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

, sirnamed Trallianus, from Tralles, a city of Lydia, where he was born, was one of the emperor Adrian’s freedmen, to whom he gave a liberal education, and lived at least to the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, as appears from his mentioning the consuls of that year. He appears to have been a man of great talents, and the contemporary of Epictetus, Florus, Arrian, and other eminent men who adorned the court of Adrian. Of his works, however, we have nothing left but fragments. The titles of them were an “History of the Olympiads;” “A Treatise of long-lived Persons;” and another of “Wonderful Things;” the short and broken remains of which Xylander translated into Latin, and published at Basil in 1568, with the Greek and with notes. Meursius gave a new edition of them, with his notes at Leyden, in 1622. The titles of part of the rest of Phlegon’s writings are preserved by Suidas; but the “History of Adrian,” published under Phlegon' s name, was written by Adrian himself.

What has made Phlegon’s name more familiar among the moderns, is his being cited, though a heathen, as bearing witness to the accomplishment of prophecies, and to the miraculous darkness which prevailed during our Lord’s passion. This last was the origin of a controversy in the early part of the last century, although the immediate cause was the omission of the passage from Phlegon in an edition of Clarke’s Boyle’s Lectures, published soon after his death, at the persuasion of Dr. Sykes, who had suggested to Clarke, that an undue stress had been laid upon it. Whiston, who informs us of this affair, expresses great displeasure against Sykes, and calls “the suggestion groundless.” Upon this, Sykes published “A Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon; or, an Enquiry, whether that Eclipse had any relation to the Darkness which happened at our Saviour’s Passion,” 1732, 8vo. Sykes concludes it to be most probable that Phlegon had in view a natural eclipse, which happened Nov. 24, in the first year of the 202d olympiad, and not in the fourth year of the olympiad in which Christ was crucified.

, a famous heretic of the fourth century, known in church history as the chief of a sect called Photinians, was a native of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and bishop of Sirmium, or Sirmich, the chief city of Illyricum. He had been the disciple of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. He spoke with ease, and his eloquence gained him great power over his people after he was consecrated bishop; but his life was corrupted, and his doctrine soon became so too. He espoused the same opinions with Paul of Samosata, and wrote with great obstinacy against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for which in the year 345 he was condemned by the council of Antioch; in the year 374, by the council of Milan. However, he still maintained his see till he was deposed by the council of Sirmich, A. D. 251, and by the emperor sent into banishment, where he spent the remainder of his life, during which time he composed a piece against all heresies in general, with an intent to establish his own. He wrote in Greek and Latin. The emperor Julian sent him a letter, commending him for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Photinus died A. D. 375 (377, Cave), in Galatia, whither he had been banished. This heresy was, amongst many others, anathematized in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. It afterwards was revived by Socinus.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, was descended from an illustrious family, and born in that city. He had great natural talents, which he cultivated with the utmost application, and there was no branch of literature, sacred or profane, or scarcely any art or science, with which he was not intimately acquainted. He seems to have been by far the greatest man of the age in which he lived; and was so intimately concerned in the chief transactions of it, that ecclesiastical writers have thence called it “Seculum Photianum.” He was first raised to the chief dignities of the empire, being made principal secretary of state, captain of the guards, and a senator; in all which stations he acquitted himself with a distinction suitable to his great abilities for he was a refined statesman, as well as a profound scholar.

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

Amidst all his ambitious intrigues he found leisure for more honourable pursuits, and wrote some works which will preserve his name in the learned world. Among those extant the most considerable is his “Bibliotheca,” composed by him while he was yet a layman, and an ambassador in Assyria. It contains the argument or abstracts of 280 volumes of many authors upon various subjects; among whom are grammarians, critics, poets, orators, sacred and profane historians, physicians, philosophers, divines, &c. not ranked according to their several arts and professions, but introduced promiscuously as they occurred in the course of his reading. Fabricius very justly calls this “Bibliotheca,” or library, non liber, sed insignis thesaurus, “not a book, but an illustrious treasure” in which are contained many curious things relating to authors, and many fragments of works which are no where else to be found. It was first brought to light by Andreas Schottus, and communicated by him to David Hoeschelius, who caused it to be printed in 1601, at Vienna, in Greek only. Schottus, considering the usefulness of this work, translated it into Latin, and printed his translation alone in 1606. Afterwards, the Greek text and the translation were printed together at Geneva in 1611; but the best edition is that printed at Rouen in 1653, folio, under the title“Photii Myriobiblion, sive Bibliotheca librorum, quos legit et censuit Photius, Gr. et Lat.” There are large paper copies of this edition, which bear a very high price.

