, unless Arnauld and Pascal might keep their places; and hence it arose, that instead of a hundred lives, which was Perrault' s original design, we find an hundred and two. There are other works of Perrault, which are much esteemed, as” Le Cabinet de Beaux Arts,“&c. or, A Collection of Copper-plates relating to Arts and Sciences, with Illustrations in Verse and Prose, 4 vols. oblong 4to;” Faernus’s Fables, translated into French Verse," &c.

Perrault died in 1703, aged seventy-seven. Madame Dacier, in the preface to her translation of “Homer’s Odyssey,” has given the following character of this author. < He was,“says she,” a man of talents, of agreeable conversation, and the author of some little works, which have been deservedly esteemed. He had also all the qualities of an honest and good man; was pious, sincere, virtuous, polite, modest, ready to serve, and punctual in the discharge of every duty. He had a considerable place under one of the greatest ministers France ever had, who reposed the utmost confidence in him, which he never employed for himself, but always for his friends." Such a character from madame Dacier must suggest to us the highest opinion of Perrault as a man, when it is considered, that, as an author, she thought him guilty of the greatest of all crimes, an attempt to degrade the ancient writers, whom she not only reverenced, but adored.

Besides Claude and Charles, there were two other brothers, Peter and Nicholas, who distinguished themselves in the literary world. Peter, the eldest of them all, was receiver-geueral of the finances, and published, in 1674, a piece, “De l'Origine des Fontaines;” and, in 1678, a French translation of Tassoni’s “La Seochia rapita.” Nkcolas was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1652, and died in 1661 leaving behind him a work, entitled “La Morale deslesuites, extraite fidelement de leurs iivres,” which was printed in 1667, 4to. Charles Perrault is said to have had a son. Perrault D'Armancourt, who, although he made a less figure in the learned world than his father or uncles, was the author of a book of tales, lately transferred from the nursery to the stage. The French edition is entitled “Contes de ma Mere l'Oye.” Hague, 1745, with a translation, “Mother Goose’s Tales.”

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

, a French artist of merit, born at Magon in 1590, was a goldsmith’s son; but contracting dissipated habits, ran away from his parents, and is said to have literally begged his way to Rome, in partnership with a blind man. At Rome, after suffering much for want of resources, he had recourse to his pencil, and was soon enabled to maintain himself. Having become acquainted with Lanfranco, he endeavoured to follow his manner, and was not unsuccessful. This giving him a confidence in his powers, he resolved to return to France; and stopping at Lyons, he painted the Carthusians cloister there. From Lyons he proceeded to Paris; and having worked some time for Vouet, who engrossed all the great works, he took a second journey to Italy, where he stayed ten years, and returned to Paris in 1645. About this time he painted the gallery of the Hotel de la Villiere, and drew several easelpieces for private persons. He died professor of the academy, in 1655. He etched several things with a great deal of spirit, and, among others, the finest basso-relievos that are in Rome, a hundred of the most celebrated antiquities, and some of Raphael’s works. He also engraved, in the chiaro oscuro, some antiquities, after a manner, of which, it was said, he was the first inventor; but Parmegiano used it a long time before him. It consists, of two copper-plates, whose impression is made on paper faintly stained the one plate is engraved after the usual way, and that prints the black and the other, which is the secret, prints the white .

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

, a cardinal more eminent for great talents and learning than for principle, was descended from ancient and noble families on both sides. His parents, having been educated in the protestiint religion, found it necessary to remove from Lower Normandy to Geneva; and settled afterwards in the canton of Berne, where he was born, Nov. 25, 1556. His father, Julian Davy, an able physician, and a man of learning, instructed him till he was ten years of age, and taught him mathematics and the Latin tongue. Young Perron seems afterwards to have built upon this foundation, for, while his parents were obliged to remove from place to place by civil wars and persecution, he taught himself the Greek tongue and philosophy, beginning that study with the logic of Aristotle: thence he passed to the orators and poets; and afterwards applied to the Hebrew language with such success, that he could read it without points, and lectured on it to the protestant clergy.

In the reign of Henry III. he was carried to the French court, which was then at Blois, where the states were assembled in 1576; and introduced to the king as a prodigy of parts and learning. His controversial talents were already so conspicuous, that few cared to dispute with him. His ingenuity does not, however, appear to have greatly advanced his interest, for we are told that when, after this, he came to Paris, he had no other resource than to teach Latin for bread, and that at a time when he held public conferences upon the sciences, m the grand hall of the Augustiues. He set himself afterwards to read the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and cultivated a strict friendship with Philip Desportes, abbot of Tiron, who procured him his own place of reader to Henry III. and was the first to advise him to renounce his religion. Previously to his taking this step, he is said to have offended Henry III. by an avowal of religious indifference, which is thus related: one day, while the king was at dinner, he made an admirable discourse against atheists; on which the king commended him much for having proved trie being of a God by arguments so solid. Perron instantly replied, that “if his majesty was disposed to hear him, he would prove the contrary by arguments as solid;” which so offended the king, that he forbad him to come into his presence. This story has been denied by some French writers, as derogatory to Duperrou’s religious principles; but others say that, granting it to be true, it means no more than that Du Perron vaunted his ability to take either side of a question, a practice universal at that time in the schools; yet they allow that his reply to the king was rather ill-timed, and ill-expressed.

He recovered, however, from any loss of character which this affair might occasion, by abjuring the religion in which he had been educated. It is rather singular that he is said to have acquired a distaste of the prorestant religion by studying the “Suinma” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the writings of St. Austin; but having by this or by some other means, reconciled his mind to the change of his religion, he displayed all the zeal of a new convert by labouring earnestly in the conversion of others, even before he had embraced the ecclesiastical function. By these arts, and his uncommon abilities, he acquired great influ*­ence, and was appointed to pronounce the funeral oration of Mary queen of Scots, in 1587; as he had done also that of the poet Ronsard, in 1586. He wrote, some time after, by order of the king, “A comparison of moral and theological virtues;” and two “Discourses,” one upon the soul, the other upon self-knowledge, which he pronounced before that prince. After the murder of Henry III. he retired to the house of cardinal de Bourbon, aud laboured more vigorously than ever in the conversion of the reformed. Among his converts was Henry Spondanus, afterwards bishop of Pamiez; as this prelate acknowledges, in his dedication to cardinal du Perron of his “Abridgment of Baronius’s Annals.” But his success with Henry IV. is supposed to redound most to the credit of his powers of persuasion. He went to wait on that prince with cardinal de Bourbon, at the siege of Rouen; and followed him at Nantes, where -he held a famous dispute with four protestant ministers. The king, afterwards resolving to have a conference about religion with the principal prelates of the kingdom, sent for Du Perron to assist in it; but, as he was yet only a layman, he nominated him to the bishopric of Evreux, that he might be capable of sitting in it. He came with the other prelates to St. Denis, and is said to have contributed more than any ether person to the change in Henry’s sentiments.

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

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

The works of Du Perron, the greatest part of which had been printed separately in his life-time, were collected after his death, and published at Paris, 1620 and 1622, in 3 vols. folio. The first contains his great “Treatise upon the Eucharist,” against that of Du Plessis Mornay. The second, his “Reply to the Answer of the King of Great Britain.” The following was the occasion of that work: James I. of England sent to Henry IV. of France a book, which he had written himself, concerning differences in religion. Henry put it into the hands of Du Perron’s brother, who informed his majesty, from what the cardinal had observed to him, that there were many passages in that book, in which the king of England seemed to come near the catholics; and that it might be proper to send some able person, in hopes of converting him entirely. Henry accordingly, after taking the advice of his prelates in this affair, desired to know of the king of England, whether he would approve of a visit from the cardinal Du Perron? King James answered that he should be well pleased to confer with him, but for reasons of state could not do it. After this, Isaac Casaubon, who had been engaged in several conferences with Du Perron about religion, and seemed much inclined to that egregious absurdity, a reunion between the popish and reformed church, was prevailed on to take a voyage into England; where he spoke advantageously of Du Perron to the king, and presented some pieces of poetry to him, which the cardinal had put into his hands. The king received them kindly, and expressed much esteem for the author; which Casaubon noticing to Du Perron, he returned a letter of civility and thanks to his Britannic majesty; in which he told him, that, “except the sole title of Catholic, he could find nothing wanting in his majesty, that was necessary to make a most perfect and accomplished prince.” The king replied, that, “believing all things which the ancients had unanimously thought necessary to salvation, the title of Catholic could not be denied him.” Casaubon having sent this answer to Du Perron, he replied to it in a letter, dated the 15th of July, 1611, in which he assigns the reasons that obliged him to refuse the name of Catholic to his Britannic majesty. Casaubon sent him a writing by way of answer, in the name of the king, to all the articles of his letter; to which the cardinal made a large reply, which constitutes the bulk of the second volume of his works. The third contains his miscellaneous pieces; among which are, “Acts of the Conference held at Fontainbleau against Du Plessis Mornay;” moral and religious pieces in prose and verse, orations, dissertations, translations, and letters.

There was a fourth volume of his embassies and negotiations, collected by Caesar de Ligni, his secretary, and printed at Paris in 1629 and 1633, folio: but these are supposed not to have done him much honour, and Wicquefort thinks him as a diplomatic character inferior to d'Ossat in every respect. There were also published afterwards, under his name, “Perroniana,” which, like most of the ana, is a collection of puerilities and impertinences.

, sieur d'Ablancourt, a scholar of considerable parts, and once admired for his translations from ancient authors, was born at Chalons, April 5, 1606. He sprung from a family which had been illustrious in the law, and the greatest care was bestowed on his education. His father, Paul Perrot de la Sailer, who was a protestant, and also a man learning, sent him to pursue his studies in the college of Sedan; where he made so rapid a progress, that, at thirteen, he had gone through the classics. He was then taken home, and placed for some time under a private tutor, after which he was sent to Paris, where he studied the law five or six months, and was, when only in his eighteenth year, admitted advocate of parliament but did not adhere longto the bar. Another change he made about this time of great importance, was that of his religion, for popery, of which he embraced the tenets at the persuasion of his uncle Cyprian Perrot, who, in hopes of procuring him some valuable benefices, took great pains to recommend the church as a profession, but in vain. Nor did he succeed better in retaining him as a convert, for fte had scarcely distinguished himself in the republic of letters, by writing a preface to the “HonneXe Femme,” for his friend, father Du Bosc, than he felt a desire to return to the religion he had quitted. He was now, however, in his twenty-seventh year, and had sense enough to guard against precipitation in a matter of so much consequence. He studied, therefore, the differences betwixt the Romish and reformed church, and after three years’ investigation, during which he did not disclose his intention to any one, he set out from Paris to Champagne, where he abjured popery; and very soon after went to Holland, till the clamour which followed this step was over. He was near a year in Leyden, where he learned Hebrew, and contracted a friendship with Salmasius. From Holland he went to England; then returned to Paris; and, after passing some weeks with M. Patru, took an apartment near the Luxembourg. He passed his days very agreeably; and though he devoted the greatest part of his leisure to books, mixed occasionally in society, and was the respected associate of all the learned in Paris. In 1637 he was admitted a member of the French academy, but was soon after forced to leave Paris, on account of the wars; and therefore retired to his estate, called Ablancourt, where he lived till his death. He died Nov. 17, 1664, of the gravel, with which he had been afflicted the greater part of his life.

He was a man of great acuteness, imagination, judgment, and learning, and thought equal to the production of any work; yet we have no original pieces of his, excepting the “Preface” above mentioned, “A Discourse upon the Tmjnortality of the Soul,” and a few letters to Patru. But he made French translations of many ancient writers, which were once admired for their elegance, purity, and chasteness of style. Among these are Tacitus, Lucian, Caesar, Thucydides, and Arrian; but he took too great liberties with the sense of his author, for the sake of imitating his manner, and producing something like an original. He is said to have succeeded best while he profited by the advice of Patru, Conrart, and Chapelain; and it is certain that those translations written in his latter days, vv^ien he had not that advantage, are inferior to the others. When he was asked, why he chose to be a translator, rather than an author, he answered, that “he was neither a divine nor lawyer, and consequently not qualified to compose pleadings or sermons that the world was filled withtreatises on politics that all discourses on morality were only so many repetitions of Plutarch and Seneca; and that, to serve one’s country, a man ought rather to translate valuable authors, than to write new books, which seldom contain any thing new.” The minister Colbert, judging him very capable of writing the “History of Louis XIV.” recommended him to that monarch; who however, upon being informed that Perrot was a protestant, said, that “he would not have an historian of a religion different from his own.” Perrot was a man of great talents in conversation, and said so many good things that Pelisson regretted there was not some one present to write down all he spoke.

, captain, a celebrated engineer, the secondson of Samuel Perry, of Rodborough in Gloucestershire, gent, and Sarah his wife, daughter of sir Thomas Nott, knt. was, in or before 1693, lieutenant of the Montague; which about that year coming into Portsmouth dock to he refitted, he exerted his skill in the improvement of an engine for throwing out a large quantity of water from deep sluices in a short space of time. In 1695, he published “A Regulation for Seamen; wherein a method is humbly proposed, whereby their Majesties fleet may at all times be speedily and effectually manned, and the Merchants be more readily and cheaper served, without having their men at any time pressed or taken away; setting forth the great advantages that will accrue thereby to the king, merchant, and subject in general, whereby these islands will be more secure and happy, the king’s revenue considerably be eased, trade in general be quickened and encouraged, and every individual subject receive benefit thereby, in lessening the price of all naval commodities; wherein is also proposed, a method or nursery for training up of Seamen to supply the loss and decay of them in time of War: as also, the giving hereby equal liberty and advantage to all seamen, removing many hardships that they now suffer under, and giving them many encouragements that they do not now enjoy. By John Perry, late Captain of the Signet Fire-ship, now a prisoner in the Marshalsea, according to sentence of a late CourtMartial. To. which is added, a short Narrative of his Case relating to his loss of the said ship in company' of the Diamond Frigate, in September 1693,” 4to. By this pamphlet it appears that he had been sentenced to a fine of 1000l. and to ten years’ imprisonment. In 1698, when the Czar Peter was in this country, being desirous of engaging some eminent artists, Mr. Perry was introduced to his notice by the marquis of Carmarthen, and by Mr. Dummeiy surveyor of the Navy, as a person capable of serving him on several occasions, relating to his new design of establishing a fleet, making his rivers navigable, &c.; and he was taken into the service of the Czar as comptroller of the marine works, at a salary of 300l. per annum, with travelling charges, and subsistence-money, on whatever service he should be employed; besides a further reward to his satisfaction, at the conclusion of any work he should finish. After some conversation with the Czar himself, particularly respecting a communication between the rivers Volga and Don, he was employed on this work three successive summers; but not being properly supplied with men, partly on account of the ill-success of the Czar against the Swedes at the battle of Narva, and partly by the discouragement of the governor of Astracan, he was ordered at the end of 1707 to stop, and next year employed in refitting the ships at Veronise, and in 1709 in making the river of that name navigable. After repeated disappointments, and fruitless applications for his salary, he at last quitted the kingdom, under the protection of Mr. Whitworth, the English ambassador, in 1712.

After his return he published < c Ttfe State of Russia under the present Czar; in relation to the several great and remarkable things he has done, as to his naval preparations, the regulating his army, the reforming his people, and improvement of his country; particularly those works on which the author was employed; with the reasons of his quitting the Czar’s service, after having been fourteen years in that country. Also, an Account of those Tartars, and other people, who border on the Eastern and extreme Northern parts of the Czar’s dominions; their religion and manner of life. With many other observations. To which is annexed a more accurate Map of the Czar’s dominions than has hitherto been extant," 1716, 8vo.

In 1721 he was employed in stopping the breach at Dagenham, made in the bank of the river Thames, near the village of that name in Essex, and about three miles below Woolwich, in which he happily succeeded, after several other persons had failed in that undertaking. He was also employed, the same year, about the harbour at Dublin, and published at that time an answer to the objections raised against it. A publication by Capt. Perry on these subjects is thus entitled, “An Account of the Stopping of Dagenham Breach; with the accidents that have attended the same from the first undertaking: containing also proper Rules for performing any the like work, and Proposals for rendering the ports of Dover and Dublin (which the author has been employed to survey) commodious for entertaining large ships. To which is prefixed a plan of the levels which were overflowed by the Breach,” 1721, 8vo. Upon this project 1600l. had been spent by the author of “An impartial Account of the frauds and abuses at Dagenham Breach, and of the hardships sustained by Mr. William Boswell, late undertaker of the works there: in a Letter to a Member of Parliament,” London, 1717, 8vo.

Capt. Perry was elected a Member of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding, April 16, 1730, to which Society was communicated his original Map or Chart of the Sea Coasts. He died Feb. 1 I, 1733, and was buried in Spalding church, where an inscription on a slab erected by his kinsman and heir William Perry, of Penshurst in Kent, preserves his memory.

, one of the three great Roman satirists, was born at Volterra, in Tuscany, in the 22d year of Tiberius’s reign, or A. D. 34. At the age of 12 he was removed to Rome, where he pursued his studies under Palaemon the grammarian, and Virginius Flaccus the rhetorician. He afterwards, at sixteen, applied himself to philosophy under Cornutus, a Stoic, who entertained so great a love for him, that there was ever after a most intimate friendship between them. Persius has immortalized that friendship in his fifth satire, and his gratitude for the good offices of his friend. This he shewed still farther by his will, in which he left him his library, and a great deal of money: but Cornutus, like a true philosopher, who knew how to practise what he taught, accepted only the books, and gave the money to the heirs of the testator. We have nothing deserving the name of a life of Persius, but his character appears to have been excellent. He had a strong sense of virtue, and lived in an age when such a sense would naturally produce a great abhorrence of the reigning vices. His moral and religious sentiments were formed on the best systems which the philosophy of his age afforded and so valuable is his matter, that Mr. Harris, of Salisbury, justly said, “he was the only difficult Latin author that would reward the reader for the pains which he must take to understand him.”

, a celebrated Italian painter, the master of Raphael, was born in 1446, at Perugia, whence he took the name that has totally obliterated his family appellation, which was Vanucci. His parents were poor; but, being desirous to put him in a way of supporting himself, placed him with a painter, under whom he imbibed at least a strong enthusiasm for his art, and desire to excel in it. His application to study was intense; and when he had made a sufficient progress, he went to Florence, and became a disciple of Andrea Verocchio. From this painter he acquired a graceful mode of designing heads, particularly those of his female figures. He rose by degrees to considerable eminence, and was employed by Sixtus IV. to paint several pieces for his chapel at Rome, Great as his talents were, he was unfortunately infected with the vice of covetousness. It was from this cause that, when he returned to Florence, he quarrelled with Michael Angelo, and behaved so ill, that the Florentines, being enraged against him, drove him from their city: on which he returned to his native Perugia. The same foible proved accidentally the cause of his death; for, having accumulated some money, which he was very anxious not to lose, he always carried it about him. He continued this practice till some thief robbed him of his treasure; and, the grief for his loss being too severe for his strength, he died in 1524, at the age of 78.

His touch was light, and his pictures highly finished; but his manner was stiff and dry, and his outline was frequently incorrect. His most capital painting is in the church of St. Peter at Perugia It is an altar-piece, the subject of which is the Ascension of Christ. The disciples are there represented in various attitudes, but all directing their eyes to heaven, and looking after the Lord, who is supposed to have ascended.

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

* “His frescoes,” says Mr. Fuseli, ever, was architecture: Lomazzo calls

celled. His great prerogative, how- page 178." and was himself employed by Leo X. in forming designs and models for that building He was unfortunately in Rome when it was sacked by the army of Charles V. in 1527, and was made a prisoner, but obtained his liberty by painting a portrait of the eonsiable de Bourbon. Peruzzi died in 1556, very poor, though he had been always in great employment. They who were indebted to him were not always very ready to pay, and he was too modest to demand his right, hy v\hich means he lost a great part of what he had fairly earned.

, member of the academies of Nancy, of Amiens, of Kouen, and Angers, was born at Paris on the 9th of July, 1712, of a reputable family. In his early youth his progress in his studies was rapid. His assiduous application, 'his lively genius, and mild demeanour, conciliated the esteem of his master, and gained the friendship of his juvenile companions. His taste for poetry was apparent at a very earl) period; but the designs of his parents for the advancement of his fortune would not permit him to resign himself entirely to his favourite pursuits, and he sacrificed in some degree his propensity to their wishes. He was placed tinder M. Holland, an advocate, and constantly attended to the regular discharge of business. His leisure hours were devoted to the Muse; and J.e gave up that time to poetry, which by many, at his age, is sacrificed to pleasure. In 1738 his “Ecole du Temps,” a comedy in verse, was represented with applause on the Italian theatre. Encouraged by this success, and with the approbation of M. Rolland, he produced, in the following year, at the French theatre, his “Esope au Parnasse,” a comedy in verse. The reputation of the young poet, and his character for probity, recommended him to M. Lailemand of Bety, a farmer-general, who was at that time forming a system of finance, and who felicitated himself in procuring such an assistant, and in attaching him to his interest. The occupations incident to this new department were probably the causes which prevented Pesselier from producing any other pieces for the stage. Poetry was, however, still the amusement of the time that could be spared from business. In 1748, he published his fables, and among his dramatic works appears a comedy, “La Mascarade du Parnasse,” in verse, and in one act, which was never performed.

Incessant application and a delicate constitution, with an extreme vivacity of spirits, probably shortened his life. His health began to decline; but he ceased not from his diligence. His attention to the business of his office was almost without remission; till, overcome by fatigue, he fell sick in November 1762, languished under his disorder for six months, and died the 24th of April, 1763.

, perhaps better known by his classical appellation of Dionysius Petavius, was born at Orleans Aug. 21, 1583. His father, Jerome Petau, although a merchant, was a man of considerable literature, and rather more attentive to matters of taste than of commerce: the consequence of which was, that he left very little property to his children, six sons and two daughters. He gave them all, however, a learned education; the daughters as well as the sons being taught Latin and Greek, and able to write verses in both languages. But we find, that with all his learning, Jerome was a superstitious bigot to his religion; which his biographer, father Oudin, as warm a zealot as himself, says was at one time in danger of being shaken by some of his Protestant friends, who were very numerous in Orleans. Nay, he was, according to Oudin, about to renounce Popery altogether, and retire with his family, when an extraordinary accident prevented his design. A part of his house tell down, and so frightened him, that, while he lay buried under the ruins, he made a vow, that if ever he escaped, he would break off all acquaintance with the Protestants; and being dug out alive and unhurt, he kt-pt his vow, and endeavoured to give his children the *ame dislike to the Protestant faith as he had formerly determined to give them to the Roman Catholic.

As he perceived in his second son, Denis, a more than ordinary capacity, as well as eagerness for knowledge, he paid particular attention to the formation of his taste and the direction of his studies; and often told him, that he should lay up such a fund of knowledge, as to be able to cope with “the giant of the Allopbyloe,” as he called Sealiger, whose learning and works were of such importance to the Protestants. This advice was not thrown away on Denis, who studied, with the greatest diligence, both at Orleans and Paris; and when he came to take his degree of master of arts, supported a thesis in Greek; a language which he knew as intimately as Latin, and both more so than he knew French. For two years he heard the lectures of the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne, in his time; and was so assiduous, that he never left his study, unless for the king’s library, where he was permitted to consult the valuable Greek and Latin manuscripts. About this time he became acquainted with the learned Isaac Casaubon, whom Henry IV. had invited to Paris in 1600, and their friendship continued until Casaubon’s departure for England, and, what hurt Petau most, his departure from Popery, after which he treated him with as much asperity, as any other of his opponents. In the mean time, it was in consequence of Casaubon’s advice, that, young as he was, he undertook to prepare for the press an edition of the whole works of Synesius; that is, to collate manuscript copies, to translate what was in Greek, and to add explanatory notes. He had no sooner undertaken this work, than he was promoted to the professorship of philosophy in the university of Bourges, when only in his nineteentn year. The course which this office enjoined him to teach lasted two years, during which he also read the ancient philosophers and mathematicians.

In the second year of his being at Bourges, Frederick Morel, Grerk professor at Paris, brought out a complete edition of the works of Dio Chrysostom, and inserted a discourse of Synesius, translated by Petau, who was not sorry to have this opportunity of sounding the taste of the public on the merits of his translation. In the title are the words Interprete Dionysio P<eto, the name he assumed some time before this. Hitherto his intention had been to enter the church; and he was already subdeacon, and had been preferred to a canonry in the cathedral of Orleans. He had never yet seen the Jesuits; but having become acquainted with the nature of their order, when at Bourges, partly from inclination, and partly from the persuasions of the learned Fronto Ducaeus, he entered as a noviciate among them at Nancy, in June 1605. After two years of probation, he studied for two years longer at the college of Pont-a-Mousson, then very flourishing. Thence he was sent to Rheims, where, for three years, he taught rhetoric. In 1610, he did the honours of the college at the consecration of Louis XIII.

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

The catalogue of the works of Petau affords an uncommon proof of diligence; for we are assured, that besides the labour of composing, compiling, &c. he transcribed every thing with his own hand for the press, and employed no amanuensis or reader to assist him. Among his works are: 1. “Synesii Dio, vel de ipsius vitae institute,” mentioned already as published in Morel’s edition of St. Chrysostom. 2. “Panegyricus Ludovico XIII. Francix et Navarrx regi, &c. in natalem diem,” &c. 1610, 12mo. 3. “De laudibus Henrici magni carmen,” &c. 1&10, 4. “Oratio de laudibus Henrici magni,” Rheims, 1611, 4to. 5. “Synesii Opera,” Paris, 1612 1633, 3 vols. folio. 6. “Julian! imperatoris orationes tres panrgyricaD,” Flexise (La Fieche), 1613, 8vo. 7. “Themistii Orationes septemdecim. Gr. Lat.” ibid. 1613, 8vo. 8. “Tragce iia, Carthaginienses,” ibid. 1614, 8vo, a tragedy in the manner of Seneca, which it was then the fashion to imitate. 9. “Pompa regia Ludovici XIII” &c. a collection of the complimentary verses on the royal visit to La Fieche, mentioned before, 1614, 4to. 10 “Nicephori Breviariuin Historicum,” Gr. et Lat.“Paris, 1616, 8vo. 11.” Themistii, cognomento Suadae, orationes novemdecim, Gr et Lat.“ibid. 1618, 4to. 12.” Soteria ad S. Genov-fam,“ibid. 1619, 4to, his votive poem to St. Genevieve. 13. Another, in praise of the same saint,” Panegyricus in S Genevefam,“ibid. 1619, 4to. 14.” D. Petavii Orationes,“ibid. 1620, 1622, 1624, 8vo. 15.” D. Petavii Opera Poetica,“ibid. 1621, 8vo, reprinted at least three times. 16.” Office de S. Genevieve,“ibid. 1621, 16mo. 17. Epiphanii Opera omnia,” ibid. 1622, 2 vols. folio, reprinted at Cologn 1682. In April following the publication of this work, Salmasius took occasion to attack Petau, in his edition of the “Pallio” of Tertullian, and certainly not in very respectful language. Petau’s biographer says he ought to have taken no notice of such an attack, as in that case his silence would have completely disconcerted Salmasius, a man who could not exist without a quarrel with some contemporary; or, at all events, Petau should have been content with a short answer to such an opponent. Perhaps Petau might have been pf this opinion, if he had not considered that Salmasius was a Protestant, and regarded by Protestants as the man who would one day supply the loss of Joseph Scaliger; and he was not therefore sorry to have this opportunity, not only to defend himself against Salmasius, but to attack him in his turn. He published, accordingly, 18. “Animadversionum liber,” under the fictitious name of Antonius Kerkoetius Aremoricus, and die fictitious place of “Rhedonis apud Yvonem Halecium,” i.e. “Parisiis, apud Sebast. Cramoisy,” 1622, 8vo. This brought on an angry controversy, in which Salmasius certainly had some advantages, from his superior knowledge of the manner of handling the weapons of controversy; and perhaps we may be permitted to say, from his having the, better cause to support. Petau’s pamphlets, on this casion, were entitled “Mastigophores,” and consisted of three, and a supplement, published in 162:5 and 1624. But we hasten to his more important chronological works, uhich, of all others, preserve his memory in our times: 19. “Opus de doctrina Temporum,” Paris, 1627, 2 vols. folio, reprinted, with additions from his own copy, Amst. 170:3, folio. 20. “Uranologion, sive systema variorum authorum, qui de sphaera ac sideribus, eorumque motibus Grasce commentati sunt,” ibid. 163O, folio,“intended as a supplement to his” Doctrina temporum“to which an additional volume was published, with dissertations from the Mss. of Petau and Sirmond, in 1703, folio. 21.” Tabulue Chronologicae Regum, Dynastarum, Urbium, &c. a mundo coridito, &c. &c.“ibid. 1628, on large sheets, and often reprinted: the best edition is that of Vesel, 1702. 22.” Rationarium Temporum,“ibid. 1633, 12mo. the best known and most useful of all his works, and long the standard book in all seminaries and private libraries, for chronology and history. It was consequently often reprinted, improved, and enlarged, not only by the author, but by various other editors. There are two editions, printed at Leyden in 1724 and 1745, 2 vols. 8vo, which are said to be the best. Besides these, and many other works of inferior importance enumerated by his biographer, Petau published a considerable number of theological pieces, which have sunk into oblivion, except perhaps his” Theologica dogmata,“Paris, 1G44, 5 vols. folio; reprinted more correctly at Antwerp, 1700, 3 vols. folio. Of this work, Bayle has observed, that Petavius did the Socinians great service, though unawares, and against his intentions and quotes the following passage from the” Lettres Choisies“of Mr. Simon” If there be any thing to censure in Petavius’s works, it is chiefly in the second tome of his “Dogmata Theologica,” in which he seems to favour the Arians. It is true, that he softened those passages in his preface; but as the body of the work continues entire, and the preface, which is an excellent piece, came afterwards, it has not entirely prevented the harm which that book is like to do at this time, when the new Unitarians boast, that father Petavius declared for them.“Baylo thinks he has resolved this, by informing us that Petavius’s original design, in the second volume of his” Dogmata Theologica,“was, to represent ingenuously the doctrine of the three first centuries. Having no particular system to defend, he did not disguise the opinions of the fathers; but acknowledged that some of them entertained false and absurd notions concerning the Trinity. All this, however, either from fear, or upon better consideration, he retracted, and published a” Preface,“in which he laboured solely to asseYt the orthodoxy of the fathers. The” Dogmata Theologica of Petavius,“says Gibbon,” is a work of incredible labour and compass: the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios of 837 pages) are divided into sixteen books: the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine.“” The Jesuit’s learning,“adds our infidel historian,” is copious and correct: his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected: but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candour, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause."

, an eminent prelate of the fifth century, and called Chrysologus from his eloquence, was descended of a noble family, and born at Imola, then called Forum Cornelii. After a suitable education, he was elected archbishop of Ravenna, about the year 433, and was much celebrated for his virtue and his eloquence. He died about the year 451. There are 126 sermons or homilies of his in the library of the fathers, in which he unites perspicuity with brevity; their style is concise and elegant, but not unmixed with quaintnesses. Father d'Acheri has published in his “Spicilegium,” five other sermons written by him; and in St. Peter’s works, is his answer to Eutyches, who had written to him in the year 449, complaining of St. Flavianus of Constantinople, in which he defends the orthodox faith, and refers Eutyches to the excellent letter sent by St. Leo to Flavianus, which teaches what is to be believed concerning the mystery of the incarnation. The best edition of St. Peter Chrysologus is that printed at Augsburg, 1758, folio.

, or Petrus Blesensis, one of the most learned and celebrated writers of the twelfth century, studied at Paris and Bologna, and was appointed preceptor and secretary to William II. king of Sicily, and afterwards was invited into England by Henry II. who made him archdeacon of Bath, but permitted him to reside near Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he was. Peter de Blois lost this archdeaconry towards the end of his life, and had that of London, where it is said he laboured much for little profit. He died in 1200, in England. There are some letters, sermons, and other works of his, in the library of the fathers, in which he strongly condemns the abuses and disorders which then reigned in the church. He is said to have been the first who used the word transubstantiation, to express the doctrine of the Romish church on the subject of the eucharist. The best edition of this author is by Peter de Gussanville, 1667, folio.

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

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

, czar of Russia, who civilized that nation, and raised it from ignorance and barbarism, to politeness, knowledge, and power, a man of a wonderful composition and character, was born the 30th of May, 1672, and was son of the czar Alexis Michaelowitz by a second wife. Alexis dying in 1672, Feodor, or Theodore, his eldest son by his fivst wife, succeeded to the throne, and died in 1682. Upon his decease, Peter, though but ten years of age, was proclaimed czar, to the exclusion of John his elder brother, who was of a weak body, and a weaker mind. The strelitzes, who were the established guard of the czars, as the janisaries are of the grand seigniors, made an insurrection in favour of John, at the instigation of the princess Sophia, who, being own sister to John, hoped, perhaps, to be sole regent, since John was incapable of acting; or at least to enjoy a greater share of authority under John, than if the power was lodged solely in her half-brother Peter. The matter, however, was at last compromised; and it was agreed, that the two brothers should jointly share the imperial dignity. The Russian education was, at that time, like the country, barbarous, so that Peter had no advantages; and the princess Sophia, who, with considerable talents, was a woman of great ambition and intrigue, took all imaginable pains to stifle his natural desire of knowledge, to deprave and corrupt his mind, and ta debase and enervate him with pleasures. Yet his abhorrence of pageantry, and love of-military exercises, discovered itself in his tenderest years; and, to gratify this inclination, he formed a company of fifty men, commanded by foreign officers, and clothed and exercised after the German manner. He entered himself among them in the lowest post, and performed the duties of it with the utmost diligence. He ordered them entirely to forget that he was czar, and paid the utmost deference and submission to the commanding officers. He lived upon his pay only, and lay in a lent in the rear of his company. He was some time after raised to be a serjeant, but only as he was entitled to it by his merit; for he would have punished his soldiers, had they discovered the least partiality in his favour: and he never rose otherwise, than as a soldier of fortune. The strelitzes looked upon all this as the amusement of a young prince: but the czar, who saw they wer too formidable, and entirely in the interest of the princes Sophia, had secretly a design of crushing them; which he wisely thought could not be better effected, than by securing to himself a body of troops, more strictly disciplined, and on whose fidelity he could more fully rely.

At the same time, he had another project in view, of vast importance, and most difficult execution. The sight of a small Dutch vessel, which he had met with on a lake, where it lay useless and neglected, made a wonderful impression on his mind, and he conceived thoughts of forming a navy; a design, which probably then seemed next to impossible, even to himself. His first care was to get Hollanders to build some small vessels at Moscow, and afterwards four frigates, of four guns each, on the lake of Pereslave. He had already taught them to combat one another; and in order to instruct himself in naval affairs, he passed two summers successively on board English or Dutch ships, which set out from Archangel. In I6i)6, the czar John died, and Peter became sole master of the empire. He began his reign with the siege of Asoph, then in the hands of the Turks, but did not take it till 1697. He had already sent for Venetians, to build gallies on the river Don, which might shut up the mouth of that river, and prevent the Turks from relieving the place. This gave him a stronger idea than ever, of the importance and necessity of a naval force; yet he could have none but foreign ships, none at least but what he was obliged to employ foreigners in building. He was desirous of surmounting these disadvantages, but the affairs he projected were of too new and singular a nature to be so much as considered in his council, nor were they proper to he communicated. He resolved therefore singly to manage this bold undertaking; with which view, in 1698, he sent an embassy to Holland, and went himself incognito in the retinue. He entered himself in the India admiralty-office at Amsterdam, caused himself to he inrolled in the list of ship-carpenters; and worked in the yard with greater assiduity than any body there. His quality was known to all; and he was pointed at with a sort of veneration. King William, who was then in Holland, paid him all the respect that was due to his uncommon qualities; and the czar’s disguise freed him from that which was merely ceremonious and troublesome. The czar worked with such success, as in a little time to pass for a good carpenter; and afterwards studied the proportions of a ship. He then went into England; where, in four months, he made himself a complete master in the art of ship-building, by studying the principles of it mathematically, which he had no opportunity of learning in Holland. In England he met with a second reception from king William; who, to make him a present agreeable to his taste, and which might serve as a model of the art he was so very desirous to learn, gave him a magnificent yacht. He carried with him from England several English ship-builders and artificers, among whom was one whose name was Noy; but the C2ar took also upon himself the title of a master-builder, and was pleased to submit to the conditions of that character. Thus he and Noy received orders from the lord high admiral of Russia, to build each of them a man of war; and, in compliance with that order, the czar gave the first proof of his art. He never ceased to pursue it, but had always a ship upon the stocks; and, at his death, left one of the largest ships in Europe half-built.

During the czar’s absence, the princess Sophia, being uneasy under her confinement, and meditating to regain that liberty which she had forfeited by former insurrections, found means to correspond with the strelitzes, who were now quartered at a distance from Moscow, and to instigate them to a third rebellion in her favour. The news of this obliged him to hasten home: and, arriving at Moscow about the end of 1699, he executed terrible vengeance upon the ringleaders yet took no other satisfaction of his sister the princess, than by continuing her confinement in the nunnery, and hanging up the priest, who had carried her letters, on a gallows before her window. In 1700, he got together a body of standing forces, consisting of thirty thousand foot; and now the vast project which he had formed began to display itself in all parts. He first sent the chief nobility of his empire into foreign countries, to improve themselves in knowledge and learning: he opened his dominions, which till then had been shut up, and invited all strangers who were capable of instructing his subjects; and he gave the kindest reception to all land and sea officers, sailors, mathematicians, architects, miners, workers in metals, physicians, surgeons, and indeed operators and artificers of every kind, who would settle in his dominions. In the mean time, he had to do with a dull, fceavy, untoward people; so that it is no wonder, that proceedings so new and strange should raise many discontents and tumults, apd it was sometimes almost impossible with all his power to suppress them.

One very singular reason, on which these discontents were grounded, was, that the Russians considered grandeur and superiority, the czar’s great object, in no other light than as a power of doing evil. In 1700, being strengthened by an alliance with Augustus king of Poland, he made war upon Charles XII. of Sweden; from continuing which, he was not deterred by the ill success of his first campaigns: for he used to say, “I know that my armies must be overcome for a great while; but even this will at last teach them to conquer.” Afterwards, however, he gained considerable advantages in Livonia and Ingria, provinces subject to the Swedes. His acquisitions here were so important, that they induced him to build a fortress, whose port, situated on the Baltic, might be large enough to receive a fleet; and accordingly, in 1703, he laid the foundation of Petersburgh, now one of the strongest cities in Europe, which was to him what Alexandria was to Alexander. He waged war with the Swedes for several years, and, without ever, gaining any considerable advantage, was frequently most miserably beat by them. But firmness of mind and perseverance were qualities peculiarly eminent in him; and therefore at length, in 1709, he obtained a complete victory over them in his own dominions, at Pultowa. A great part of the Swedish army were made prisoners. The Swedish generals who were takeu were constantly entertained at his own table and one day, when he had drunk a health to his masters who had instructed him in the art of war, count Rinschild, a chief officer among the prisoners, asked him, “Who they were whom he honoured with so glorious a title?” “Yourselves, gentlemen,” said he. “Your majesty is very ungrateful then,” replied the count, “to have so beaten your masters.” Upon which the czar, to make them some reparation for this ingratitude, immediately gave orders that their swords should be returned; them and treated them with the greatest generosity and goodness. Near 3000 Swedish officers, however, were dispersed up and down his dominions, and particularly in Siberia, a country of vast extent, and running as far as China; and, having little prospect of returning to Sweden, they soon formed a kind of colony, and began to apply themselves to the various professions with which they were acquainted. Thus they forwarded the czar’s great purpose, in polishing and civilizing the ancient inhabitants of the country; and many arts, which, although established at Moscow and Petersburgh, might not have reached Siberia a long time, were thus suddenly established there.

In the mean time, Petersburgh had risen into a large and powerful city; and the king of Sweden having been obliged to fly from Pultowa to Bender in the Turkish dominions for refuge, the czar availed himself of his absence, by making a complete conquest of Livonia and Ingria to which he added Finland, anda part of Pomerania. The Turks having broken a truce they had concluded with him, he was inclosed by their army in 1712, on the banks of the Pruth; and that in so disadvantageous a situation, that he seemed to be inevitably lost. While the army was under great consternation, the czarina Catherine projected an expedient for its deliverance. She sent to negociate with the grand vizir, and let him privately know, that a great sum of money was at his service: he was tempted, and the czar’s prudence completed the work. To perpetuate the memory of this event, he caused the czarina to institute the order of St. Catherine, of which she was declared sovereign, and into which none but women were to be admitted. The king of Sweden having at last quitted the Turkish dominions, in 1713, the czar found this formidable enemy advancing to oppose him: but he was now strengthened by an alliance with the king of Denmark. He carried the war into the duchy of Holstein, which was is alliance with the Swedes; and, in 1714, obtained over them a victory at sea, near the coasts of Finland, upon which he entered triumphantly with his fleet into the haven of Petersburgh.