Photius’s “Nomocanon” is another proof of his great abilities. It is a collection digested in an excellent method, and brought under fourteen different titles, of the canons of the councils, and of the canonical epistles, and of the emperor’s laws relating to ecclesiastical matters. Balsamon has written commentaries on this work; and with these it appeared in public, by the care of M. Justel, being printed at Paris with a Latin version in 1615, 4to. There are also 253 “Letters of Photius,” which shew the same strength of judgment and depth of learning as are to be seen in his other works. They were published in 1651, folio, with a Latin version and notes, by Richard Montague, bishop of Norwich, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library. There are ether small pieces of Photius that have been printed, and not a few still extant in manuscript only. The most remarkable is a very considerable fragment of a Greek lexicon, in which the greater part of the alphabet is complete. The various M8S of this Lexicon, in different libraries on the continent, are mere transcripts from each other, and originally from one, venerable for its antiquity, which was formerly in the possession of the celebrated Thomas Gale, and which is now deposited in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge. This ms. which is on parchment, bears such evident marks of antiquity, that it may not unreasonably be supposed to have been a transcript from the author’s copy. It is written in various hands. The compendia, which are used in some parls of it, are extremely difficult to decipher, though, on the whole, they are less so than the contractions which occur in many Mss. and particularly those in the library of St. Germain. A copy of this Lexicon, at Florence, was transcribed about the end of the sixteenth century, by Richard Thomson, of Oxford, who probably intended to publish it. (See Scahger Epist. p. 503, printed 1715.) Professor Porson had transcribed and corrected this valuable Lexicon for the press, and after it had been consumed by fire, he began the task afresh, and such were his incredible industry and patience, that he completed another transcript in his own exquisite hand-writing. Mr. Person’s copy of the Codex Galeanus is said to be among the papers of that incomparable scholar, which are preserved by the learned society of which he was long a distinguished ornament. But whilst the publication of it was anxiously expected and delayed, an edition appeared at Leipsic in 1808, by Godfrey Hermann, from two Mss., both of them extremely inaccurate.

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

, a native of Italy, was the author of “A short and true Account of the Inquisition and its Proceedings, as it is practised in Italy, set forth in some particular Cases. Whereunto is added, an Extract out of an authentic Book of Legends of the Roman Church. By Hierom Bartholomew Piazza, an Italian born; formerly a Lector of Philosophy and Divinity, and one of the delegate Judges of that Court, and now by the grace of God, a Convert to the Church of England.” London, printed by Wm. Bowyer, 1722. He taught Italian and French for many years at Cambridge, where he died about 1745. He had been once a Dominican friar, and a priest, but married here, to prove the sincerity of his conversion. He was regarded as an honest man, but never esteemed as having abilities, even in the two modern languages which he taught.

, an artist who flourished from 1524 to 1545, was of Lodi, and imitated the style of Titian, and sometimes of Giorgione, with distinguished and often unrivalled success. Such is the surprising beauty of some heads painted by him in one of the chapels of the Incoronata at Lodi, that a tradition prevailed of their having been painted by Titian himself, on his passage through that place. His picture of the Madonna with some saints, at S. Francesco in Brescia, reminds us of Giorgione. To the memory of this great man, Ridolfi has done little justice, by praising him only for his colour in fresco and distemper, without noticing the grandeur of his design, and the elegance of his forms. He likewise mistakes the name of his native place for his surname, and calls him a Brescian, in defiance of the inscriptions at the Incoronata, and elsewhere, of Callixtus de Platea, and Callixtus Laudensis.