All this while he continued his pursuits after all kinds of knowledge. He caused his engineers to draw the plan of every city, and to take designs of all the different machines which he had not in his own country. He instructed himself in husbandry, and in all sorts of trade, wherever he came. In 1716, he paid a visit, with his consort, to the king of Denmark at Copenhagen, where he spent three months. He visited there every school of the university, and all the men of letters: for, regardless of ceremony and pageantry, which he hated, it was indifferent to him, whether they waited on him, or he went to them. He coasted every day some part of the kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, attended by two engineers; surveyed all the windings, sounded every part of the straits, and afterwards had the whole so exactly described in charts, that not so much as the smallest shelf or bank of sand escaped his observation. From Copenhagen he went to Hamburgh, Hanover, Wolfenbuttle, and from thence to Holland. Here he left the czarina, and went to France in 1717; and, in June that year, visited the royal academy of sciences at Paris, where he was entertained by seeing the latest invented and most curious machines and experiments. He was no sooner returned to his own dominions, than he signified his inclination of becoming a member of that society; and the academy having made their most respectful acknowledgments for the great honour he did them, he wrote them a letter with his own hand. These particulars may be seen in the history of that academy for 1720: the academy sent him every year a volume of their proceedings, to which, as an academician, he was entitled; and he always accepted it with pleasure, as from his brethren.

It would be endless to enumerate all the various establishments, for which the Russians are indebted to this great emperor: Fontenelle has recorded some of the principal, which are, 1. A body of 100,000 foot, under as regular a discipline as any in Europe. 2. A navy of forty ships of the line, and 200 gallies. 3. Fortifications in all main towns, and an excellent civil government in the great cities, which before were as dangerous in the night, as the most unfrequented deserts. 4. An academy for naval affairs and navigation, where all the nobility are obliged to send some of their children. 5. Colleges at Moscow, Petersburgh, and Kiof, for languages, polite literature, and mathematics; and schools in the villages, where the children of the peasants are taught to read and write. 6. A college of physicians, and a noble dispensatory at Moscow, which furnishes medicines to the great cities, and to the armies; whereas before there was no physician but the czar’s, and no apothecary in all his dominions. 7. Public lectures in anatomy, a word never heard before in Russia. Voltaire relates, that the czar had studied this branch of knowledge under Ruysch at Amsterdam; and made such improvements under this master, as to perform even chirurgical operations himself. He afterwards purchased the cabinet of that anatomist, which contained an immense collection of the most curious, instructive, and uncommon preparations. 8. An observatory, not only for the use of astronomers, but as a repository for natural curiosities. 9. A physic garden, to be stocked with plants, not only from all parts of Europe, but from Asia, Persia, and even the distant parts of China. 10. Printing-houses, where he abolished their old barbarous characters, which, through the great number of abbreviations, were almost become unintelligible. 11. Interpreters for all the languages of Europe; and likewise for the Latin, Greek, Turkish, Kalmuc, Mogul, and Chinese. 12. A royal library, composed of three very large collections, which he purchased in England, Holstein, and Germany.

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

This wonderful man died of the strangury, caused by an imposthume in the neck of his bladder, Jan. 28, 1725, aged fifty-three. He was tall, and remarkably well shaped; had a noble countenance, eyes sparkling with vivacity, and a robust constitution. His judgment was sound, which, as Voltaire has observed, may justly be deemed the foundation of all real abilities: and to this solidity was joined an active disposition, which led him into the most arduous undertakings. Whoever reflects upon the interruptions, difficulties, and oppositions, that must unavoidably occur in civilizing and reforming a large and barbarous empire, must suppose the czar to have been, as indeed he really was, a man of the greatest firmness and perseverance. His education was far from being worthy of his genius: it had been spoiled by the princess Sophia, whose interest it was that he should be immersed in licentious excesses. Howfever, in spite of bad example, and even his own strong propensity to pleasure, his natural desire of knowledge and magnanimity of soul broke through all habits; nay, they broke through something even greater than habits. It is remarkable, that from his childhood he had such a dread of water, as to be seized with a cold sweat and with convulsions, even in being obliged to pass over a brook. The cause of this aversion is thus related: When he was about five years of age he was carried in the spring season over a dam, where there was a water-fall or cataract. He was asleep in his mother’s lap, but the noise and rushing of the water frightened him so much that it brought on a fever and, after his recovery, he retained such a dread of that element, that he could not bear to see any standing water, much less to hear a running stream. Yet such was the force of his resolution, that he gradually conquered this antipathy, and his aversion of water was afterwards changed into an excessive fondness for that element. He had a son who lived to be a man; but this son engaging with his mother, whom Peter had divorced in 1692, and other malcontents, in a conspiracy against his father in 1717, was condemned to die. He saved the executioners the trouble by dying a natural death; and an account of this unfortunate prince, with original papers, was published by the czar himself. The title of it, as it stands in the second volume of the “Present State of Russia,” translated from the German, and printed at London, 1722, in 8vo, runs thus: “A Manifesto of the Criminal Process of the Czarewitz Alexi Petrowitz, judged and published at St. Petersburg, the 25th of June, 1718, translated from the Russian original, and printed by order of his czarish majesty at the Hague, 1718.” The czar composed several pieces upon naval affairs; and his name must therefore be added to the short catalogue of sovereigns who have favoured the public with their writings.

The czarina, his widow, whom he nominated his successor, was, upon his death, immediately acknowledged empress of Russia by the several estates of the empire. The history of this lady is’rather extraordinary. She was born in Livonia, in 1684; and losing her parents, who were of low condition, she became destitute. The parishclerk, who kept a school, took her into his house, and supported her, till Dr. Gluck, minister of Marienburg, happening to come to that village, eased the clerk of the girl, whom he liked exceedingly, and carried her home with him. Dr. Gluck treated her almost in the same manner as if she had been his own daughter; and not only had her taught spinning and sewing, but instructed her also himself in literature above her sex, and especially in the German language. At length a Livonian serjeant in the Swedish army, fell passionately in love with her, and she agreed to marry him: but the next day the Russians made themselves masters of Marienburg; and the general, casting his eyes accidentally on Catherine, and observing something very striking in her air and manner, took her then under his protection, and afterwards into his service. Some time after, she was advanced to be a housekeeper to prince Menzikoff, who was the general’s patron; and there the czar seeing her, she made such an impression on him that he married her. She was taken at Marienburg in 1702, and married to the czar in 1710: what became of her former husband, the serjeant, is not known. She was a woman of wonderful abilities and address, and a very fit consort for such a man as Peter the Great. It has been already observed in what manner she rescued him from rujn by her management, when he was surrounded by the Turks: and he seems to have made her the partner of his councils and undertakings, as well as of his bed. He shewed the high opinion he had of her by nominating her to succeed him;. but she died in little more than two years after him. She had several daughters by the czar; the youngest of which, Elizabeth, after the heirs of the elder branches were extinct, ascended the throne in 1741.

, a noted fanatic in the time of Charles I. was the son of a merchant at Fowey, in Cornwall, and was some time a member of Trinity college, in Cambridge, whence, it is said, he was expelled for irregular behaviour; but this expulsion must have taken place after he had taken both his degrees, that of A. B. in 1618, and of A. M. in 1622. He afterwards betook himself to the stage, where he acquired that gesticulation and buffoonery which he so often practised in the pulpit. He was admitted into holy orders by Dr. Mountaine, bishop of London, and was for a considerable time lecturer of St. Sepulchre’s, in that city; but, being prosecuted for criminal conversation with another man’s wife, he fled to Rotterdam, where he was pastor of the English church, together with the learned Dr. William Ames, who, it is probable, either did not know, or did not believe the report of his being prosecuted for adultery. He afterwards went to America, and after a residence of seven years, returned to England at a time when men of his character were sure of employment. He became, therefore, a violent declaimer against Charles I. and in favour of all the measures of the republican party; and Cromwell found him one of his most useful tools with the army and the lower classes of the people. When king Charles was brought to London for his trial, Hugh Peters, as sir William Warwick says, “was truly and really his gaoler.” Dr. Kennet informs us that he bore a colonel’s commission in the civil war; that he was vehement for the death of the king; that it was strongly suspected that he was one ef his masked executioners, and that one Hulet was the other. After the restoration he was executed with the other regicides. His character appears to have been in all respects unworthy of his religious profession; what can be alleged in his favour may be seen in our authorities.

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

His own court, however, imposed a duty upon him more congenial to his disposition^ and highly conducive to the advancement of his favourite studies. In compliance with his royal master’s commands, he undertook several voyages to the East, and to Africa, and performed some negociations so much to the satisfaction of Louis XIV. that, besides other rewards of his merit, he was appointed in 1692 Arabic professor in the royal college, which he held until his death in 1713.

Besides the Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Tartarian languages, he was acquainted with the Ethiopian and Armenian. His “Persian Tales” were first published after his death in five small volumes, in 1722. His own account of them was, that they were Indian plays, turned into Persian stories by the dervice Modes, who communicated them to him, and gave him leave to transcribe them. Those who are acquainted with the Arabian Tales will perceive the similarity of the present, in which we have the same method, the same taste, and the same design, with this only difference, that in the Arabian Nights, a prince is prepossessed against women, and in the Persian Tales, a princess affects the same aversion to men. Of these “Tales” we have an English translation, which has often been reprinted. His other works were “The History of Timur bee, or the great Tamerlan,” 1722, 4 vols. 12mo; “The State of the Ottoman Empire, 3 vols. 12mo; the” History of Genghizcan" which have all been published, but he left other translations, which are yet in manuscript. His son Alexander Louis Maria, was also professor of Arabic in the royal college, and translated the canon of Soliman II. for the instruction of Mourad IV. He died in 1751, aged fifty-three.

, a celebrated French anatomist, was born in 1708, at Orleans, and received the degree of doctor of physic at Paris, in November 1746. He was elected a member of the royal academy of sciences in 1760. His talents in the practice of his profession procured for him the appointment of inspector of military hospitals in 1768; and in the following year he was appointed professor of anatomy and surgery at the king’s garden, where his science and eloquence attracted a crowd of auditors. In 1775 he was succeeded byM.Vicq d'Azyr in the duties of this chair, while he remained titular professor. He died in 1794. He was author of the following works viz. “Lettre d'un Medecin de Montpellier, au sujet de rexameii public que le Sieur Louis a subi à saint Côme, en 1749, pour servir d‘Eclaircissement a ce qu’en dit M. Fréron,” 1749, 4to. “Discours sur la Chirurgie,” an introductory lecture delivered at the schools of medicine, 1757 “Consultation en faveur des Naissances tardives,” 1764, 8vo “Premier et seconde Rapport en faveur de l'Inoculation,” 1766, 8vo “Deux Consultations Medico-iegales,” relative to a case of supposed self-murder, and to a supposed infanticide, 1767. He also edited “Anatomic Chirurgicale publié cidevant par Jean Palfin,” 1753, 2 tom. 8vo.

, a celebrated surgeon, was born at Paris, March 13, 1674. From his childhood he displayed uncommon acuteness, and received his first instructions in anatomy from M. de Littre, a celebrated anatomist, who resided in his father’s house. Under this master he made such rapid progress, that he had scarcely attained the age of twelve, when M. de Littre found that he might be intrusted with the care of his anatomical theatre. He afterwards studied surgery under Castel and Mareschal, and was admitted master in 1700. In the course of no long time he became the first practitioner in Paris, and was “consulted in all cases of importance; and there were few operations of difficulty and delicacy which he did not superintend, or actually perform; and his hand and his counsels were alike successful. Such a reputation soon extended throughout Europe. In 1726 he was sent for by the king of Poland, and again in 1734 by Don Ferdinand, afterwards king of Spain: he re-established the health of both these princes, who endeavoured to retain him near their persons with the offer of great rewards, but could not overcome his attachment to his native place. Among his professional honours was that of member of the academy of ^ciences, director of the academy of surgery, censor and royal professor at the schools, and fellow of the royal society of London. He died at Paris, April 20, 1750, aged 76, regretted as much for his private virtues as his public services. He communicated many memoirs to the academy of sciences, and several to the academy of surgery, which were printed in their first volume. His only separate publication was his” Traite des Maladies des Os,“printed at Paris in 1705, in 12mo, and frequently reprinted, with additions. An edition in 1758, in two volumes, 12mo, was published by M. Ant. Louis, with an historical and critical essay respecting it subjoined; and his pupil, M. Leslie, published his posthumous works in 1774, with the title of” Traite des Maladies Chirurgicales et des Operations qui leur conviennent," in three vols. 8vo, with many plates of chirurgical instruments. His treatise on the bones involved him in several controversies; but the only chagrin which he felt arose from finding Winslow, who, as censor royal, had approved the work, retract his approbation, in a letter inserted in the Journal des Savans for May 1725.

, a considerable mathematician and philosopher of France, was born at Montlugon, in the diocese of Bourges, in 1598, according to some, but in 1600 according to others. He first cultivated the mathematics and philosophy in the place of his nativity; but in 1633 he repaired to Paris, to which place his reputation had procured him an invitation. Here he became highly celebrated for his ingenious writings, and for his connections with Pascal, Des Cartes, Mersenne, and the other great men of that time. He was employed on several occasions by cardinal Richelieu; particularly to visit the sea-ports, with the title of the king’s engineer; and was also sent into Italy upon the king’s business. He was at Tours in 1640, where he married; and was afterwards made intendant of the fortifications. Baillet, in his Life of Des Cartes, says, that Petit had a great genius for mathematics; that he excelled particularly in astronomy; and had a singular passion for experimental philosophy. About 1637 he returned to Paris from Italy, when the dioptrics of Des Cartes were much spoken of. He read them, and communicated his objections to Mersenne, with whom he was intimately acquainted, and yet soon after embraced the principles of Des Cartes, becoming not only his friend, but his partisan and defender. He was intimately connected with Pascal, with whom he made at Rouen the same experiments concerning the vacuum, which Torricelli had before made in Italy; and was assured of their truth by frequent repetitions. This was in 1646 and 1647; and though there appears to be a long interval from this date to the time of his death, we meet with no other memoirs of his life. He died August 20, 1667, at Lagny, near Paris, whither he had retired for some time before his decease. Petit was the author of several works upon physical and astronomical subjects; the principal of which are, 1. “Chronological Discourse,” &c. 1636, 4to, in defence of Scaliger. 2. “Treatise on the Proportional Compasses.” 3. “On the Weight and Magnitude of Metals.” 4. “Construction and Use of the Artillery Calibers.” 5. “On a Vacuum.” 6. “On Eclipses.” 7. “On Remedies against the Inundations of the Seine at Paris.” 8. “On the Junction of the Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea, by means of the rivers Aude and Garonne.” 9. “On Comets.” 10. “On the proper Day for celebrating Easter.” 11. “On the nature of Heat and Cold,” &c.

, another very learned Frenchman, was born at Paris in 1617, and brought up to the profession of physic, in which faculty he took a doctor’s degree at Montpeliier: but, afterwards returning to Paris, neglected the practice of it, and gave himself up entirely to the study of polite literature. He lived some time with the first president Lamoignon, as preceptor to his sons; and afterwards with mons. Nicolai, first president of the chamber of accounts, as a man of letters and companion. He spent the greatest part of his life in composing; and had a wonderful facility with his pen, which enabled him to write much. He was deeply read in the ancient Greek and Latin authors, and joined to his skill in these, an uncommon knowledge in philosophical matters. He died in 1687, aged seventy.

He wrote much, both in verse and prose, but in Latin only. His first production seems to have been, 1. “An Elegy upon the Death of Gabriel Naude, in 1653.” In 1660, he published in 8vo, 2. “De motu animalium spontaneo liber unus.” Petit was a great partisan for the Peripatetic philosophy; and, in this as well as some other works of the same kind, he has strenuously supported the principles of Aristotle, and combated those of Des Cartes. 3. “Epistolse Apologeticse A. Menjoti de variis sectis amplectendis examen: ad medicos Parisienses, autore Adriano Scauro, D. M. 1666,” 4to. Menjot had maintained that a man should attach himself to no particular sect, but take from each whatever he found good. This sentiment did not please Petit, and he opposed it in this work under the fictitious name of Scaurus. He published the same year, in 8vo, under the feigned name of Marinus Statileus, 4. tf Apologia pro genuitate fragment! Satyrici Petroniani“which Hadrian Valesius then, and the best critics since, have agreed to reject as spurious. Euthyphron was another assumed name, under which he published, 5.” De nova curandorum morborum ratione per transfusionem sanguinis,“in 1667, 4to. He there rejects this method of cure, which was approved by many physicians of his time, and supports his own opinion with much elegance and learning. In 1683, were published at Utrecht, in 8vo, 6.” Miscellanearum Observationum, libri iv.“These are verbal criticisms upon various authors, and shew great accuracy as well as profound erudition. The same year at Paris came out in 8vo, 7.” Selectorum Poematum, libri ii. Accessit Dissertatio de Furore Poetico.“The dissertation is curious, and the poems have merit enough to rank him with Rapin, Menage, and the best writers of modern Latin poetry. 8.” De Amazonibus Dissertatio,“Paris, 1685, 12mo. The edition of Amsterdam, 1687, 12mo, is preferable, there being additions by the author, and critical observations by M. de la Monnoye. 9.” De natura et moribus Anthropophagorum Dissertatio,“at Utrecht, 1688, 8vo. A curious and learned work. 10.” In tres priores Aretaei libros Commentarii: Una cum dissertatiuncula de Petiti vita, et copioso in eosdem Commentarios indice, 1726," 4to. It was Maittaire, who published this posthumous work, and placed the life of Petit at the head of it. There are several works of this author, but we have mentioned the most important. Care must be taken, in the mean time, not to confound him with the preceding Peter Petit, who was his contemporary.

, a learned physician, was born June 24, 1664, at Paris. He attended the hospitals of the army, but settled at Paris after the peace of Utrecht in 1513; was admitted into the academy of sciences in 1722, and acquired great reputation, particularly by his skill in disorders of the eyes. M. Petit invented an Ophthalmometer for measuring the parts of the eye, and several other instruments to direct the hand in its operations upon that delicate organ. He died at Paris June 18, 1741, aged 77. His works, which are written in rather a careless style, are, “Trois Lettres d'un Medecin des Hospitaux du Roi a un autre Medecin de ses amis, sur un Nouveau Systeme du Cerveau,” Namur, 1710, 4to. “Dissertation sur une Nouvelle Methode de faire l'Operation de la Cataracte,” Par. 1727, 12mo. “Lettre dans laquelle il est démontré que la Crystailin est fort pres de l‘Uvee, et ou Ton rapporte de nouvelles preuves de i’Operation de la Cataracte,” 1729, 4to. “Lettres contenant des Reflexions sur ce que M. Hecquet, M. D. a fait imprimer touchant les Maladies des Yeux,” 1729, 4to. “Lettres contenant des Reflexions sur les Decouvertes faites sur les Yeux,” 1732, 4to.

, or Petitus, a celebrated scholar, was born at Nismes in 1594. He studied at Geneva, witli a success so uncommon, that, at the age of seventeen, he was admitted to the sacred ministry. Soon after, he was raised to the professorships of theology, and of Greek and Hebrew in that city, where he passed the chief part of his life, and where he died in December 1645, at the age of fifty-one. He has left behind him several works of great learning. For instance, 1. “Miscellanea,” Paris, 1630, 4to, in nine books, containing corrections of passages in a vast number of ancient authors. 2. “Eclogae Chronologicae,” Paris, 1632, 4to. 3. “Varies Lectiones,” Paris, 1633, 4to. This is in four books, three of which are employed on the customs, ceremonies, &c. of the Old and New Testament. 4. “Leges Atticae,” first published at Pads, in 1615, but again in 1635, &c. This is a work of the highest reputation, and having been enriched by the subsequent remarks of Palmerius, Salvini, Duker, and Wesseling, was reprinted in 1742, fol. In this shape, it forms a third volume of the collection entitled “Jurisprudentia Romana et Attica,” published by Heineccius, Duker, and Wesseling. Petit was the author also of other publications of less consequence, but all evincing profound and extensive learning. His character was not less amiable, than his accomplishments were extraordinary. Hs was mild and gentle in an uncommon degree. It is related of him, that going once from curiosity into a synagogue at Avignon, a rabbin, supposing himself free from all danger of detection, railed against him in Hebrew, in a very gross manner. Petit, without any anger, coolly answered him in the same language, and thus covered the assailant with confusion. In Answer to the apologies and excuses of thfc Jew, he only, in a mild manner, exhorted him to embrace Christianity.

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

, a celebrated painter, was born at Geneva in 1607, of a father who was a sculptor and architect, and who, after having passed part of his life in Italy, retired to that city. His son was designed to be a jeweller; and, by frequent employment in enamelling, acquired so fine a taste, and so precious a tone of colouring, that Bordier, who afterwards became his brother-in-law, advised him to attach himself to portrait, believing he might push his art on still to greater lengths; and though both the one and the other wanted several colours which they could not bring to bear the fire, yet they succeeded to admiration. Petitot painted the heads and hands, in which his colouring was excellent; Bordier painted the hair, the draperies, and the grounds. These two friends, agreeing in their work and their projects, set out for Italy. The long stay they made there, frequenting the best chemists, joined to a strong desire of learning, improved them in the preparation of their colours; but the completion of their success must be ascribed to a journey they afterwards made to England. There they found sir Theodore Mayerne, physician to Charles T. and a great chemist; who had by his experiments discovered the principal colours to be used for enamel, and the proper means of vitrifying them. These by their beauty surpassed all the enamelling of Venice and Limoges. Mayerne introduced Petitot, to the king, who retained him in his service, and gave him a lodging in Whitehall. Here he painted several portraits after Vandyck, in which he was guided by that excellent master, who was then in London; and his advice contributed greatly to the ability of Petitot, whose best pieces are after Vandyck. King Charles often went to see him work; as he took a pleasure both in painting and chemical experiments, to which his physician had given him a turn. Petitot painted that monarch and the whole royal family several times. The distinguished favour shewn him by that prince was only interrupted by his unhappy and tragical end. This was a terrible stroke to Petitot, who did not quit the royal family, but followed them in their flight to Paris, where he was looked on as one of their most zealous servants. During the four years that Charles II. stayed in France, he visited Petitot, and often eat with him. Then it was, that his name became eminent, and that all the court of France grew fond of being painted in enamel. When Charles II. returned to England, Louis XIV. retained Petitot in his service, gave him a pension, and a lodging in the gallery of the Louvre. These new favours, added to a considerable fortune he had already acquired, encouraged him to marry in 1661. Afterwards Bordier became his brother-in-law, and ever remained in a firm union with him: they lived together, till their families growing too numerous, obliged them to separate. Their friendship was founded on the harmony of their sentiments and their reciprocal merit, much more than a principle of interest. They had gained, as a reward for their discoveries and their labours, a million of livres, which they divided at Paris; and they continued friends without ever having a quarrel, or even a misunderstanding, in the space of fifty years.

Petitot copied at Paris several portraits of Mignard and Le Brun; yet his talent was not only copying a portrait with an exact resemblance, but also designing a head most perfectly after nature. To this he also joined a softness and liveliness of colouring, which will never change, and will ever render his works valuable. He painted Louis XIV. Mary Anne of Austria his mother, and Mary Theresa his wife, several times. As he was a zealous protestant, and full of apprehensions at the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he demanded the king’s permission to retire to Geneva; who rinding him urgent, and fearing he should escape, cruelly caused him to be arrested, and sent to Fort l'Evque, where the bishop of Meaux was appointed to instruct him. Yet neither the eloquence of Bossuet, nor the terrors of a dungeon, could prevail. He was not convinced, but the vexation and confinement threw him into a fever; of which the king being informed, ordered him to released. He no sooner found himself at liberty, than he escaped with his wife to Geneva, after a residence at Paris of thirty -six years. His children remaining in that city, and fearing the king’s resentment, threw. themselves on his mercy, and implored his protection. The king received them favourably, and told them he could forgive an old man the whim of desiring to be buried with his fathers .

When Petitot returned to his own country, he cultivated his art with great ardour, and had the satisfaction of preserving to the end of his life the esteem of all connoisseurs. The king and queen of Poland, desirous to have their pictures copied by Petitot, though then above eighty, sent the originals to Paris, believing him to be there. The gentleman who was charged with the commission went on to Geneva. The queen was represented on a trophy holding the king’s picture. As there were two heads in the same piece, they gave him a hundred louis d'ors; and he executed it as if he had been in the flower of his age. The concourse of his friends, and the resort of the curious who came to see him, was so great, that he was obliged to quit Geneva, and retire to Vevay, a little town in the canton of Berne, where he worked in quiet. He was about the picture of his wife, when a distemper carried him off in one day, in 169J, aged eighty-four. His life was always exemplary, and his end was the same. He preserved his usual candour and ease of temper to his last hour. He had seventeen children by his marriage; but only one of his sons applied himself to painting, who settled in London. His father sent Jinn several of his works to serve him for models. This son died a good many years ago, and his family settled in Dublin, but whether any are now remaining we know not.

Petitot may be called the inventor of painting in enamel; for though Bordier, his brother-in-law, made several attempts before him, and sir Theodore Mayerne had facilitated the means of employing the most beautiful colours, it was still Peiitot who completed the work; which under his hand acquired such a degree of perfection, as to surpass miniature, and even equal painting in oil. He made use of gold and silver plates, and rarely enamelled on copper. When he first came in vogue, his price was twenty louts a-head, which he soon raised to forty. His custom was, to carry a painter with him, who painted the picture in oil; after which Petitot sketched out his work, which he always finished after the life. When he painted the king of France, he took those pictures that most resembled him for his patterns; and the king afterwards gave him a sitting or two to finish his work. He laboured with great assiduity, and never laid down his pencil but with reluct, ance; saying, that he always found new beauties in his art to charm him.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was born in 1630, of a respectable family at Paris. He was counsellor clerk to the Chatelet, and curate of the parish of St. Martial, and died sub-chanter and canon of the church of Paris, 1705, aged 75, leaving a learned work, entitled “Du Droit et des Prerogatives des Ecclesiastiques, dans l'administration de la justice seculaire,” 4to. This was occasioned by M. Petit-Pied having offered to preside in the chatelet upon one occasion, which it was said the clergy had no right to do. The work was considered as of great merit in point of argument, and contributed to obtain a decision in favour of the clergy.

, nephew of the preceding, and a celebrated doctor of the Sorbonne, was born Aug. 4, 1665, at Paris. He was appointed professor in the Sorbonne 1701; but, having signed the famous “Case of Conscience” the same year, with thirty-nine other doctors, he lost his professorship, and was banished to Beaune in 1703. Some time after this he retired into Holland with father Quesnel and M. Fouillon, but obtained leave to return to Paris in 1718, where the faculty of theology, and the house of Sorbonne, restored him to his privileges as doctor in June 1719. This, however, was of no avail, as the king annulled what had been done in his favour the July following. M. Petit-Pied became afterwards theologian to M. de Lorraine, bishop of Bayeux, which prelate dying June 9, 1728, he narrowly escaped being arrested, and retired again into Holland. In 1734, however, he was recalled; passed the remainder of life quietly at Paris, and died January 7, 1747, aged 82, leaving a large number of well-written works, the greatest part in French, the rest in Latin, in which he strongly opposes the constitution Unigenitus.

, a famous English botanist, was contemporary with Plukenet; but the exact time of his birth is not known, nor is much intelligence concerning him at present to be obtained. His profession was that of an apothecary, to which he was apprenticed under Mr. Feltham, then apothecary to St. Bartholomew’s hospital. When he entered into business for himself, he settled in Aldersgatestreet, and there continued for the remainder of his life. He obtained considerable business, and after a time became apothecary to the Charter-house. After the Tradescants, he appears to have been the only person, except Mr. Courten, and sir Hans Sloane, who made any considerable collection in Natural History, previous to those of the present day. He engaged the captains and surgeons of ships to bring him home specimens, and enabled them to select proper objects by printed directions which he distributed among them. By these means his collection became so valuable, that, some time before his death, sir Hans Sloane offered him four thousand pounds for it. After his death, it was purchased by the same collector, and now makes part of the British Museum, where they are frequently resorted to for the sake of ascertaining obscure synonyms, his plates being so generally cited by Linnæus, and in many instances so insufficient to express the precise object intended. He was elected into the royal society, and becoming acquainted with Ray, assisted him in arranging the second volume of his History of Plants. He died April 20, 1718, and much honour was shewn to him at his funeral, by the attendance of sir Hans Sloane, and other eminent men, as pall-bearers, &c.

, one of the most celebrated characters in literary history, was born in Tuscany, in 1304. His father was a notary at Florence, who having taken part with the Ghibellin faction, shared their fate, and was banished, after which he took up 'his residence at Pisa. Here, his infant son discovering marks of genius, his father destined him for a learned profession; and having recommended him to study the law, he passed several years at Montpellier and Bologna, listening to the ablest professors in that science, but much more inclined to peruse the writings of the classical authors. He relates himself, that his father, incensed at what he thought a misapplication of time, seized at once every classical author of which, he was possessed, and threw them into the fire; but the frantic grief which Petrarch expressed at that sight, so mollified the old man, that he hastily rescued Cicero and Virgil from the flames, and gave them back to his son; remarking, that it was only the immoderate attachment to these authors which he blamed, and that the works of Cicero, if rightly used, were the best preparative to the study of the law. Petrarch acknowledges that the struggle between the strong propensity of his nature, and the will of a respected parent, was the cause of many unhappy hours: but his father’s death, which happened when he was about the age of twenty-two, put an end to the contest; and left him at liberty to pursue his inclinations.

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

It was while at Avignon, that he contracted that passion which has so deeply engaged the attention of his biographers, and has given an air of romance, or of poetic fiction, to a considerable portion of his life. It appears that on the morning of Good Friday in 1327, he saw for the first time the young and beautiful Laura; undoubtedly a most important incident to Petrarch, for although his works give evidence of his abilities as a politician, theologian, and philosopher, yet it is to those beautiful verses alone, in which he has celebrated the accomplishments, and bewailed the fate of Laura, that he has been indebted for his permanent reputation. But his biographers differ widely from each other in their representations of the nature of Petrarch’s love for Laura. His late acute and ingenious apologist, lord Wooclhouselee, deduces from the works of the poet himself, that this passion, so remarkable both for its fervency and duration, was an honourable and virtuous flame, and that Petrarch aspired to the happiness of being united to Laura in marriage. “We have,” says his lordship, “unquestionable grounds for believing, from the evidence of his own writings, that the heart of Laura was not insensible to his passion; and although the term of his probation was tedious and severe, he cherished a hope, approaching to confidence, that he was at last to attain the of his wishes. Such are the ideas that we are led to entertain from the writings of the poet himself, of the nature and object of his passion; and such has been the uniform and continued belief of the world with regard to it, from his own days to the present.”

“At length,” continues lord Woodhouselee, “comes into the field, a hardy but most uncourteous knight, who, with a spirit very opposite to that of the heroes of chivalry, blasts at once the fair fame of the virtuous Laura, and the hitherto unsullied honour of her lover; and, proudly throwing down his gauntlet of defiance, maintains that Laura was a married woman, the mother of a numerous family; that Petrarch, with all his professions of a pure and honourable flame, had no other end in his unexampled assiduity of pursuit, than what every libertine proposes to himself in the possession of a mistress; and that the lovely Laura, though never actually unfaithful to her husband’s bed, was sensible to the passion of her Cicisbeo, highly gratified by his pursuit, and while she suffered on his account much restraint and severity from a jealous husband, continued to give him every mark of regard, which, without a direct breach of her matrimonial vow, she could bestow upon him.” Such is the hypothesis of M. de Sade, in his “Memoires pour la Vie de Petrarque,” 3 vols. 4to, which he published at Amsterdam, in 1764 67. He also asserts that Laura was the wife of one of his own predecessors, Hugh de Sade, and the mother of eleven children; that she was the daughter of Audibert de Noyes, was born in 1307 or 1308, at Avignon, and died there in 1348, having been married in 1325.

The arguments of lord Woodhouselee, who has fully examined and refuted this hypothesis, appear to us to amount as nearly to historic demonstration as the case will admit, while the whole train of De Sade’s narrative is inconsistent with the evidence to be derived from Petrarch’s writings. In the conclusion lord Woodhouselee says, “I have now, as I trust, impartially canvassed the whole of these arguments drawn by the author of the c Memoires 1 from the works of Petrarch himself, or what may be termed the intrinsic evidence in support of the material part of his hypothesis, namely, that Laura was a married woman; nor do I think 1 presume too much when I say that I have shewn their absolute insufficiency to prove that proposition.” After farther asserting, that in the whole of Petrarch’s works, consisting of more than 300 sonnets and other poetical pieces, there is not to be found a single passage which intimates that Laura was a married woman, he produces a variety of direct arguments on the subject, and concludes, that “uhile on the one hand we have shewn that there is not the smallest solidity in all that elaborate argument, which has been brought to prove that Laura was a married woman, we have proved, on the other, from the whole tenour of the writings of Petrarch, the only evidence that applies to the matter, that his affection for Laura was an honourable and virtuous flame.”

Notwithstanding this argument, which we think conclusive against the abbe“Sade, all the difficulties which attend this part of Petrarch’s history are by no means removed. Many are still inclined to doubt whether Laura was a real character. Gibbon calls Petrarch’s love” a metaphysical passion for a nymph so shadowy, that her existence has been questioned." Some say that his mistress’s name was Lauretta, and that the poet made it Laura, because, thus altered, it supplied him with numberless allusions to the laurel, and to the story of Apollo and Daphne; but what appears to have perplexed most of his biographers and critics, is their supposition that Laura was a married lady. This obliges them to suppose farther, that Petrarch’s love was disinterested, and correspondent to a certain purity of character which they have been pleased to give him, in contradiction to the fact of his licentious commerce with women, by whom he had at least two children, at the times when he is suffering most for the absence of his Laura.

The duration and intensity of Petrarch’s passion for Laura, whether single or married, afford also other subjects for dispute; and it seems to be agreed upon by those sober critics who wish to strip his history from romance, that although his passion was so sincere as to give him uneasiness for a time, it was not of a permanent and overwhelming nature, and must have been diverted, if not extinguished, by the multiplicity of studies, travels, and > political employments, which form his public life, to which we shall now advert. It is said that one of the methods he took to combat his passion was travelling; and it is certain that his frequent removals form a very great part of the incidents which compose his life. In 1333 he travelled through Paris into Flanders, and thence to Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne, returning by Lyons to Avignon. After another ramble into Italy, he resolved to retire from the world. Those who contend that Laura was a single lady, and think that she received him on his return with reserve and coyness, attribute part of his dissatisfaction with the world to this cause; but they add, likewise, that his fortunes novr wore an unpromising aspect: the best years of his life were wearing fast away; and the friendship of the great, though soothing to his self-love, had yet produced no beneficial consequence. Disgusted, therefore, with the splendid delusions of ambition, and feeling no solid enjoyment but in the calm pursuits of literature and philosophy, he resolved at once to bid adieu to the world; and at the early age of thirty-four he retired to the solitude of Vaucluse, about fifteen miles from Avignon, where he purchased a small house and garden, the humble dwelling of a fisherman: a lonely but beautiful recess, which he has celebrated in many parts of his works, and indeed in which he wrote many of those works, particularly his Italian poetry; many of his Latin epistles, in prose and verse; his eclogues; his treatises on a “Solitary Life,” and on “Religious Tranquillity;” and part of his poem on Africa.

The taste for poetry and elegant composition, for which the public mind had been prepared by the writings of Dante, ascended to a pitch of enthusiastic admiration, when these works of Petrarch appeared. Literary fame, in those days, must have depended on the opinion of a very few competent judges; for, as printing was not then known, the circulation of a new work, by manuscript copies, must have been very slow, and extremely limited. While enjoying this reputation, however, he received a letter from the Maecenas of the age, Robert king of Naples. And this honour was followed by one still greater; the revival, in his favour, of the ancient custom of crowning eminent poets at Rome. Petrarch appears to have indulged the hope of attaining this honour, and not on slight grounds; for, in August 1340, he unexpectedly received a letter from the Roman senate, inviting him to come and take the laurel in that city, and on the same day he received a similar invitation from Paris. Having determined to accept the invitation from Rome, he thought it necessary first to repair to the court of king Robert at Naples (in March 1341), and undergo a public examination as to his learning and talents. Having gone through a ceremony, which, as far as voluntary, was ostentatious, he went to Rome where, on Easter-day, in the midst of the plaudits of the Roman people, the ceremony was performed in the capitol by his friend count d'Anguillara. Twelve patrician youths were arrayed in scarlet; six representatives of the most illustrious families, in green robes, with garlands of flowers, accompanied the procession: in the midst of the princes and nobles, Anguillara assumed his throne, and at the voice of a herald Petrarch arose. After discoursing on a text of Virgil, and thrice repeating his vows for the prosperity of Rome, he knelt before the throne, and received from the senator a laurel crown, with the declaration, “This is the reward of merit.” The people shouted “Long life to the capitol and the poet.” A sonnet in praise of Rome was accepted as the effusion of genius and gratitude; and after the whole procession had visited the Vatican, the wreath was suspended before the shrine of St. Peter. In the act of diploma, which was presented to Petrarch, the title and prerogatives of poet-laureat are revived in the capitol, after the lapse of 1300 years; and he received the perpetual privilege of wearing, at his choice, a crown of laurel, ivy, or myrtle, of assuming the poetic habit, and of teaching, disputing, interpreting, and composing, in all places whatsoever, and on all subjects of literature. The grant was ratified by the authority of the senate and people, and the character of citizen was the recompence of his affection for the Roman name.

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

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

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

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

These researches were not very successful. Three decades of Livy, thq first, third, and fourth, were, at that time, all which could be found. The second decade was sought in vain. A valuable work of Varro, and other productions which he had seen in his youth, were irrecoverably lost. With Quintilian he was more fortunate, though the copy which he discovered was mutilated and imperfect. Cicero was his idol, yet his collection of the works of this great orator was very incomplete, although he had the happiness to make some new discoveries, particularly of his 46 Familiar Epistles.“He was once possessed of Cicero’s work,” De Gloria;“but he lent it to a friend, and it was irreparably lost. He often employed himself in making transcripts of ancient authors; by which his eager thirst was allayed, and accurate copies multiplied. But neither Rome, nor the remains of Roman literature, were sufficient totally to absorb the attention of this active man. Greece also engaged his thoughts. The study of the Greek language had at no time been completely neglected; and when an occasion of learning it offered, Petrarch prosecuted it with his usual zeal. But he never” wholly surmounted its difficulties; for, when a present of a Greek Homer was sent him from Constantinople, he lamented his inability to taste its beauties, although his joy on receiving such a present was not less sincere. Such were the pursuits by which he rendered services of the greatest importance to literature, and which made him to be so esteemed and honoured. He was, indeed, considering the times in which he lived, in all respects a very extraordinary man; and it is not without reason, that his countrymen still entertain a profound veneration for his memory. He has also been the object of the admiration and inquiries of scholars in all countries; and his writings have been printed so often, that it becomes impossible, and perhaps would not be very useful, to enumerate half the editions, comments, and criticisms, with which his poems, in particular, have been honoured. He is said to have had twenty-five biographers, exclusive of the sketches of his life given in collections. Of these, the most copious is the work of the abbe“de Sade, and the most necessary to illustrate that important part of Petrarch’s life which relates to his connexion with Laura, is Lord Woodhouselee’s” Historical and Critical Essay of the Life and character of Petrarch," 1810, 8vo.

, a man of learning, a patron of learning, and a distinguished statesman, in the four discordant reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth, was the son of John Petre, of Tornewton, in the parish of Tor-brian, in Devonshire, and born either at Exeter or Tor-newton. After some elementary education, probably at his native place, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford; and when he had studied there for a while with diligence and success, he was, in 1523, elected a fellow of All Souls. We may suppose that he became sensible of the importance of learning, and of the value of such seminaries, as he afterwards proved a liberal benefactor to both these colleges. His intention being to practise in the civil law courts, he took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty in July 1526, ant) his doctor’s in 1532, and the following year was admitted into the college of Advocates. It does not appear, however, that he left Oxford on this account, but was made principal of Peckwater Inn, now part of Christ Church; and he became soon after tutor to the son of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire.