, a modern artist, was born at Venice in 1683. He was the son of a statuary in wood, who probably gave him what foundation he had in design. He exchanged the gay and open manner in which he painted at first, for the dark and murky one that ever after characterised his works, from the contemplation of Spagnoletto’s and Guercino’s styles. He attempted to surprise by cutting contrasts of light and shade, and succeeded; such decision of chiaroscuro gave value to his drawings, and was eagerly imitated in prints; but his method of colouring destroyed its effect in a great measure on the canvas; increased and altered shades, faded lights, dingy yellows, produced dissonance and spots. When this is not the case, and in better-preserved pictures, the effect is novel, and strikes at first sight, especially in subjects that border on horror, such as the decollation of St. John in a dark prison, at Padua; a work painted in competition with the best painters of the state, and preferred. Piazzetta had no great vigour of mind for copious composition; he consumed several years in finishing a Rape of the Sabines, for a Venetian nobleman; and in the expressions of his altar-pieces he had certainly more devotion than dignity. His chief strength lay in busts and heads for cabinets. In caricatures he was perhaps unparalleled. He died in 1754, aged seventy-one.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

, a famous engraver, was son of Stephen Picart, a good engraver also, and born at Paris in 1673. * He learned the principles of design, and the elements of his art, from his father, and studied architecture and perspective under Sebastian le Clerc. His uncommon talents in this way soon began to shew themselves and, at ten years of age, he engraved the hermaphrodite of Poussin, which was soon followed by two pieces of cardinal de Richelieu’s tomb. These works laid the foundation of that great reputation which this celebrated artist afterwards acquired. When he was grown up, he went into Holland, where his parents had settled themselves; and, after two years’ stay, returned to Paris, and married a lady who died soon after. Having embraced the reformed religion, he returned to Holland in 1710, for the sake of that freedom in the exercise of it, which he could not have at Paris; but connoisseurs are of opinion, that in attempting to please the taste of the Dutch, he lost much of the spirited manner in which he executed his works while in France, and on which they tell us his reputation was more firmly founded. Others inform us, that he was not so fond of engraving as of drawing, that he took up the graver with reluctance, and consequently many of his prints are better drawn than engraved. The greater part of his life was certainly spent in making compositions and drawings, which are said to have been very highly finished; and they are sufficient testimonies of the fertility of his genius, and the excellency of his judgment. He understood the human figure extremely well, and drew it with a tolerable degree of correctness, especially in small subjects. He worked much for the booksellers, and book-plates are by far the best part of his works. The multitude of these which he engraved, chiefly from his own compositions, is astonishing. One estimate makes them amount to 1300 pieces. The most capital of his separate plates is the “Massacre of the Innocents,” a small plate lengthways. After his death, which happened April 27, 1733, his friends published a small folio volume, called the “Innocent Impostures;” a set of prints from the designs of the great masters, in which he has attempted to imitate the styles of the old engravers. Strutt, who has, with apparent justice, censured this production, in the essay prefixed to his second volume, laments that Picart’s friends shouldhave been so injudicious as to publish what must diminish our respect for this artist.

, an eminent musician, born in 1728, at Bari, in the kingdom of Naples, may be ranked among the most fertile, spirited, and original composers that the Neapolitan school has produced. His father designed him for the church, and made him study for that intent; but, for fear of his neglecting serious business for amusement, he would not let him learn music. The young man, however, having an invincible passion for that art, never saw an instrument, especially a harpsichord, without emotion, and practised in secret the opera airs which he had heard, and which he retained with surprising accuracy. His father having carried him, one day, to the bishop of Bari, he amused himself in the room, where he was left alone, with a harpsichord which he found there, thinking he could be heard by no one; but the prelate, in the next apartment, having heard him, condescended to go to the harpsichord, and obliged him to repeat many of the airs which he had been playing; and was so pleased with his performance, that he persuaded his father to send him to the conservatorio of St. Onofrio, at Naples, of which the celebrated Leo was then the principal master.