Hitherto he had devoted his time to literature, and Lad no other view than to rise in his profession; but being noticed by lord Cromwell, while in the Wiltshire family, as a young man of talents, he was introduced by him at court, and appeared to so much advantage, that Henry VIII. recommended the farther improvement that travelling might contribute, and allowed him a handsome pension for his expenses. His manners and accomplishments, on his return, appear to have fulfilled the expectations of his patrons, and he was appointed Latin secretary in the secretary of state’s office, the first step in his public life; and which led to those preferments and opulence, which enabled him to become the founder of a noble family.

In 1535, when a general visitation of the monasteries was determined upon, Cromwell, who considered him as a very fit person for this business, caused his name to be inserted in the commission, in which he is styled one of the clerks in chancery; and he appears also to have been, at this time, master of the requests. Having acquitted himself in this employment to the satisfaction of the king, who was determined on the dissolution of these religious houses, he was not only rewarded, in 1538 and 1539, with very large grants of abbey-lands, but rveceived the honour of knighthood. In 1543, having become still more acceptable at court, he was sworn of the privy-council, and appointed one of the principal secretaries of state; and accordingly we find his name signed to every act of council during this reign. In 154J-, such was his consequence, that he was not only appointed one of the regency in the absence of Henry VIII. in France, but obtained special licence to retain twenty men, besides his own menial servants, and to give them liveries, badges, and cognizances.

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

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

Sir William Petre was unquestionably a man of learning and talents, and an able minister and negociator. Without talents, without political skill and address, he never could have retained a confidential situation under four such sovereigns as Henry, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. Whether all this was accompanied by a sacrifice of principle, is not quite clear. It is in his favour, however, that his conduct has been censured by the popish historians, and that the balance of his virtues must therefore be on the Protestant side.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

, a singular instance of an almost universal genius, and of learning, mechanical ingenuity, and ceconomy, applied to useful purposes, was the eldest son of Anthony Petty, a clothier at Rumsey, in Hampshire, and was born May 16, 1623. It does not appear that his father was a man of much property, as he left this son none at his death, in 1641, and contributed very little to his maintenance. When young, the boy took extraordinary pleasure in viewing various mechanics at their work, and so readily conceived the natjure of their employment, and the use of their tools, that he was, at the age of twelve, able to iiandle the latter with dexterity not much inferior to that of the most expert workmen in any trade which he had ever seen. What education he had was first at the grammar-school at Rum?ey, where, according to his own account, he acquired, before the age of fifteen, a competent knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and French languages, and became master of the common rules of arithmetic, geometry, dialling, and the astronomical part of navigation. With this uncommon fund of various knowledge he removed, at the above age of fifteen, to the university of Caen in Normandy. This circumstance is mentioned among those particulars of his early life which he has given in his will, although, by a blunder of the transcriber, Oxford is put for Caen in Collir.s’s Peerage. Wood says that, when he went to Caen, “with a little stock of merchandizing which he then improved, he maintained himself there, learning the French tongue, and at eighteen years of age, the arts and mathematics.” Mr. Aubrey’s account is in these not very perspicuous words: “He has told me, there happened to him the most remarkable accident of life (which he did not tell me), and which was the foundation of all the rest of his greatness and acquiring riches. He informed me that about fifteen, in March, he went over to Caen, in Normandy, in a vessel that went hence, with a little stock, and began to play the merchant, and had so good successe that he maintained himselfe, and also educated himselfe: this I guesse was that most remarkable accident that he meant. Here he learned the French tongue, and perfected himself in Latin, and had Greeke enough to serve his turne. At Caen he studyed the arts. At eighteen, he was (I have heard him say) a better mathematician than he is now; but when occasion is, he knows how to recurre to more mathematical knowledge.” These accounts agree in the main points, and we may learn from both that he had at a very early period begun that money-making system which enabled him to realize a vast fortune. He appears to have been of opinion, that “there are few ways in which a man can be more harmlessly employed than in making money.” On his return to his native country, he speaks of being 1 preferred to^the king’s navy, but in what capacity is not known. This he attributes to the knowledge he had acquired, and his “having been at the university of Caen.” In the navy, however, before he was twenty years of age, he got together about 60l. and the civil war raging at this time, he determined to set out on his travels, for further improvement in his studies. He had now chosen medicine as a profession, and in the year 1643, visited Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Paris, at which last city he studied anatomy, and read Vesalixis with the celebrated Hobbes, who was partial to him. Hobbes was then writing on optics, and Mr. Petty, who had a turn that way, drew his diagrams, &c. for him. While at Paris, he informed Aubrey that “at one time he was driven to a great streight for money, and told him, that he lived a week or two on three pennyworths of walnuts.” Aubrey likewise queries whether he was not some time a prisoner there. His ingenuity and industry, however, appear to have extricated him from his difficulties, for we have his own authority that; he returned home in 1646, a richer man by IQl. than he set out, and yet had maintained his brother Anthony as well as himself.

How this 70l. accumulated will appear by his will. It may suffice here to mention, that in the following year March 6, a patent was granted him by parliament for seventeen years, for a copying machine, as it would now be termed, but which he calls an instrument for double writing. In an advertisement prefixed to his “Advice to Mr. Samuel Hartlib,” he calls it, “an instrument of small bulk and price, easily made, and very durable; whereby any man, even at the first sight and handling, may write two resembling copies of the same thing at once, as serviceably and as fast (allowing two lines upon each page for setting the instruments) as by the ordinary way, of what nature, or in what character, or what matter soever, as, paper, parchment, a book, &c. the said writing ought-to be made upon.” Rushworth also, having mentioned the patent for teaching this art, transcribes nearly our author’s words; and says, “It might be learnt in an hour’s practice, and that it was of great advantage to lawyers, scriveners, merchants, scholars, registers, clerks, &c. it saving the labour of examination, discovering or preventing falsification, and performing the whole business of writing, as with ease and speed, so with privacy also.” The additional fatigue occasioned to the hand, by the increase of weight above that of a pen, rendered this project useless as to the chief advantage proposed, that of expedition in writing: but it seems to have been applied with some alterations to the business of drawing; the instrument for which is too well known to need any description here.

Though this project therefore was not very profitable in itself, yet by this means he became acquainted with the leading men of those times. He next wrote some very sensible remarks on national education in useful branches of knowledge, in a pamphlet entitled “Advice to Mr. Hartlib for the Advancement of Learning,” and in 1648, went to Oxford, where having no scruples respecting the state of political parties, he taught anatomy to the young scholars, and became deputy to Dr. Clayton professor of anatomy, who had an insurmountable aversion to the sight of a mangled corpse. He also practised physic and chemistry with good success; and rose into such reputation, that the philosophical meetings which preceded the Royal Society, were first held (for the most part) at his lodgings: and by a parliamentary recommendation he obtained a fellowship of Brazen-nose college, in the place of one of the ejected fellows, and was created doctor of physic, March 7, 1649. He was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians, June 25, 1650. The same year, he was chiefly concerned in the recovery of a woman who had been hanged at Oxford, for the supposed murder of her bastard child*.

On Jan. 1, 1651, he was made professor of anatomy;

* This was one Ann* Green, exe- fellow stamped with all his force on her

siory is, that she was hauged by the her pain; but by the assistance of the

friends, in the mean time, thumping Clarke, she was again brought to life,

of her pain. After she was in her cof- &c. edit. 1651, and in Morgan’s Phwfin, being observed to breathe, a lusty nix, 4to. and, Feb. 7, music professor at Gresham college, by the interest of his friend Dr. Graunt. In 1652, he was appointed physician to the army in Ireland, and he was likewise physician to three lords lieutenants successively, Lambert, Fleetwood, and Henry Cromwell.

Some time after his settlement in Ireland, having observed, that the lands forfeited by the rebellion in 1641, which had been adjudged to the soldiers who suppressed it, were very insufficiently measured, he represented the matter to the persons then in power, who granted him a contract, dated Dec. 11, 1654, to make the admeasurements anew; and these he finished with such exactness, that there was no estate of 60l. per annum, and upwards, which was not distinctly marked in its true value, maps being likewise made by him of the whole. By this contract he gained a Very considerable sum of money. Besides 20s. a day, which he received during the performance, he had also a penny an acre by agreement with the soldiers: and it appears from an order of government, dated at the castle of Dublin, 19th March, 1655, that he had then surveyed 2,008,000 acres of forfeited profitable land. He was likewise one of the commissioners for setting out the lands to the army, after they were surveyed. When Henry Cromwell obtained the lieutenancy of that kingdom in 1655, he made the doctor his secretary, appointed him a clerk of the council there in 1657, and procured him to be elected a burgess for West Looe in Cornwall, in Richard CromweiPs parliament, which met Jan. 27, 1658. March the 25th following, sir Hierom Sankey, or Zanchy, member for Woodstock in Oxfordshire, impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors, in the execution of his office. This brought him into England, when, appearing in the House of Commons, April 19, he answered to the charge on the 21st; to which his prosecutors replying, the matter was adjourned, but never came to an issue, that parliament being suddenly dissolved the next day. Henry Cromwell had written a letter to secretary Thurloe, dated the llth of that month, in his favour, as follows: “Sir, I have heretofore told you my thoughts of Dr. Petty, and am still of the same opinion: and, if sir Hierom Sankey do not run him down with numbers and noise of adventurers, and such other like concerned persons, I believe the parliament will find him as I have represented. He has curiously deceived me these four years, if he be a knave. I am sure the juntos of them, who are most busy, are not men of the quietest temper. I do not expect you will have leisure, or see cause, to appear much for him; wherefore this is only to let you understand my present thoughts of him. The activeness of Robert Reynolds and others in this business, shews, that Petty is not the only mark aimed at.”

Upon his return to Ireland soon after, some further endeavours being used to bring on a prosecution, Petty published the same year, “A Brief of the Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author, with the state of the controversy between them,” in three sheets; which was followed by “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. He then came again to England and brought a very warm application in his favour from the lord lieutenant, in these terms: “Sir, the bearer, Dr. Petty, hath been my secretary, and clerk of the council here in Ireland, and is one whom I have known to be an honest and ingenious man. He is like to fall into some trouble from some who envy him. I desire you to be acquainted with him, and to assist him, wherein he shall reasonably desire it. Great endeavours have been used to beget prejudice against him; but when you speak with him, he will appear otherwise.” Notwithstanding this, he was removed from his public employments in June.

In 1659, he had enough of the republican spirit as to become a member of the Rota Club at Miles’ s coffee-house in New Palace-yard, Westminster. The whimsical scheme of this club was, that all officers of state should be chosen by balloting, and the time limited for holding their places; and that a certain number of members of parliament should be annually changed by rotation. But he returned to Ireland not long after Christmas, and at the Restoration came into England, and was received very graciously by his majesty; and, resigning his professorship at Gresham, was made one of the commissioners of the court of claims. On April 11, 1661, he received the honour of knighthood, and the grant of a new patent, constituting him surveyor-general of Ireland; and was chosen a member of parliament there. Upon the foundation of the Royal Society, he was bne of the first members, and of the first council; and, though he had left off the practice of physic, yet his name appears in the list of the fellows in the new charter of the college of physicians in 1663. About this time he invented a double-bottomed ship, to sail against wind and tide, the model of which he gave to the Royal Society. In 1665, he communicated “A Discourse about the Building of Ships,” containing some curious secrets in that art. This was said to have been taken away by lord Brounker, president of the Royal Society, who kept it in his possession till 1682, and probably till his death, as containing matter too important to be divulged. Sir William’s ship performed one voyage from Dublin to Holyhead, into which narrow harbour she turned in against wind and tide, July 1663; but after that was lost in a violent storm.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

“I would not have my funeral charge to exceed 300l. over and above which sum I allow and give 150l. to set up a monument in the church of Rumsey, near where my grandfather, father, and mother, were buried, in memory of them, and of all my brothers and sisters. I give also 5l. for a stone to be set up in Lothbury church, London, in memory of my brother Anthony, there buried about 18th October, 1649. I give also 50l. for a small monument to be set up in St. Bride’s church, Dublin, in memory of my son John, and my near kinsman, John Petty, supposing my wife will add thereunto for her excellent son, Sir William Fenton, bart. who was buried there 18th March, 1670-71; and if I myself be buried in any of the said three places, I would have Joo/. only added to the above-named sums, or that the said 100l. shall be bestowed on a monumentfor me in any other place where I shall die. As for legacies for the poor, I am at a stand as for beggars by trade and election, I give them nothing; as for impotents by the hand of God, the public ought to maintain them; as for those who have been bred to no calling nor estate, they should be put upon their kindred; as for those who can get no work, the magistrate should cause them to be employed, which may be well done in Ireland, where is fifteen acres of improvable land for every head; prisoners for crimes, by the King; for debts, by their prosecutors; as for those who compassionate the sufferings of any object, let them relieve themselves by relieving such sufferers, that is, give them alms pro re nata, and for God’s sake relieve those several species above-mentioned, where the above-mentioned obligors fail in their duties: wherefore I am contented that I have assistc I all my poor relations, and put many into a way of getting their own bread, and have laboured in public works, and by inventions have sought out real objects of charity; and do hereby conjure all who partake of my estate, from time to time to do the same at their peril. Nevertheless, to answer custom, and to take the surer side, 1 give 20l. to the most wanting of the parish wherein I die. As for the education of my children, I would that my daughter might marry in Ireland, desiring that such a sum as I have left her, might not be carried out of Ireland. I wish that my eldest son may get a gentleman’s estate in England, which, by what I have gotten already, intend to purchase, and by what I presume he may have with a wife, may amount to between 2000l. and 3000l. per ann. and buy some office he may get there, together with an ordinary superlucration may reasonably be expected; so as I may design my youngest son’s trade and employment to be the prudent management of our Irish estate for himself and his elder brother, which I suppose his said brother must consider him for. As for myself, I being now about three-score and two years old, I intend to attend the improvement of my lands in Ireland, and to get in the many debts owing unto me; and to promote the trade of iron, lead, marble, fish, and timber, whereof my estate is capable: and as for studies and experiment, I think now to confine the same to the anatomy of the people and political arithmetic as also to the improvements of ships, land- carriages, guns, and pumps, as of most use to mankind, not blaming the studies of other men. As for religion, I die in the profession of that faith, and in the practice of such worship, as I find established by the law of my country, not being able to believe what I myself please, nor to worship God better than by doing as I would be done unto, and observing the laws of my country, and expressing my love and honour to Almighty God by such signs and tokens as are understood to be such by the people with whom I live, God knowing my heart, even without any at all; and thus begging the Divine Majesty to make me what he would have me to be, both as to faith and good works, I willingly resign my soul into his hands, relying only on his infinite mercy, and the merits of my Saviour, for my happiness after this life, where I expect to know and see God more clearly than by the study of the Scriptures and of his works I have been hitherto able to do. Grant me, O Lord, an easy passage to thyself, that, as I have lived in thy fear, I may be known to die in thy favour. Amen.”

His family, at his death, consisted of his widow and three children, Charles, Henry, and Anne; of whom Charles was created baron of Shelbourne, in the county of Waterford, in Ireland, by king William III.; but dying without issue, was succeeded by his younger brother Henry, who was created viscount Dunkeron, in the county of Kerry in that kingdom, and earl of Shelbourne, Feb. 11, 1718. He married the lady Arabella Boyle, sister to Charles earl of Cork, who brought him several children. He was member of parliament for Great Marlow in Buckinghamshire, a fellow of the royal society; and died April 17, 1751. Anne was married to Thomas Fitz-Morris, baron of Kerry and Lixnaw, and died in Ireland, anno 1737. The descent to the present marquis of Lansdown may be seen in the peerage.

"I remember there was a great difference between him and sir (Hierom Sankey), one of Oliver’s knights, about 1660. They printed one against the other. * The knight had been a soldier, and challenged sir William to fight with him. Sir William is extremely short-sighted, and being the cballengee it belonged to him to nominate place and weapon. He nominates for the. place a dark cellar, and the weapon to be a great carpenter’s axe. This turned the knight’s challenge into ridicule, and it came to nought Sir William can be an excellent droll, if he has a mind to it, and will preach extempore incomparably, either in the presbyterian way, independent, capucin friar, or Jesuit.

“He told me that he never gott by legacies in his life but only 10l. which was not payd. He hath told me, that whereas some men have accidentally come into the way of preferment by lying at an inne, and there contracting an acquaintance, on the roade; or as some others have donne: he never had any such like opportunity, but hewed out his fortune himselfe.”

The variety of pursuits in which sir William Petty was engaged, shews him to have had a genius capable of any thing to which he chose to apply it; and it is very extraordinary, that a man of so active and busy a spirit could find time to write so many things, as it appears he did by the following catalogue 1. “Advice to Mr. S. Hartlib,” &c. 1648, 4to. 2. “A brief of Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author,” &c. 1659, fol. 3. “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. 1660, 8vo. 4.' “A Treatise of Taxes and Contribution,” &c. 1662, 1667, 1685, 4to, all without the author’s name. This last was republished in 1690, with two other anonymous pieces, “The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments,” and “The Politician discovered” with a new tide-page, where they are all said to be written by sir William, which, as to the first, is a mistake. 5. “Apparatus to the hjstory of the common practice of Dyeing,” printed in Sprat’s History of the R. S. 1667. 6. “A Discourse concerning the use of Duplicate Proportion, together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastic Motions,” 1674, i 2mo. See an account of it in “Phil. Trans.” No. cix. and a censure of it in Dr. Barlow’s “Genuine Remains,” p. 151. 1693, -8vo. 7.“Colloquium Davidis cum aniina sua,” &c. 1679, fol. 8. “.The Politician discovered,” &c. 1681, 4to. 9. “An Essay in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1682, 8vo. 10. “Observations upon the Dublin Bills of Mortality in 1681,” &c. 1683, 8vo. II. “An account of some Experiments relating to Land-carriage,” Phil. Trans. No. clxi. 12. “Some Queries, whereby to examine Mineral Waters,” ibid. No. clxvi. 13. “A Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,” &c. ibid. No. clxvii. 14. “Maps of Ireland, being an actual Survey of the whole kingdom,” &c. 1685, folio. This contained thirty-six accurate maps viz. a general map the province of Leinster, consisting of eleven counties, each in a distinct map that of Munster of six Ulster nine; and Connaught five. Another edition was afterwards made from the same plates. Sir William’s surveys, says Mr. Gough, as far as they go are tolerably exact as to distances and situations, but neither the latitudes nor roads are expressed, nor is the sea-coast exactly laid down; his design being only to take an account of the forfeited lands; many other tracts are left blank, and from such a survey his maps are formed. 15. “An Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind,” 1686, 8vo. N. B. The Essay is not printed here, but only the substance of it. 16. “A further assertion, concerning the Magnitude of London, vindicating it from the objections of the French,” Phil. Trans, clxxxv. 17, “Two Essays in Political Arithmetic,” c. 1687, 8vo. An extract of these is in Phil. Trans. No. clxxxiii. 18. “Five Essays in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1687, 8vo, printed in French and English on opposite pages. 19. “Observations upon London and Rome,” 1687, 8vo, three leaves. His posthumous pieces are, 1. “Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1690, 8vo, and 1755, with his Life prefixed; and a Letter of his never before printed. 2. “The Political Anatomy of Ireland,” to which is added, “Verbum Sapienti,” 1691, 1719. In the title-page of the second edition this treatise is called “Sir William Petty’s Political Survey of Ireland.” This latter was criticized in “A Letter from a gentleman,” &cr. 1692, 4to. 3. “A treatise of Naval Philosophy, in three parts,” &c. printed at the end of “An account of several new Inventions, &c. in a discourse by way of letter to the earl of Marlborougb,” &c. 1691, 12mo. Wood suspects this may be the same with the discourse about the building of ships, mentioned above to be many years in the hands of lord Brounker. 4. “What a complete Treatise of Navigation should contain,” Phil. Trans. No. cxcviii. This was drawn up in 1685. Besides these, the following are printed in Birch’s History of the H. S. 1. “A discourse of making Cloth and Sheep’s Wool.” This contains the history of the clothing trade, as No. 5. above, does that of dyeing; and he purposed to have done the like in other trades; in which design some other members of the society engaged also at that time. 2. “Supellex Philosophica.”