The young Piccini was admitted in that seminary in 1742, and was placed at first under the tuition of a subaltern master, whose lessons, given in a dry and contracted manner, soon disgusted him; and, in a few months, his discontent at such unprofitable instructions drew on him the resentment of his tutor, expressed in no very gentle way. Shocked with this treatment, he resolved to study by himself, and began composing without rules, or any other guides than his own genius and fancy, psalms, oratorios, and opera airs; which soon excited the envy or admiration of all his fellow-students. He even had the courage to compose an entire mass. One of the masters who had seen it, and even permitted him to have it rehearsed, thought it right to mention it to Leo; who, a few days after, sent for Piccini, who, frightened at this message, obeyed the order with fear and trembling. “You have composed a mass,” said Leo, with a cold and almost severe countenance. “Yes, sir.” “Shew me your score.” “Sir, sir,” “Shew it me, I say.” Piccini thought himself ruined, but he must obey. He fetched his score at which Leo looked, turned over the leaves, examined each movement, smiled, rung the bell, as the signal for a rehearsal. The young composer, more dead than alive, begged in vain to be spared what he thought such an affront. The singers and instrumental performers obeyed the summons: the parts were distributed, and the performers waited only for Leo to beat the time. When, turning gravely to Piccini, he presented him the baton, which was then used every where, in the performance of full pieces. Piccini, put to new confusion, wished he had never dared to meddle with composition; but at length rnustere 1 his courage, and marked with a trembling hand the first bars. Soon, however, animated and infl imed by the harmony, he neither saw Leo nor the standers by, who were numerous: he was absorbed in his music, and directed its performance with a fire, energy, and accuracy, which astonished the whole audience, and acquired him great applause. Leo kept a profound silence during the performance. When, it was over “I forgive you, for once,” said he; “but if you are again guilty of such presumption, you shall be punished in such a manner as you will remember as long as you live. What! you have received from nature so estimable a disposition for study, and you lose all the advantages of so precious a gift! Instead of studying the principles of the art, you give way to all the wild vagaries of your imagination, and fancy you have produced a master-piece.” The boy, piqued by these reproaches, related what had passed between him and the assistant-master under whom he was placed. Leo became calm, and even embraced and caressed him; ordering him to come to his apartments every morning, to receive instructions from himself.

This truly great master died suddenly some months after. Happily for his promising pupil, his successor was the celebrated Durante, one cf the most learned composers Italy ever produced. He soon distinguished Piccini from the rest of his class conceived a particular affection for him; and had pleasure in communicating to him all the secrets of his art. “Others are my pupils,” he sometimes used to say, “but this is my son.” At length, after twelve years’ study, Piccini, in 1754, quitted the Conservatorio, knowing all that is permitted to an individual to know in practical music, and possessed of such a creative and ardent imagination, as perhaps, till then, was unexampled

He began his career at the Florentine theatre in Naples, which is that of San Carlo, what Foote’s theatre used to be compared with Drury-Jane or the Opera House. His first production there was “Le Donne Dispettose;” and the next year, “Le Gelosie,” and “II Curioso del suo Proprio Danno,” of all which the success increased in a duplicate ratio. At length, in 1756, he set the serious opera of “Zenobia” for the great theatre of San Carlo, which was crowned with still greater success than his comic operas. In 1758, he composed “Alessandro nell' Indie,” for Rome; and after this, every theatre in Italy was eager to engage him. In 1760, his celebrated comic opera of the “Bnona Figliuolo” had a success that no musical drama could boast before. It was no sooner heard at Rome than copies were multiplied; and there was no musical theatre in Europe where this burletta was not frequently performed, in some language or other, during many years. In 1761, he composed six operas, three serious and three comic, for different theatres of Italy; and was at once applauded in Turin, Reggio, Bologna, Venice, Rome, and Naples. Sacchini assured us, in 1776, that Piccini had composed at least three hundred operas, thirteen of which were produced in seven months. On his arrival at Paris, he received many mortifications before hrs reputation was firmly established, from the partizans of the old French music, as well as the friends of Gluck. The success of his operas of “Roland,' 1” Atys,“” IphigSnie en Tauride,“”Adele de Ponthieu,“” Didon,“” Diane et Endymion,“and” Penelope,“seems to have solved a problem which was long thought insolvable:” Whether the French language was capable of receiving Italian melody?" If we add to so many dramatic works the oratorios, masses, cantatas, and occasional songs and scenes in pasticcio operas, it would prove, that in twenty-five years he had produced more music, and good music, than any other ten masters had done in their whcJe lives.

What still more astonishes, in such innumerable works, is the prodigious variety which reigns in them all, and the science which never degenerates into pedantry or affectation; an harmony pure, clear, and profound; a melody perfectly suited to the subject and situation of the performers; and a force, an originality, and resources of all kinds, unknown till his time, and of which, perhaps, the secret will long remain undiscovered. And what appears as extraordinary as the rest is, that the genius of this master, far from being exhausted by so many labours, by frequent and severe sickness, by domestic disquietude and chagrin, inseparable from a numerous family, seemed, before the revolution, to continue in full force. Deprived of all his appointments and well-earned theatrical pensions, he returned to Naples; where, after he had established himself in France, all his appointments had been disposed of. On the arrival of a French army at Naples, he was supposed to be in correspondence with them, which occasioned his precipitate flight back to Paris, where he was received with open arms, and placed at the head of a new singing-school. He died at Passy, May 7, 1800.