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

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

In 1680 he asserted the “Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, in a discourse proving by records, &c. that they were ever an essential part of parliament,” 8vo. This gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which the following pieces were published, 1. “Jani Anglorum facies nova, or several monuments of antiquity touching the great councils of this kingdom and the courts of the king’s immediate tenants and otficers,” 1680, 8vo, said to be written by Mr. Atwood. 2. “A full Answer to a book written by William Pettyt, esq. with a true account of the famous Colloquium, or Parliament 40 Hen. Ill and a glossary expounding some few words in ancient records, together with some animadversions on a book called Jani Anglorum facies nova,” 1683, 8vo. 3. “Jus Anglorum ab antique, or a confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords and commons, under the pretence of answering Mr. Pettyt, and the author of * Jam Anglorum facies nova,'” 1681, 8vo. 4. “Argumentum Anunormanicum; or an argument proving from ancient histories and records, that William duke of Normandy made no absolute conquest in England,” 1682, 8vo. This is thought by Dr. Brady to be also written by Mr. Atwood; but by others it is attributed to Mr. Cooke. To this an answer afterwards appeared by the principal champion in the dispute, Dr. Robert Brady, who collected all he had written on the occasion into “An Introduction to the Old English History, in three tracts,” and by the same author the same subject was connected with “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs, or Boroughs,” (See Brady) 1704, 1711,fol. 1777, 8vo.

, a celebrated physician and mathematician, was born at Bautzen in Lusatia in 1525, and became a doctor and professor of medicine at Wirtemberg. He married a daughter of Melancthon, whose principles he contributed to diffuse, and whose works he published at Wirtemberg in 1601, in five volumes folio. He had an extreme ardour for study. Being for ten years in close imprisonment, on account of his opinions, he wrote his thoughts on the margins of old books which they gave him for amusement, making his ink of burnt crusts of bread, infused in wine. He died at seventy-eight, on the 25th of September, 1602. He wrote several tracts, 1. “De praecipuis divinationum generibus,” 1584, 4to. 2. Methodus curatidi morbos internes,“Francfort, 1614, 8vo. 3.” De Febribus,“1614, 4to. 4.” Vita? illustrium medicowjm.“5.” Hypotheses astronomicas.“6.” Les no, us des Monnoies, des Poids, et Mesures," 8vo. His character, as drawn by himself, is that of a man who did no injury to any one, but, on the contrary, gave all the aid in his power to all who might require it. For these things he calls God to witness.

, a celebrated scholar, was born at Augsburg in 1465, and studied successfully in the principal cities of Italy. When he returned home he was appointed secretary to the senate of Augsburg, and employed by that body in the diets of the empire, and in the various courts of Europe. In his private character he conferred happiness on an excellent and learned wife; and, in his public, was always rendering essential services to his country. This excellent citizen died at eighty-two, in 1574, having lost his faculties for some time before. He is most known by an ancient itinerary, which from him is called “Tabula Peutingeriana.” It is a curious chart found in a monastery in Germany, and communicated to Peutinger by one Conrad Celtes. It was formed under the reign of Theodosius the Great, and marks the roads by which the Roman armies passed at that time to the greater part of the empire. It is not a geographical work, and seems to have been made by a Roman soldier, who thought of nothing, or perhaps knew nothing, but what respected the roads, and the places for encampment. A magnificent but now very scarce edition of it was published by F. C. Scheib at Vienna in 1753, fol. Peutinger’s own works are, 1. “Sermones convivales,” in the collection of Schardius; Jena, 1683, 8vo. 2. “De inclinatione Romani imperil, et gentium commigrationibus,” subjoined to the former, and to Procopi us. 3. “De rebus Gothorum,” Bale, 1531, fol. 4, “Romanae Vetustatis fragmenta, in Augusta Vindelicorum,” Mayence, 1528, fol.

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

, first surgeon to the king, was distinguished above all the eminent surgeons who have appeared in France, by his ardent zeal for the progress and improvement of surgery, and the sums he expended for that purpose. He was born in 1678, and died April 24, 1747. Among the important services he rendered his country, we find that he procured the establishment of the “Royal Academy of Surgery” at Paris in 17.51; and left his library, and estate of Marigny, to the company of surgeons in that city, who sold them to his majesty for 200,000 livres; he also appointing the same company universal legatees to two-thirds of his property, M. de la Peyronie bequeathed to the surgeon’s company of Montpeilier, two houses situated there, with 100,000 livres, for the erection of an amphitheatre for surgery; and also left the said company universal legatees to the third part of his property. Every clause in his will tended to the public good, and the encouragement and improvement of surgery, by which, as well as by his talents, this celebrated surgeon rendered his name immortal in France.

, was born at Paris, with a natural turn for literature, but entered into the military line, and was captain of dragoons, in which situation he had the honour to be the instructor of Louis XVI. in the art of tactics. Being appointed inspector-general of the coasts, he executed his office with considerable attention; but having made enemies, by a decree of haughtiness in his manner, complaints were lodged against him, which caused him to be banished to his own estate. In this situation he died soon after, in 1778. He cultivated the Muses a good deal, and was intimate with Dorat, whose style he imitated. His poems have an elegance which makes amends for a certain degree of negligence.' Such: as, 1. “Zelie au bain,” a poem in six cantos 2 A Letter from Ovid to Julia. 3. Several fugitive pieces published in the Almanach des Muses. 4. An indifferent translation of Catullus. 5. “Les Soirees Helvetiennes, Alsaciennes, & Franc-Comtoises,” 1770, 8vo, a work agreeably varied, but not sufficiently correct in style. 6. “La Rosiere de Salency,” a pastoral, in three acts, which was approved. 7. “Les Campagnes de Maillebois,” 3 vols. 4to, printed in 1775, and now rare and of great value in France. 8. There is said also to be extant a manuscript work entitled “Les Soirees Proven9ales,” not inferior to his “Soirees Helvetiennes.”

, a learned Jesuit, born at Avignon in 1692, where he died some little time after 1770, was for a long time professor of physics and hydrography at Marseilles. His works and translations on these and similar subjects are very numerous: 1. “Elemens du Pilotages,” 1737, 12mo. 2. A translation of Maclaurin’s Fluxions, 1749, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Pratique du pilotage,” 1749, 8vo. 4. “Theory and practice of gauging,” 8vo. 5. “Maclaurin’s Algebra translated,” 1750, 8vo. He translated also the Course of Experimental Philosophy by Desaguliers, Dyche’s Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, which was supplanted by Prevot’s “Manuel Lexique,” Ward’s Young Mathematician’s Guide, and Smith’s Optics. From the German he translated Baker’s Treatise of the Microscope, 1754. His ideas and language were clear, and he was esteemed for the mildness and agreeableness of his character, as well as for his talents.

, a learned and ingenious Frenchman, was born at Hennebon in Bretagne, in 1639 and admitted of the order of Cistercians in 1660. He made the scriptures the principal object of his study: aware of the assistance to be derived from profane history, he read with attention the ancient Greek and Latin historians. His judgment, however, did not improve with his erudition, as appeared by a new system, which he communicated to the public, in a work printed at Paris in 1687, 4to, and called “L‘Antiquite’ des temps retablie,” &c. that is, “The Antiquity of Time restored, and defended, against the Jews and modem Chronologers.” His design here is to prove, upon the authorities of the septuagint and profane history, that the world is more ancient than modern chronologers have supposed; and that, instead of 4000 years between the creation of the world and the birth of Christ, there were almost 6000. The great principle on which this supposition is built is, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, who otherwise must have been forced to acknowledge, upon their own principles, that the Messiah was actually come. Pezron’s book was extremely admired for the ingenuity and learning of it; yet created, as was natural, no small alarm among the religious. Martianay, a Benedictine, and Le Quien, a Dominican, wrote against tnis new system, and undertook the defence of the Hebrew text Martianay with great zeal and heat, Le Quien with more judgment and knowledge. Pezron published, “Defense de l'Antiquite des temps,” in 1691, 4to; which, like the work itself, abounded with curious and learned researches. Le Quien replied, but Martianay brought the affair into another court; and, in 1693, laid the books and principles of Pezron before M. de Harlai, archbishop of Paris. Harlai communicated the representation of this adversary to Pezron; who defended himself with so much ingenuity as to render the accusation of no effect.

Pezron was the author of other curious and learned works, as, “Antiquité de la Nation & de la Langue de Celtes,” in 1703, 8vo; “Dissertation touchant L'ancienne demeure des Cananeens,” printed in the Memoires de Trevoux, for July 1703; and “Dissertation sur les anciennes & veritables bornes de la Terre Promise,” in the same Memoires, for June 1705; “Essai d'un Commentaire litteral & historique sur les Prophetes,” 1693, 12mo; and “Histoire Evangelique confirmée par la Judaïque & la Romaine,” 1696, in 2 vols. 8vo.

This ingenious and learned man died October 10, 1706, aged 67; having gone through several promotions, the last of which was the abbey of Charmoye, to which he was nominated by the king, in 1697.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, was born May 28, 165), at Pfullingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg. He taught theology with reputation at Tubingen, and died there February 6, 1720,“leaving” A collection of Controversies;“” A dissertation on the passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New;“and other works in Latin, which are esteemed. Christopher Matthew Pfaff, one of his sons, was professor of divinity, and chancellor of the university of Tubingen, and has also written several learned works in Latin; among others,” Institutiones Theologicx,“1719 and 1721, 8vo; and” S. Irenaei fragmenta anecdota,“8vo, Greek and Latin, with many doctrinal and critical works; hut the most valuable of all is his” Introductio in Historiam Theologiae Literariam," 1724, 3 vols. 4to. This is a complete system of theological bibliography, and particularly accurate in what relates to English authors and English books.

, the son of a counsellor at Augsburg, born in 1641, was secretary of the archives to the duke of Saxe Gotha, and instructor of the princes Ernest, and John-Ernest, in history and politics. He so well fulfilled his duties in these situations, that he was promoted to a higher place, of secretary to the Ernestine branch of the family; and was so deeply learned in matters of record, that he was called the living archives of the house of Saxony. His manners were pure, but his temper inclined to melancholy, which was thought to be increased by too intense application to study. He died at Gotha in 1717. His principal works are; 1. “The History of the Peace of Westphalia,” 8vo, the best edition is 1697. 2. “The History of the Assemblies of 1652 4,” Weimar, 1694, 8vo. 3. “The Treaties of the German Princes.” 4. “The Theology of the Pagans.” 5. “A Treatise on the Principle of historic Faith.” All these are written in Latin, not so much with elegance, as with strict care and exactness.

, was a famous converted Jew, of whom it is recorded that he would have persuaded the emperor Maximilian to cause all the Hebrew books to be burned, except the Bible: “because (said he) they contain magic, blasphemies, and other dangerous things.” The emperor, astonished with this report, was so far wrought upon, as to publish an edict, in 1510, by which he ordered all the Hebrew books to be carried to a certain house, that those which contained any blasphemy might be burnt. Capnio, however, shewed the danger of this edict, and was supported by Ulric de Hutten: many writings were published on both sides; but Capnio at length prevailed, and the edict was not executed. It is commonly believed, that Pfeffercorn was so chagrined with this, as to return to Judaism; and that he was burned alive in 1515, for profaning the eucharist, at Hall; but this must have been another person of his name, since this Pfeffercorn was living in 1517. He is the author of some Latin pieces, and among the rest of one “De abolendis Judasorum scriptis.”

, a German orientalist, was born at Lawenbourg in 1640. He professed the oriental languages at Wirtemberg, at Leipsic, and in other places, and in 1690 was called to Lubeck to be superintendant of the churches. In that city he died, in January 1698. When only rive years old he was near losing his life by a fall, which fractured his skull. His sister discovered accidentally that he was not quite dead, and he was restored, when actually on the point of being buried. He wrote, 1. “Pansophia Mosaica.” 2. “Critica Sacra,” Dresden, 3680, 8vo. 3 “DeMasora.” 4. “De trihaeresi Judaeorum.” 5. “Sciagraphia Systematica Antiquitatum Hebraearum.” His philosophical works were collected at Utrecht in 4to, but are not now much known or esteemed. His learned works are better, though heavy.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of EHs, was originally a slave but, when Socrates had obtained his freedom, and he became that great man’s disciple, studied philosophy, and, retiring to Elis, established a distinct school called from the place of his birth the Eliac, or Eliatic school, which was continued by Plistanus and Menedemus. Plato, in honour of him, gave the name of Phcedo to one of his dialogues. Phaedo wrote several dialogues in defence of Socrates, and never left him till his death. He flourished 400 B. C.

, an ancient Latin author, who wrote five books of “Fables” in Iambic verse, was a Thracian and was born, as there is reason to suppose, some years before Julius Caesar made himself master of the Roman empire. His parentage is uncertain; though some have imagined his liberal education to be an argument that it was not mean. Perhaps he might have been made captive by Octavius, the father of the emperor Augustus; for we read, that while Octavius was prcetor in Macedonia, he gave the Thracians a very great overthrow. This fell out the same year that Q. Cicero was proconsul of Asia, and Csesar sole consul at Rome. As this opinion would carry his age pretty high, Phsedrus outliving the 18th year of Tiberius, pome have therefore rejected it, though with little reason; since many proofs may be collected, from his Fables, that he lived to be very old. How he came into the service of Augustus is unknown: but his being called “Augustus’s freedman,” in the title of his book, shews that he had been that emperor’s slave. It should seem as if he had arrived early in life at Rome for he quotes a line from “Ennius,” which, he says, he remembers to have read when he was a boy and it is not probable that he should have read it before he left Thrace. He received his freedom from Augustus, and no doubt such a competency, as enabled him to enjoy that valuable gift. He expresses a great regard for that prince’s memory, which he had indeed the more reason to do, since misfortunes overtook him after his decease. Under Tiberius, he was unjustly persecuted by Sejanus, to which he has frequently alluded in his “Fables;” and particularly in the preface to his third book. We know not the cause of this persecution, but it was not for his wealth: he represents himself, in the very same place, as a man who had never cared to hoard up riches; and mentions this as one of the reasons which should facilitate his promotion to the rank of a poet. He seems to have written all his Fables after the death of Augustus; the third book he certainly wrote after that of Sejanus, who perished in the eighteenth year of Tiberius; for, in the dedication of that book to his patron Eutychus, he has mentioned the favourite with a resentment which would never have been pardoned had he been living. How long Phsedrus survived him, is uncertain; but, supposing him to have lived a little longer, he must have been above seventy at his death; for so many years there are from Caesar’s first dictatorship to the eighteenth of Tiberius. Chronologers place him between 41 and 54 A. C.

The Fables of Phaedrus are generally valued for their wit and good sense, expressed in great purity, terseness, and elegance of language: and they who, like Scioppius, imagine they discover something foreign and barbarous in the style, form their criticisms upon the knowledge that JMuvdrus was a Thracian. They might as well object solecisms and false Latin to Terence, because he x wus born in Africa. We cannot, however, but observe it as somewhat singular, that the Roman language has been transmitted to posterity, in its greatest purity 'and elegance, by two slaves, who were brought from countries by the Romans deemed barbarous.

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

, a Welsh physician and poet, a native of Pembrokeshire, and the first English translator of Virgil, was educated at Oxford, whence he removed to LincolnVinn, to undertake the study of the law. So far was he in earnest, for a time, in this pursuit, that he published two books on subjects of law; one on the nature of writs, and the other, what is now called a book of precedents. Why he quitted law for physic is unknown, but he became a bachelor and a doctor in the latter faculty, both in 1559, and his medical works were collected at London in 1560. They consist chiefly of compilations and translations from the French. Among his poetical works is “The Regimen of Life,” translated from the French, London, 1544, 8vo. The story of “Owen Glendower,” in the “Mirror for Magistrates;” and his translation of the first nine books, and part of the tenth, of Virgil’s uEneid. There is a commendatory poem by him prefixed to Philip Betham’s “Military Precepts.” Warton mentions also an entry in the stationers’ books for printing “serten verses of Cupydo by Mr. Fayre,” and that he had seen a ballad called “Gadshill” by Faire, both which names were probably intended for that of Phaer. His translation of the first seven books of Virgil was printed in 1558, by John Kyngston, and dedicated to queen Mary. The two next books, with part of the tenth, were translated afterwards by him, and published after his death by William Wightman, in 1562. He has curiously enough marked at the end of each book the time when it was finished, and the time which it cost him in translating; which amounts, at separate intervals between the year 1555 and 1560, to 202 days, without reckoning the fragment of the tenth book. It appears, that during the whole of this period he resided very much at his patrimonial territory in Kilgerran forest, in South Wales. The fifth book is said, at the end, to have been finished on the 4th of May, 1557, “post periculum ejns Karmerdini,” which, whether it relates to some particular event in his life, or means that he made a trial upon it at Caermarthen, is a little uncertain; probably the former. Wightman says that he published all he could find among his papers; but conjectures, nevertheless, that he had proceeded rather further, from the two lines which he translated the very day before his death, and sent to Wightman. They are these,

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

was a famous tyrant of Agrigentum, in Sicily, who having made himself master of that city about 571A.C. exercised the most unheard of cruelties, and caused a brazen bull to be formed, in which those whom he condemned were to be burnt alive. When Perillus, the author of the cruel invention, demanded his reward, Phalaris ordered him to be the first person put to death in the machine. The people of Agrigentum at length rose, and burnt Phalaris himself in it, 563 A. C. We have some letters to this tyrant under the name of Abaris, with the answers, which occasioned the memorable controversy between Bentley and Boyle, to whose articles we refer for the particulars of it. These letters were printed at the Sorbonne about 1470, 4to; at Trevisa, 1471, 4to; and Oxford, 1718, 8vo; and the controversy itself has been translated at large into Latin, and republished, with the epistles by Lennep, 1777, 4to.

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

, an eminent philosopher, and the first preceptor of Pythagoras, was a native of the island of Scyrus, one of the Cyclades, near Delos, and flourished about the 45th olympiad, or B. C. 600. It has been maintained, with great erudition, that Pherecydes derived his principles of philosophy and theogony from the sacred books of the Phoenicians; but little dependence, Brucker thinks, is to be placed upon the authorities by which this opinion is supported; and it will appear, upon inquiry, that the tenets of this philosopher were not less similar to those of the most ancient Grecian and barbaric philosophers, than to the doctrine of the Phoenicians. The opinion of Josephus, that Pherecydes studied philosophy in Egypt, seems more probable; for Egypt was, at that universally resorted to as the seat of learning; the symbolical method of teaching, which was made use of by Pherecydes, was perfectly after the Egyptian manner; and the general aspect of his doctrine bears a strong resemblance to the dogmas of the Egyptian school.

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

, the most celebrated sculptor of antiquity, was an Athenian, and a contemporary of the celebrated Pericles, who flourished in the 83d olympiad, or B.C. 440 to 450. This wonderful artist was not only consummate in the use of his tools, but accomplished in those sciences and branches of knowledge which belong to his profession; as history, poetry, fable, geometry, optics, &c. He first taught the Greeks to imitate nature perfectly in this way; and all his works, distinguished for their grandeur and sublimity, were received with admiration. They were also incredibly numerous; for he united the greatest facility with the greatest perfection. His Nemesis was ranked among his first works: and is said to have been carved out of a block of marble which was found in the camp of the Persians, after they were defeated in the plains of Marathon. He made an excellent statue of Minerva for the Plateaus; but the statue of this goddess, in her magnificent temple at Athens, of which there are still some ruined remains, was a more astonishing production of human art. Pericles, who had the care of this pompous edifice, gave orders to Phidias, whose talents he well knew, to make a statue of the goddess; and Phidias formed a figure of ivory and gold, thirty-nine feet high. Writers never speak of this illustrious monument of skill without raptures; yet what has rendered the name of the artist immortal, proved at that time his ruin. He had carved upon the shield of the goddess his own portrait and that of Pericles, which the envious censured as a crime. He was also charged with embezzling part of the materials which were designed for the statue. Upon this he withdrew to Elis, and took a most honourable revenge over the ungrateful Athenians, by making for that place the Olympic Jupiter, which was afterwards ranked among the most wonderful pieces of art in the world. It was executed with astonishing sublimity of conception; its dimensions being sixty feet high, and every way proportioned. * c The majesty of the work equalled the majesty of the God,“says Quintilian;” and its beauty seems to have added lustre to the religion of the country." Phidias concluded his labours witu this master-piece; and the Eleans, to do honour to his memory, appropriated to his descendants an office, which consisted in preserving from injury this magnificent image.