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

, a learned man of the same family, was born in 1520, and having taught philosophy for twenty-two years in the most celebrated universities of Italy, retired to Sienna, where he died in 1604. Hewas so much respected, that the whole city put on mourning at his death. His works are less numerous than those of his relation, but they were esteemed in their day. They are, 1. “Commentaries on Aristotle,” 4to, published at Mayence in 1603. 2. "Universa Philosopbia de Moribus, in Venice, 1583, folio.

, a theologian and historian, born at Geneva in 1655, was ofa distinguished family, and went through his studies with success. He travelled into Holland and England, and then became a professor of theology in his native city, with a considerable reputation. He was invited to Leyden, but refused to leave his own country. From excess of application to his duties, he fell into a languid state, and died on the 9th of June, 1724, at the age of 69. He was a Protestant, of a mild and tolerant disposition, and a father to the poor. His principal works are, 1. “Theologia Christiana,” 3 vols. 4to, the best edition of which is that of 1721. 2. “Christian Morality,” Geneva, 1710, 8 vols. 12mo; a very excellent work. 3. “The History of the 12th and 13th Centuries,” intended as a continuation of that of Le Sueur; but the supplementary work is more esteemed than the original, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Sermons.” 5. “Letters.” 6. “A Treatise against indifference in Religion,” 1716, 12mo. 7. Many tracts of morality and piety, among which that on “The Art of living and dying well,” Geneva, 1716, in 12mo, is particularly esteemed. The subject is the same, and the title nearly the same, as one by our countryman Taylor. 8. Several controversial tracts.

, of Mirandula, considered as a prodigy of learning in his day, was the youngest child of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula and Concordia, by Julia, of the noble house of Boirado; and was born Feb. 24, 1463. His father dying early, his mother took great care of his education; and the progress he made in letters was so extremely rapid, that his friends are said to have seen with astonishment a mere boy become one of the first poets and orators of his age. What contributed to this progress, besides intense application, was great vigour of intellect, and a memory so tenacious, as to let nothing be lost which he had ever read or heard. At fourteen years of age, being designed for the church, he was sent to Bologna to study canon law; and though he was soon disgusted with a study so lirtle suited to his talents and fertile imagination, he acquired a knowledge of it sufficient to enable him to compose an abbreviated digest, or manual, of the pontifical letters, termed Decretals, in a manner that would have done credit to the most accomplished professor. Having afforded this proof of early capacity, on a subject so ungenial, he left Bologna, and visiting successively all the most celebrated schools and colleges of Italy and France, he profited so well by what was taught there, or by what he learned in discussions with the eminent scholars and professors, that, before he had attained to manhood, he was universally recognized as a most consummate philosopher and divine.

During this early period he distinguished himself likewise as a poet, by his compositions both in the Latin and Italian languages, almost all which, however, as they were disapproved either by the nicety of his maturer judgment, or by the purity of his religious and moral feelings, at a later period, he was induced to destroy. Many also of his letters, which are still extant, were written whilst he was yet very young; and from them proofs might be selected, tending greatly to support the high juvenile reputation of their author. We have, indeed, few other documents to illustrate his literary career; and the little we know of his progress, during the seven years that he spent in visiting the universities, must be taken from them, as Mr. Gressvvell has done with great judgment. Among the academies where he passed the greater part of the above period, were those of Ferrara, Padua, Florence, and Perugia; and among the eminent scholars, with whom he entered into friendship and correspondence, were Guarinus, Marsilius Ficinus, Politian, and Nic. Leonicenus. When not engaged in any literary excursion, he spent his time at Fratta, a rural retreat in the neighbourhood of Mirandula. In 1482, he informs Leanicenns that he had erected this villa, and had written a poem in its, praise. With the commencement of 1484, the literary career of Picus became more distinct and conspicuous: he was now approaching the age of manhood; and went to Florence to perfect himself in the Greek. Within a few months after his arrival here, he composed his well-known panegyrical criticism on the Italian poems of Lorenzo de Medici. It is drawn up in the form of a letter, and addressed to Lorenzo himself. With many remarks in the true spirit of criticism, there is, perhaps, rather too much of a courtly partiality to the productions of Lorenzo. While at Florence, we find Picus employed in investigating the manuscripts of ancient authors, both in Greek and Latin, of the value of which he was already enabled to form a just estimate. Indeed the mere discovery of them was a service of high importance at that time, when the invention of printing was forming a new oera in literature. He had now added to his correspondents Jerome Donatus, Hermolaus Barbarus, Philip Beroaldus, and Alexander Cortesius, the latter of whom seems to carry his admiration of Picus to the very borders of gross and extravagant flattery; which, however, a little moderated, was a distinguishing feature in the literary correspondence of that age.