, a learned Italian, was born in 1398, at Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He studied at Padua, where he made such progress, that at eighteen he became professor of eloquence. The fame of his talents having gained him an invitation to Venice, he was honoured with the rank of citizen, and was sent by the republic as secretary to their embassy at Constantinople in 1419, and he took advantage of this employment to make himself master of Greek. He there married Theodora, daughter of the learned Emmanuel Chrysoloras, about 1419. Becoming at length known to the emperor John Palaeologus, he was sept on an embassy to Sigismund emperor of Germany, to implore his aid against the Turks. After this he taught at Venice, Florence, Siena, Bologna, and Milan, with astonishing success. He was not, however, without his defects. He wished to reign alone in the republic of letters, and could not bear contradiction without being extremely irritated. He would dispute on the most trivial points; and once wagered 100 crowns, on some minute question of grammar, against the beard of a Greek philosopher named Timotheus. Having won, no solicitation could prevail upon him to remit the fine, and he most unmercifully shaved his antagonist, in spite of very ample offers. To this presumptuous turn he joined a prodigality and a restlessness, which filled his life with uneasiness. Menage has accused him of destroying a copy of Cicero “De Gloria,” the only one then existing, after having transfused the greater part of it into a treatise of his own; but it does not appear that this accusation was just. Other learned men have been also suspected; but all that is certain is, that the work was extant in the time of Petrarch, who mentions having a copy of it, which has since been utterly lost. Philelphus died at Florence July 31, 1481, being then 83. His works consist of odes, dialogues, orations, &c. of which the following editions are in most request: 1. “Orationes et nonnulla alia opera, Plutarchi apophthegmata, ab eodem e Graeco in Latinum con versa,” 4to. This is a very rare edition, and contains a letter from Philelphus to Maria Sforza, dated from Milan, 1481. There are reprints at Venice in 1482, 1491, 1492, &c. but of little value. 2. “Odae,” Brix. 1497, 4to. 3. “Satyrarum Hecatosticon prima decas (decades decem),” Milan, 1476, small folio, of uncommon rarity. 4. “Satyrarum decades deceni,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 5. “Satyrae centum distinctae decem decadibus Catholicis passim refertoe sententiis: praemissa authoris vita ab Egid. Perrino Campano, &c.” Paris, 1508. De Bure says, that the life announced in the title of this edition is not to be found in such copies as he has seen. 6. “Epistolarum familiarum libri triginta septem,” Venice, 1502, folio. 7. “Fabulae,” Venice, 1480, 4to. In his letters are innumerable proofs of his arrogant and suspicious temper. His works, collected, were published at Basle in 1739.

, an Athenian comic poet, contemporary with Menander, whose rival he was, and though inferior, was frequently successful against him by means of intrigue or the partiality of friends, was, by the account of Suidas, a Syracusan by birth; but Strabo says that he was born at Solae, in Cilicia. He was some years older than Menander, and in the opinion of Quintilian fairly next to him in merit, though unfit to be preferred to him. Apuleius speaks still more favourably, saying only that he was fortasse impar; and adds, that there are to be found in his dramas “many witty strokes, plots ingeniously disposed, discoveries strikingly brought to light, characters well adapted to their parts, sentiments that accord with human life, jests that do not degrade the sock, and gravity that does not intrench upon the buskin.” Philemon, who flourished 274 B.C. lived to the extraordinary age of 101 years, and composed ninety comedies. Menander, indeed, composed more, and in less time, but even this was extraordinary. His longevity was the result of great temperance, and a placid frame of mind. Frugal, to a degree that subjected him to the charge of avarice, he never weakened his faculties or constitution by excess: and he summed up all his wishes in one rational and moderate petition to heaven, which throws a most favourable light upon his character: “I pray for health in the first place; in the next, for success in my undertakings; thirdly, for a cheerful heart; and lastly, to be out of debt to all mankind.” A petition which seems to have been granted in all its parts. As he lived in constant serenity oi mind, so he died without pain of body; for, having called together a number of his friends to the reading of a play which he had newly finished, and sitting, as was the custom in that serene climate, under the open canopy of heaven, an unforeseen fall of ruin broke up the company, just when the old man had g'>t into the third act, in the very wannest interests of his fahle. His hearers, disappointed by this unlucky check to their entertainment, interceded with him for the remainder on the day following, to which he readily assented; and a great company being then assembled, whom the fame of the rehearsal had brought together, they sat a considerable time in expectation of the poet, till wearied out with waiting, and unable to account for his want of punctuality, some of his intimates were dispatched in quest of him, who, having entered his house, and made their way to his chamber, found the old man dead on his couch, in his usual meditating posture, his features placid and composed, and with every symptom that indicated a death without pain or struggle. The fragments of Philemon are in general of a sentimental tender cast; and though they enforce sound and strict morality, yet no one instance occurs of that gloomy misanthropy, that harsh and dogmatizing spirit, which too often marks the maxims of his more illustrious rival. They were collected and published by Grotius, together with those of Menander; the greater part having been preserved by Stobtcns. Several of them, as well as the fragments of the other Greek comic poets, have been translated by Mr. Cumberland in his “Observer,” to which we refer our readers for further information.

, an eminent musician and chess-player, born at Dreuxin 1726, was descended from a long line of musical ancestors, who, in different branches of the art, had been attached to the court ever since the time of Louis XIII. The family-name was Danican; and it is pretended that this monarch, himself a dilettante musician, occasioned the surname of Philidor, a famous performer on the hautbois, whom this prince had heard in his progress through France, to be given to Danican, whose instrument being the hautbois, when the king heard him perform, he cried out, “Here’s anotuer Philidor!” Andrew was educated as a page or chorister in the chapelroyal, under Citmpra, and in 1737 he produced his first anthem, which was performed in the chapel, and complimented by the king as an extraordinary production for a child of eleven years old. On his change of voice, and quitting the chapel, he established himselt at Paris, where he subsisted by a few scholars, and by copying music; but every year he went to Versailles with a new motet.

The progress which he had made at chess awakened in him a desire to travel, in order to try his fortune; and in 1745 he set out for Holland, England, Germany, &c. In these voyages he formed his taste in music upon the best Italian models. In 1753 he tried his strength as a musical composer in London, by new setting Dryden’s ode on St. Cecilia’s day. Handel is said, by his biographer, to have found his chorusses well written, but discovered a want of taste in his airs. As his time was more occupied by chess than music, he printed in London, by a large subscription, in 1749, his “Analysis of the Game of Chess.” In 1754 he returned to Paris, in the month of November, and devoted his whole time to music. He had his “Laudaj Jerusalem” performed at Versailles; but it was found to be too Italian; and as the queen of Louis XV. disliked that style of music in the church, his hopes of obtaining, by this composition, a place of m<rftre de chapelle, were frustrated.

In 1757 he composed an act of a serious opera; but Ribel, opera-manager, would not let it be performed, telling him that he would have no airs introduced in the scenes of that theatre. From this time, however, to 1779, he composed various operas for the French stage, that were much approved. In the last-mentioned year, he composed, in London, “The Carmen Seculare,” of Horace,“in the conduct of which, Philidor placed himself under the guidance of Baretti. The performance was attended, at Freemasons’ Hall, by all persons of learning and talents, in expectation of a revival of the music of the ancients, and, by many, of its miraculous powers. To wh,it kind of music the” Carmen Seculare" was performed at Rome, we pretend not to say; but in London, adds Dr. Burney, we could trace the composer’s models for the chorusses in the oratorios of Handel, and the operas of Rameau; and for the airs, in his own comic operas, and the favourite melodies then in vogue in that theatre, many of which, with Italian words and Italian singing, particularly those of Gretry, would he elegant and pleasing music any where. Philidor, however, in setting the secular ode, it must be confessed, manifested his knowledge of counterpoint in the style of the old masters; and that, in spite of chess, he had found time for the serious study of music. We believe that no one found himself much the wiser concerning the music of the ancients, after hearing this music performed to Latin words, than after hearing an oratorio of Handel, or an opera of Rameau. For the last two months of his life, he was kept alive merely by art, and the kind attentions of an old and worthy friend. To the last moment of his existence he enjoyed, though near seventy years of age, a strong retentive memory, which had long rendered him remarkable in the circle of his acquaintance in this capital. Mr. Philidor was a member of the chess-club riear 30 years; and was a man of those meek qualities that rendered him not less esteemed as a companion than admired for his extraordinary skill in the intricate and arduous game of chess, fpr which he was pre-eminently distinguished. Not two months before his death he played two games blindfold, at the same time, against two excellent chess-players, and was declared the conqueror. What seemed most to have shook the poor old man’s constitution, and to have precipitated his exit, was the not being able to procure a passport to return to France to visit his family, who were living there, before he paid the last debt of nature. But this refusal was rendered more bitter, on its being intimated that he was a suspected character, and had been one of those persons denounced by a committee of French informers. From the moment he was made acquainted with this circumstance, he became the martyr of grief: his philosophy forsook him; his tears incessantly flowed; and he sunk into the grave without a groan, oil the 3 1st of August, 1795.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Luxemburg, in the vicinity of St. Hubert’s, in the Ardennes, in 1575. He entered the society of the Jesuits at the age of twenty-one: and besides his other accomplishments, was distinguished for his knowledge of scriptural history and chronology. After taking the degree of doctor of divinity, he was employed, according to the usual practice of his order, in teaching philosophy, scholastic divinity, and biblical literature, in the universities of Gratz, Vienna, and Prague. He died at Ratisbon in 1636, about the age of 6 I, leaving, among other works of inferior importance, 1. “Chronologica Synopsis sacrorum Temporum,” 1624. 2. “Manuale Chronologicum veteris Testamenti,” 1635. 3. “Chronologic Veteris Testament! accuratum Examen,” 1637, &c.

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

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

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

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

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.

, one of the nephews of Milton, Was the son of Edward Phillips, who came from Shrewsbury, and rose to be secondary in the Crown-office, by Anne, sister of the celebrated poet, and was born in the Strand, near Charing-cross, in August 1630, and received his earliest education under his uncle. In 1648 he became a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued till 1651. The time of his death is not ascertained. He published two small works, entitled “Tractatulus de carmine Dramatico Poetarum, praesertim in choris Tragicis, et veteris Comediae,” and “Compendiosa enumeratio Poetarum (saltern quorum fama maxime enituit) qui atempore Dantis Aligerii usque ad hanc aetatem claruerunt; nempe Italorum, Germanorum, Anglorum, &c.” These were added to the seventeenth edition of Job. Buchlerus’s book, entitled “Sacrarum profanarumque phrasium poeticarum Thesaurus,” &c. Lond. 1669, 8vo. But he is better known by his “Theatrum Poetarum, or a compleat collection of the Poets, especially the most eminent of all ages, the Ancients distinguish't from the Moderns in their several alphabets. With some observations- and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our own nation. Together with a prefatory discourse of the Poets and Poetry in general,” Lond. 1675. Into this work there is, says Warton, good reason to suppose that Milton threw many additions and corrections. It contains criticisms far above the taste of that period, and such as were not common after the national taste had been just corrupted by the false and capricious refinements of the court of Charles II. The preface, however, discovers more manifest traces of Milton’s hand than the book itself.

To Edward Phillips, Wood attributes the following works, most of which render it probable that he was an author by profession 1 “A new World of English Words, or General Dictionary, &c.” Lond. 1657, folio. Jn this he had made so much use of JBlouiu’s “Glossographia,” without acknowledgment, that the latter complained of the injury in a letter to Wood, and speaks of Phillips, as a “beggarly half-witted scholar, hired for the purpose by some of the law-booksellers,” to transcribe that in four or five months, which cost him (Blount) twice as many years in compiling. At last he was provoked to expose Phillips in a pamphlet entitled “A world of Errors discovered in the New World of Words,” 1673, folio. Phillips had a yet more formidable antagonist in Skinner, who in his “Etymologicon” takes many opportunities to expose his ignorance. 2. A supplement to “Speed’s Theatre,” 1676, folio. 3. A continuation of “Baker’s Chronicle.” 4. “Tractatulus de modo et ratione formandi voces derivativas Latinae Linguae,” 1684, 4to. 5. “Enchiridion Linguae Latinae, or a compendious Latin Dictionary, &c.” 1684, 8vo. 6. “Speculum Linguae Latinos,” 1684, 4to. These two last are chiefly taken from Milton’s ms Latin “Thesaurus.” 7. “Poem on the coronation of his most sacred majesty James II. and his royal consort our gracious queen Mary,” 1685, folio. He also published an edition of Drummond of Hawthornden’s poems, in 1656; and translated Pausanias into Latin; and, into English, two novels from J. Perez de Montalvan; and “The Minority of St. Lewis, with the politic conduct of affairs by his mother queen Blanch of Spain, during her regency,” 1685, 12mo. But next to his “Theatrum,” we are mostly indebted to him for his life of his illustrious uncle.

, the other nephew of Milton, appears to have been at first a warm adherent to his uncle’s political opinions, and published “Milton’s Defensio” in answer to the “Apologia pro rege, &c.” which was falsely ascribed to bishop Bramhall. His other publications imply some change of sentiment, particularly his “Satyr against Hypocrites,” published about the time of the restoration, and reprinted in 1671 and 1680, 4to. These other writings, according to Wood, are, 1. “Montelion; or the prophetic almanack for the year 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Maronides; or Virgil Travestie,” a burlesque on the 5th and 6th books of the Eneid,“1672 and 1673, 8vo, and reprinted together in 1678. 3.” Duellum Musicum,“printed with Locke’s” Present practice of Musick vindicated.“4.” Mercurius Verax; or the prisoner’s prognostications for the year 1675,“1675, 8vo. 5. A Continuation of Heath’s Chronicle, 1676, folio, a wonderful production from the author of” Miltoni Defensio.“6.” Dr. Oates’s Narrative of the Popish Plot vindicated,“1680, folio. 7.” Character of a Popish Successor,“the second part, 1681, folio, disowned by Elkanah Settle, author of the first part. 8.” Speculum Crape-Gownorum; or, an old Looking-glass for the young academics new foiPd, &c.“9.” Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon his celebrated reasons for abrogating the test, and notion of idolatry, answered by Sam. archdeacon of Canterbury,“1688, 4to. In Wood we have no account of his death, but he adds that he was” a man of very loose principles, atheistical, forsakes his wife and children, makes no provision for them." He appears, indeed, from his publications, to have reflected very little credit on his family.

, author of several books relating to ancient customs and privileges in England, was the son of a gentleman, and born at Prestbury in Gloucestershire, Sept. 28, 1601. When he was very young, he spent some time in one of the inns of chancery; and thence translated himself to the Middle-temple, where he became learned in the law. In the civil war he continued loyal, having always been an assertor of the king’s prerogative; and was so zealously attached to Charles I. that, two days before the king was beheaded, he wrote a protestation against the intended murder, which he caused to be printed, and affixed to posts in all public places. He also published, in 1649, 4to, a pamphlet entitled “Veritas inconcussa; or King Charles I. no man of blood, but a martyr for his people:” which was reprinted in 1660, 8vo. In 1653, when the courts of justice at Westminster, especially the chancery, were voted down by Oliver’s parliament, he published “Considerations against the dissolving and taking them away:” for which he received the thanks of William Lenthall, esq. speaker of the late parliament, and of the keepers of the liberties of England. For some time, he was tilazer for London, Middlesex, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire; and spent much money in searching records, and writing in favour of the royal prerogative: yet he was but poorly rewarded by the place of one of the commissioners for regulating the law, worth 200l. per annum, which only lasted two years. After the restoration of Charles II. when the bill for taking away the tenures was depending in parliament, he wrote and published a book, to shew the necessity of preserving them. Its title is “Tenenda non Tollenda: or, the Necessity of preserving Tenures in Capite, and by KnightVservice, which, according to their first institution, were, and are yet, a 'great part of the salus populi, &c, 1660,” 4to. In 1663 he published “The Antiquity, Legality, Reason, Duty, and Necessity of Prae-emption and Pourveyance for the King,” 4to and, afterwards, many other pieces upon subjects of a similar kind. He likewise assisted Dr. Bates in his “Elenchus Motuum;” especially in searching the records and offices for that work. He died Nov. 17, 1690, in his eighty-ninth year; and was buried near his wife, in the church of Twyford in Middlesex. He was a man well acquainted with records and antiquities; but his manner of writing is not close or well digested. He published various political pamphlets, and among them one in 1681, which, supposing him to have been sincere, proves his passion for royal prerogative to have been mu h superior to his sagacity and judgment: it is entitled “Ursa Major et Minor; shewing, that there is no such fear, as is factiously pretended, of popery and arbitrary power.” In the Archaeologia, vol. XIII. is an account of a ms. of his in the Harleian collection, entitled “An Expedient or meanes in want of money to pay the sea and land forces, or as many of them as shall be thought expedient without money in this year of an almost universal povertie of the English nation.” In Strype’s life of Whitgift (p. 89), is a notice of one Fabian Phillips, one of the council of the marches of Wales, who appears to have been an ancestor of our author.

, an Lnglish poet, was son of Dr. Stephen Philips, archdeacon of Salop; and born at Barnpton in Oxfordshire, Dec. 30, 1676. After some domestic education, he was sent to Winchester, where, as we are told by Dr. Sewel, his biographer, he was soon distinguished by the superiority of his exercises; and, what is less easily to be credited, so much endeared himself to his schoolfellows, by his civility and good-nature, that they, without murmur or ill-will, saw him indulged by the master with particular immunities. It is related, that, when he was at school, he seldom mingled in play with the other boys, but retired to his chamber; where his sovereign pleasure was to sit, hour after hour, while his hair was combed by somebody, whose service he found means to procure.

From school, where he became acquainted with the poets ancient and modern, and fixed his attention particularly on Milton, he was, in 1694, removed to Christ church, Oxford, where he performed all his university exercises with applause. Following, however, the natural bent of his genius to poetry, he continued the study of his favourite Milton, so intensely, that it is said there was not an allusion in “Paradise Lost,” drawn from any hint in either Homer or Virgii, to which he could not immediately refer. Yet he was not so much in love with poetry, as to neglect other branches of learning, and, having some intention to apply to physic as a profession, he took much delight in natural history, particularly botany; but he appears to have relinquished these pursuits when he had begun to acquire poetical fame. While he was at Oxford, he was honoured with the acquaintance of the best and politest men in it; and had a particular intimacy with Mr. Edmund Smith, author of the tragedy of Phaedra and Hippolitus. The first poem which distinguished him, in 1703, was his “Splendid Shilling;” his next, entitled “Blenheim,' 1 he wrote, as a rival to Addison’s on the same subject, at the request of the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Henry St. John, afterwards lord Bolingbroke, on occasion of the victory obtained at that place by the duke of Marlborough in 1704. It was published in 1705; and the year after he finished a third poem, upon” Cyder,“the first book of which had been written at Oxford. It is founded upon the model of Virgil’s” Georgics.“All that we have more by Philips is, a Latin” Ode to Henry St. John, esq.;“which is also esteemed a master-piece. He was meditating a poem on the” Last Day," when illness obliged him to relinquish all pursuits, except the care of his health. His disorder, however, became a lingering consumption, attended with an asthma, of which he died at Hereford, Feb. 15, 1708, when he ha'd not reached his thirty-third year. He was interred in the cathedral there, with an inscription over his grave; and had a monument erected to his memory, in Westminster- abbey, by sir Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, with an epiuipli upon it, written by Dr. Atterbury, though commonly ascribed to Dr. Freind. Philips was one of those few poets, whose Muse and manners were equally excellent and amiable; and both were so in a very eminent degree.