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

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

The society and conveniencies of study which Florence afforded, had reconciled him to a lasting abode in that city, when, in 1492, he hadthe misfortune to lose his illustrious patron and associate, Lorenzo de Medici, who was carried off bya fever in the prime of life. He and Politian, of all the Florentine scholars, had possessed perhaps the very first place in Lorenzo’s esteem. Picus now resolved to leave Florence, at least for a time, where every object reminded him of the loss he had sustained; and went to Ferrara, where he endeavoured to divert his grief by again deeply engaging in his oriental studies. A short time previously to this period, being willing to exonerate himself from the weight of secular dignities and cares, he had, for a very inadequate consideration, transferred to his nephew (the subject of our next article), John Francis PicLi.s, all his territories and other rights and possessions in Mirandula and Goncordia, comprehending one-third part of the patrimonial inheritance. The sums arising from this transfer, he employed partly in the purchase of lands, to secure an annual revenue for the due support of his household, and partly in charitable donations; to the later purpose also the produce of a great part of his rich furniture and plate was appropriated. Benevolence towards the poor seems to have been a distinguishing feature in his character; for, not content with performing acts of munificence and charity, the necessity and propriety of which suggested themselves to his own observation, he engaged his friend Jerome Benivenius to be constantly in search of such cases of indigence and di&tress amongst the poorer citizens of Florence as might happen to escape general observation; authorizing him to supply immediate relief as necessity required, and engaging lo refund from his own purse whatever sums he should disburse on these benevolent occasions. In his latter days, to which we are now approaching, we are told that pride, ambition, anger, and all the turbulent passions, had subsided; that vanity and self-conceit were extinguished, and that no events, whether prosperous or adverse, discomposed the constant and uniform serenity of his mind. These great qualities, however, were not wholly unmixed with some portion of the superstition incident to the age. He is represented as having, at particular seasons, added to the usual mortifications prescribed by the church, by voluntary penances and self-inflicted pains, which the erring judgment of those times considered as meritorious. Of many, however, of the abuses and corruptions of the papal hierarchy he appears to have been sensible, and on various points of doctrine his views have been pronounced much more rational than could be expected from the time.

He now devoted himself to theological studies. We have already mentioned his “Hexaplus,” or explanation of the six days gf the creation; and he appears at this time to have been making preparations for farther elucidating the Holy Scriptures, and for combating the errors of his time; but of these and other undertakings, scarce any now remain except his work “Contra Astrologiam Divinatricem” and a few “Opuscula*” Of the immense mass of manuscripts found after his decease, few could be decyphered or methodized* but his nephew, by great pains uiul labour, was enabled to transcribe that portion of his voluminous work which was levelled against judicial astrology, and which proved to be in a more finished state than the rest. It was afterwards published in various collections of his works, under the title of “De Astrologia Disputationum Libri duodecim,” and has entitled Picus to the praise of having been the first who boldly and successfully exposed the fallacy of a species of superstition, which, notwithstanding his endeavours, continued long after this to hold its empire over the human mind.

At length, however, the labours of this illustrious scholar drew to a close. In 1494, while at Florence, he was seized with a fever which proved fatal on the thirteenth day, Nov. 17, in the thirty-third year of his age. His remains were interred in the church of St. Mark, near those of his friend Politian, whom he did not survive quite two months. The well-known epitaph inscribed on Picus’s tomb,

is attributed to the pen of Hercules Strozza. The regret excited amongst the learned in all parts of Europe, by the tidings of the decease of Picus, was proportionate to the high reputation of his talents and character.