Dr. Johnson observes, that “Philips has been always praised, without contradiction, as a man modest, blameless, and pious; who bore a narrow fortune without discontent, and tedious and painful maladies without impatience; beloved by those that knew him, but not ambitious to be known. He was probably not formed for a wide circle. His conversation is commended for its innocent gaiety, which seems to have flowed only among his intimates; for I have been told, that he was in company silent and barren, and employed only upon the pleasures of his pipe. His addiction to tobacco is mentioned by one of hjs biographers, who remarks that in all his writings, except ‘ Blenheim,’ he has found an opportunity of celebrating the fragrant fume. In common life, he was probably one of those who please by not offending, and whose person was loved, because his writings were admired. He died honoured and lamented, before any part of his reputation had withered, and before his patron St. John had disgraced him His works are few. The ‘ Splendid Shilling,’ has the uncommon merit of an original design, unless it may be thought precluded by the ancient Centos. To degrade the sounding words and stately construction of Milton, by an application to the lowest and most trivial things, gratifies the mind with a momentary triumph over that granueur which hitherto held its captives in admiration; the words and things are presented with a new appearance, and novelty is always grateful where it gives no pain. But the merit of such performances begins and ends with the 6rst author. He that should again adapt Milton’s phrase to the gross incidents of common life, and even adapt it with more art, which would not be difficult, must yet expect but a small part of the praise which Philips has obtained: he can only hope to be considered as the repeater of a jest.”

“There is a Latin ‘ Ode’ written to his patron St. John, in return for a present of wine and tobacco, which can-not be passed without notice. It is gay and elegant, and exhibits several artful accommodations of classick expressions to new purposes. It seems better turned than the odes of Hannes. To the poem on ‘ Cider,’ written in imitation of the ‘ Georgicks,’ may be given this peculiar praise, that it is grounded in truth that the precepts which it contains are exact and just; and that it is therefore at once a book of entertainment and of science. This I was told by Miller, the great gardener and botanist, whose expression was, that * there were many books written on the same subject in prose, which do nut contain so much truth as that poem.' In the disposition of his matter, so as to intersperse precepts relating to the culture of trees with sentiments more generally pleasing, and in easy and graceful transitions from one subject to another, he has very diligently imitated his master; but he unhappily pleased himself with blank verse, and supposed that the numbers of Milton, which impress the mind with veneration, combined as they are with subjects of inconceivable grandeur, could be sustained by images which at most can rise only to elegance. Contending angels may shake the regions of heaven in blank verse; but the flow of equal measures, and the embellishment of rhyme, must recommend to our attention the art of engrafting, and decide the merit of the redstreak and pearmain. What study could confer, Philips had obtained; but natural deficience cannot be supplied. He seems not born to greatness and elevation. He is never lofty, nor does he often surprise with unexpected excellence; but perhaps to his last poem may be applied whatTuily said of the work of Lucretius, that * it is written with much art, though with few blazes of genius.” 1 Of the “Cider,” an excellent edition, with notes and illustrations, was published by Mr. Dunster in 1791, 8vo.

It is remarkable, that there were two poets of both the names of this author, who flourished in his time: one the nephew to Milton, already mentioned. The other was the author of two political farces, both printed in 1716; 1. “The Earl of Marr marred, with the Humours of Jocky the Highlander.” 2. “The Pretender’s Flight: or, a Mock Coronation, with the Humours of the facetious Harry St. John.”

, sometimes called Phillip Morgan, a native of Monmouthshire, entered a student at Oxford about 1533. Being admitted to the degree of B. A. in 1537, he distinguished himself so much by a talent for disputing, then in high vogue, that he was called Morgan the sophister. Afterwards proceeding M. A. he was chosen a fellow of Oriel college, and entered into orders. In 1546 he was chosen principal of St. Mary-hall, and was in such reputation with the popish party, that he was one of the three selected to dispute with Peter Martyr on the sacrament. His share was published in 1549, under the title “Disputatio de sacramento Eucharistiae in univ. Oxon. habita, contra D. Pet. Martyr. 13 Mali, 1549.” We hear nothing of him during the reign of Edward VI.; but in that of queen Mary, he was appointed chanter of St. David’s. Being deprived of this by queen Elizabeth, he went abroad, and after a journey to Rome with Allen (afterwards the cardinal), he joined with him in 1568 in establishing the English college at Doway, and was the first who contributed pecuniary aid to that institution. Wood places his death at 1577, but the records of Doway college inform us that he died there in 1570, and left his property for the purchase of a house and garden for the English missionaries. A very scarce work, entitled “A Defence of the Honour of queen Mary of Scotland, with a declaration of her right, title, and interest, in the crown of England,” (London, 1569, Liege, 1571, 8vo), was attributed to him; but Camden and others assure us that it was written, as we have noticed in his life, by John Leslie, bishop of Ross. The only other treatise, therefore, we can ascribe to him with certainty, is that written in answer to Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet” and entitled “A Treatise shewing, the Regiment (government) of Women is conformable to the law of God and Nature,” Liege, 1571, 8vo.

, a Roman catholic divine, and author of some works of considerable merit, was descended from an ancient family. His father was a Roman catholic, but had become a convert to popery. Where or when he was born we are not told, but it appears that when at school, he became an enthusiastic admirer of some catholic books, lives of the saints, &c. He was thence removed to St. Omer’s, where he made great progress in polite literature, and obtained the first academical prizes. At one time, he felt an inclination to become a member of the society of the Jesuits, but changed his mind in that respect, and after a course of study at St. Omer’s, travelled through the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy, during the course of which, he visited persons eminent for learning; assisted at various academical exercises looked over the principal libraries, and considered the productions of the polite arts, and those magnificent structures which ancient and modern piety had raised and dedicated to public worship. He observed the different face and product of each country, and that endless variety of manners which seems merely or principally to arise from clU mate and education. He did not trust his remarks to memory alone, but committed them briefly to writing; but whether they are now existing, we are unable to ascertain.

Having finished his travels, he determined to devote himself to the ministry, and accordingly was admitted into orders. Soon afterwards his father died, but his perseverance in his religious sentiments deprived him of the estate he would otherwise have enjoyed: Thus, though an eldest son, he had no other provision but what the frugality of his parents had made for him. This however was something more than mediocrity, and placed him above dependence.

The preceding account is extracted from our author’s pamphlet, printed in 1761, and entitled “Philemon,” of which a few copies only were given to friends. The other circumstances collected by his biographer relate chiefly to his publications. In 1756, he published “The Study of Sacred Literature, fully stated and considered in a Discourse to a student in divinity (the rev. John Jenison, who died at Liege, Dec. 27, 1790),” a second edition of which appeared in 1758, and a third in 1765. This work is entitled to considerable praise; but his principal performance was “The History of the Life of Reginald Pole,” 1764, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1767, 2 vols. 8vo. It cannot be denied that this work, though penned with no small degree of spirit and elegance, contains much matter of an exceptionable nature, many of the facts distorted, and many of the characters introduced in it virulently abused. It excited, therefore, on the protestant side a general alarm, and met, as might be expected, with a firm opposition; many answers soon made their appearance, from several eminent hands, and the mistakes and improprieties of our author’s performance were pointed out and exposed. The following, we believe, is an exact list of his answerers: 1. “A Letter to Mr. Phillips, containing some observations on his History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Rich. Tillard, M. A. 1765, 8vo. 2. “A Review of Mr. Phillips’s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Glocester Ridley, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions upon Mr. Phillips’ s History of the Life of Cardinal Pole.” By Timothy Neve, D.D. Rector of Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire, 1766, 8vo. To this are added some remarks by Dr. Jortin. 4. “Remarks upon the History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Edw. Stone, Clerk, A. M. and late fellow of Wadham college, Oxford, 1766, 8vo. These remarks were first printed in the Public Ledger. 5. “The Life of Cardinal Reginald Pole, written originally in Italian, by Lodovico Beccatelli, archbishop of Ragusa, and now first translated into English, with notes critical and historical. To which is added an Appendix, setting forth the plagiarisms, false translations, and false grammar in Thomas Phillips’ s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By theRev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 6. “Catholick Faith and Practice, addressed to the ingenious author of the Life of Cardinal Pole,” anonymous, 1765; the author of which was Mr. John Jones, of Welwyn. (See before, vol. XIX.)

In vindication of himself he published in 1767, an “Appendix to the Life,” with some remarks on the chief objections which had been made to it and at the end of the third edition of his “Essay on the study of Sacred Literature,” he added some strictures on his opponents, and some corrections of mistakes. Speaking of this pamphlet in a letter to Mr. Cole, he says, “I am about to give another edition with considerable changes; especially as I have been informed that a seeming partiality to the order of the Jesuits, is the chiefest objection to the performance: which maybe avoided in a future edition, and the instruction be as complete as at present.” This seems to shew that his object was the general usefulness of the work, independent of party-considerations. All he could allege, however, in defence of his Life of Pole, was not sufficient to establish the credit of the work.

Mr. Phillips, after he entered into holy orders, obtained a dispensation to quit the Jesuits; and this step is said to have been taken in consequence of some dissatisfaction and difference with his superiors and professors, by whom, he would not submit to be guided and controlled in his theological studies. From Liege, where he took his dismission, he went to Rome, and there obtained, by the interest of the Pretender, a prebend in the collegiate church of Tongres, but was dispensed from residence on condition of serving the English mission, and for many years lived in the family of the late earl of Shrewsbury, and afterwards in that of Mrs. Berkeley, of Spetchley, near Worcester. In the decline of life he retired to the English college at Liege, with the design, which he could not effect, of reentering into the society he had withdrawn himself from, for which he retained a tender regard and affection. During the last four or five years of his life he was afflicted with epileptic fits, and, as his temper was naturally eager, his friends were cautious not to engage him in conversation upon his past studies or literary subjects, by which they observed his infirmity was increased. He was, we are told, a man of eminent piety, and always appeared strongly affected with the idea of the presence of God, particularly in his last illness, which happened at Liege in 1774.

He had a sister Elizabeth, who became abbess of the BeneJictine nuns at Ghent, to whom he addressed some elegant and spirited poetry, which may be seen in our principal authority. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cole attributes to him “Reasons for the repeal of the Laws against the Papists;” and his biographer adds that he was the author of an elegant translation in metre, of the beautiful prose “Lauda Sion Salvatorem;” and an equally elegant “Censura Commentariorum Cornelii a Lapide,” in Latin, printed on a single sheet.

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

Philo was educated at Alexandria, and made an uncommon progress in eloquence and philosophy. After the fashion of the time, he cultivated, like many of his religion, the philosophy of Plato, whose principles he imbibed so deeply, and whose manner he imitated so well, that it grew to be a common saying, “aut Plato ptrilonizat, aut Philo platonizat” Josephus calls him a man “eminent on all accounts;” and Eusebius describes him “copious in speech, rich in sentiments, and sublime in the knowledge of holy writ.*' He is said, however, to have been so much immersed in philosophy, the Platonic in particular, that he neglected to acquaint himself with the Hebrew language, and the rites and customs of his own people. Scaliger, in his usual way, says that Philo” knew no more of Hebrew and Syriac than a Gaul or a Scythian.“Grotius is of opinion that” he is not fully to be depended on, in what relates to the manners of the Hebrews;“and Cudworth goes somewhat farther when he says, that” though a Jewby nation, he was yet very ignorant of Jewish customs." Fabricius, however, while he allows some inadvertencies and errors of Philo with regard to these matters, yet he does not think them a sufficient foundation on which to charge so illustrious a doctor of the law with ignorance. Others think that Philo’s passion for philosophy had made him more than half a Pagan for it led him to interpret the law and the prophets upon Platonic ideas; and to admit nothing as truly interpreted, which was not agreeable to the principles of the academy. This led him still farther, to turn every thing into allegory, and to deduce the darkest meanings from the plainest words; which pernicious practice Origen imitated Afterwards, and exposed himself by it to the scoffs of Celsus and Porphyry. The writings of Philo abound with high and mystical, new and subtile, farfetched and abstracted notions, where the doctrines of Plato and Moses are so promiscuously blended, that it is not an easy matter to assign to each his own principles. In the mean time, we should greatly injure this Jewish Plato not to own, that although he is continually Platonizing, and allegorizing the Scriptures, yet he abounds with just sentiments and lessons of morality: and his morals are rather the morals of a Christian than of a Jew. History likewise, as well as his own writings, gives us all imaginable reason to conclude, that he was a man of great prudence, constancy, and virtue.

His works were first published in Greek by Turnebus, at Paris, in 1552; to which a Latin translation, made by Geleoius, was added in 1561, and printed several times with it. The Paris edition of 1640, in folio, was the best thai was published for a whole century; which made Cotelenus say, that “Philo was an author that deserved to have a better text and a better version.” This was accomplished in 1742, in a handsome edition published at London, by Dr. Mangey, in 2 vols. folio.

, of Crotona, was a celebrated philosopher of the ancients, who flourished about 375 B. C. He was of the school of Pythagoras, to whom that philosopher’s Golden Verses have been ascribed. He made the heavens his chief object of contemplation; and has been said to be the author of that true system of the world which Copernicus afterwards revived; but erroneously, because there is undoubted evidence that Pythagoras learned that system in Egypt. On that erroneous supposition however it was, that Bulliald placed the name of Philolaus at the head of two works, written to illustrate and confirm that system.

"He was (says Brucker) a disciple of Archytas, and flourished in the time of Plato. It was from him that Plato purchased the written records of the Pythagorean system, contrary to an express oath taken by the society of Pythagoreans, pledging themselves to keep secret the mysteries of their sect. It is probable that among these books were the writings of Timaeus, upon which Plato formed the dialogue which bore his name. Plutarch relates, that Philolaus was one of the persons who escaped from the house which was burned by Cylon, during the life of Pythagoras; but this account cannot be correct. Philolaus was con,­temporary with Plato, and therefore certainly not with Pythagoras. Interfering in affairs of state, he fell a sacrifice to political jealousy.

“Philolaus treated the doctrine of nature with great subtlety, but at the same time with great obscurity; referring every thing that exists to mathematical principles. He taught, that reason, improved by mathematical learning, is alone capable of judging concerning the nature of things: that the whole world consists of infinite and finite; that number subsists by itself, and is the chain by which its power sustains the eternal frame of things; that the Monad is not the sole principle of things, but that the Binary is necessary to furnish materials from which all subsequent numbers may be produced; that the world is one whole, which has a fiery centre, about which the ten celestial spheres revolve, heaven, the sua, the planets, the earth, and the moon; that the sun has a vitreous surface, whence the fire diffused through the world is reflected, rendering the mirror from which it is reflected visible; that all things are preserved in harmony by the law of necessity; and the world is liable to destruction both by fire and by water. From this summary of the doctrine of Philolaus it appears probable that, following Timfeus, whose writings he possessed, he so far departed from the Pythagorean system as to conceive two independent principles in nature, God and matter, and that it was from the same source that Plato derived his doctrine upon this subject.”

, an ancient ecclesiastical historian, was born in Cappadocia, about the year 388, or as some say 368. He pursued his studies principally at Constantinople; but we have few particulars of his life, and no account of his death. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in twelve books, which begins with the controversy between Arius and Alexander, and ends about the year 425. As he was brought up in Arian principles, his history is not free from partiality; but there are many useful things in his writings relating to the antiquities of the church. We have only extant an abridgment of it in Photius, and some extracts taken out of Suidas and other authors. Jac. Gothofredus, a learned lawyer, first published them at Geneva, in 1643, 4to, with a Latin translation and large notes. Valesius, having reviewed this abridgment by the manuscripts, and corrected the text in several places, caused it to be printed with the other ecclesiastical historians, at Paris, in 1673, folio. It was afterwards reprinted at London, in 1720, when Reading republished Valesius’s edition, in three volumes, folio.

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

, a learned English divine and martyr, was the son of sir Peter Philpot, knight of the Bath, and twice sheriff of Hampshire. He was born at Compton in. that county, and educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted of New college, Jan. 27, 1534, was made fellow, and took the degree of bachelor of laws. In a manuscript list of persons educated in that college, preserved in the Bodleian library, he is termed, “constans martyr pro verbo Dei, regnante Maria regina,” a faithful martyr for the word of God in queen Mary’s reign. He was, according to Wood, esteemed a good civilian, and admirably well skilled in the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Strype says, that when at college, “he profited in learning so well, that he laid a wager of twenty-pence with John Harpsfield, that he would make two hundred verses in one night, and not make above two faults in them. Mr. Thomas Tuchyner, schoolmaster, was judge; and decreed the twenty-pence to Mr. Philpot.”

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

While archdeacon of Winchester he was a frequent preacher, and active in promoting the reformed religion in the county of Hampshire; and considering the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance, was a decided enemy both in word and writing to the Arian opinions which appeared first in that reign. He and Ridley were reckoned two of the most learned men of their time, yet Philpot‘ s zeal was sometimes too ardent for the prudent discharge of his duty, and the tract he wrote against the Arians has the air of a coarse invective in the title of it. On the accession of queen Mary he disdained to temporize, or conceal his sentiments, but publicly wept in the first convocation held in her reign, when he saw it composed of men who were determined to restore popery. He wrote a report of this convocation, which fell into bishop Bonner’ s hands among other of Philpot' s books, which Bonner had seized. It was not long, therefore, before he was apprehended, and after various examinations before Bonner, and a most cruel and rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months, was condemned to be burnt in Smithfield. This was accordingly executed December 18, 1555, and was suffered by the martyr with the greatest constancy. He wrote “Epistolue Hebraicæ” and “De proprietate linguarum,” which are supposed to be in manuscript; “An Apology for Spitting upon an Arian, with an invective against the Arians,” &c. Lond. 1559, 8vo and 4to; “Supplication to king Philip and queen Mary;” “Letters to lady Vane;” “Letters to the Christian Congregation, that they abstain from Mass;” “Exhortation to his Sister;” and “Oration.” These are all printed by Fox, except the last, which is in the Bodleian. He also wrote translations of “Calvin’s Homilies” “Chrysostome against Heresies;” and Crelius Secundus Curio’s “Defence of the old and ancient anthority of Christ’s Church:” and his account of the convocation above mentioned, or what appears to be so, under the title of “Vera Expositio Disputationis institute mandate D. Mame reginae Ang. &c. in Synodo Ecclesiastico, Londini, in comitiis regni ad 18 Oct. anno 1553;” printed in Latin, at Rome, 1554, and in English at Basil.

, Somerset herald in the reign of James I. was a native of Folkstone, in Kent, and descended from an ancient and reputable family, long seated in that county. From his infancy he had a taste for heraldry and antiquities. He was respected by Camden, who employed him much as his deputy or marshal in his visitations. In 1636 he published a catalogue of the chancellors of England; and in 1657 an edition of Camden’s “Remains,” with additions. When the civil war broke out, he adhered, amidst all dangers, to the royal cause. In 1643, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. In the following year he fell into the hands of his enemies, being surprised whilst in his quarters, at a village about two miles from Oxford, by some of the parliamentary forces, who sent him up to London a prisoner; but he soon obtained his liberty. It was the king’s intention to have rewarded his loyalty by the place of Norroy, but he died prematurely, in London, according to Wood, or near Eltham, in Kent, as Hasted says, Nov. 25, 1645.

His eldest son, Thomas Philipott, or Philpot, M. A. was educated at Clare-hall, and published the “Villare Cantianum,” London, 1659, folio; a book which is written in an affected style, yet is a very valuable performance, as an early history of property, and continues to be highly and justly prized. Though the son takes the credit, there can be little doubt but that much of it was written by the father. The, son, however, was a man of good abilities, a tolerable poet, and well versed in divinity and antiquities. He published a whimsical, mystical, heraldic book, entitled “A brief Historical Discourse of the original and growth of Heraldry, demonstrating upon what rational foundations that noble and heroic science is established,” London, 1672, 8vo, dedicated to John earl of Bridgewater. There are some verses of his prefixed to the “Monasticon Favershamiensis,” 1671, 12mo; also an appendix to it by him of the descent of king Stephen. The book was written by his friend Thomas Southouse, of Gray’s Inn, esq. His*' Poems,“Lond. 1646, vo, is a volume of rare occurrence. The elder Ptiilipot is supposed to have been the author of” The Citie’s great concern in this case, or question of Honour and Arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? discoursed; with a clear refutation of the pernicious error that it doth,“1674, 12mo. Another production of John Philipot was,” A perfect Collection or Catalogue of all Knights Bachelours made by king James,“&c. 1660, 8vo. Mr. Lysons gives an extract from the parish register of Greenwich, which has been supposed to relate to him:” Mr. Thomas Philipott, buried September 30, 1682;“adding,” that besides the above works, he wrote on the origin and growth of the Spanish Monarchy, and a Life of jsop," and remarking, that Anthony Wood attributes to him some theological works; but Mr. Lysons thinks it is more probable that they were the production of his contemporary, Thomas Philipott, D. D. rector of Turveston and Akeley, Bucks. Wood places his death in 1684-.