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

The works of Picus were printed together at Bologna, in 1496; at Venice, 1498; at Strasburg, 1504; at Basil, 1557, 1573, 1601, all in folio. The edition of 1601 contains the following works: 1. “Heptaplus, id est, de Dei Creatoris opere sex dierum, libri septem,” which seems to have been written chiefly with a view to authorize and support those Platonic ideas, with which his warm imagination was not a little inebriated. 2. “Conclusiones 900, quas olim Roma? disputandas exhibuit.” But the editors have omitted the advertisement subjoined at their first pubJication, which runs thus: “Conclusiones non disputabuntur nisi post Epiphaniam, interim publicabuntur in omnibus Italiae gymnasiis & si quis philosophus aut theologus ab extrema Italia arguendi gratia Romam venire voluerit, ipse pollicetur dominus disputaturus, se viatici expensas illi soluturum de suo.” 3. “Apologia adversus eos, qni aliquot propositiones theologicas carpebant.” 4. “De ente & uno, opus in quo plurimi loci in Moise, in Platone & Aristotele explicantur.” 5. “De hominis dignitate oratio.” Mirandula discovers here many secrets of the Jewish Cabala, of the Chaldean and Persian philosophers. 6. “Regulse XII. partim excitantes, partim dirigentes hominem in pugna spiritual!.” 7. “In Psalmum XV. commentarius.” 8. “In orationem Dominicam expositio.” 9. “Aureae & familiares epistola?,” which are perhaps, at present, the most useful and entertaining part of his works: on which account the public is much obliged to the learned Christopher Cellarius, for giving a correct edition of them with notes, 1682, in 8vo. 10. “Disputationum in astrologiam libri XII.” the most solid and argumentative of all his works. 11. “Commento sopra una canzone de amore, composta da Girolamo Benivieni, secundo la mente & opinione de' Platonici” translated into English by Thomas Stanley, 1651, in 8vo. 12. “Elegia in laudem Hieronymi Benivieni;” in Latin and Italian.

His life, prefixed to his works, and afterwards inserted in Bates* “Vitae illustrium virorum,” was written by his nephew, John Francis Picus; but a more valuable, and certainly the most elaborate account yet given of this extraordinary man, is that for which we are indebted to the Rev. W. Parr Gresswell, published in 1805, with the Lives ofPolitian, &.c. and to which it is sufficient to refer, as including every species of authority.

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

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

, an English painter, who flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and II. was eminent both in history and landscapes. He also drew architecture, perspective, &c. and was much esteemed in his time. But there is little of his work now remaining, the far greater part being destroyed in the fire of London, in 1666. It chiefly consisted of altar-pieces, ceilings of churches, and the like; of which last sort there was one lately remaining, in Covent-garden church, in which were many admirable qualities of a good pencil. He worked some time for Vandyke; and several pieces of his performing are to be seen at Belvoir castle in Leicestershire. He died in London about fifty years ago, leaving behind him three sons, who all became famous in their different ways. One was an excellent sculptor, as appears by a noble marble vase, executed by him, at Hampton-court, the statues of sir Thomas Gresham and Edward III. at the Royal Exchange, and of sir William Walworth at Fishmongers’-hatl; and the busts of Thomas Evans in Painters’-hall, and of sir Christopher Wren in the picture-gallery at Oxford, &c.

, one of the most celebrated sculptors that France has produced, was born at Paris in 1714, the son of a joiner, and by his talents became not only sculptor to the king, but chancellor of the academy of painting, and knight of the order of St. Michael. He did not manifest any early disposition for designing; he loved to model, but set about it awkwardly, and finished nothing but by means of indefatigable labour. A visit to Italy gave him that facility which he could not acquire at home. He there studied the works of the great artists, and returned thoroughly inspired with their genius. He died at Paris, Aug. 20, 1785. His most known works are, 1. “A Mercury and a Venus,” which he made by order of Louis XV. and which were presented to the king of Prussia. The king, who was delighted with them, was desirous to see the sculptor; and Pigalle, some time after, went to Berlin, but, being announced as the author of the Mercure de France, could not obtain an audience. When Frederic understood the mistake, he was very anxious to repair it; but Pigalle was already gone in some digust. Pigalle maintained that none of the heads of Frederic did justice to his physiognomy, which, in point of spirit, was the finest he had ever seen; and much regretted that he had not been allowed to model it. 2. The monument of marechal Saxe, in which the beauty of the whole obliterates all objections to the parts. 3. The pedestrian statue of Louis *XV. executed in bronze for the city of Rheims. 4. The statue of Voltaire. 5. A little boy holding a cage. '6. A girl taking a thorn from her foot. 7. Several busts of men of letters who were his friends. If Pigaile cannot be ranked among the men of the first genius in his art, the good sense of his designs, and the soundness of his taste, afford him a place in the very next class.

, a Dutch divine and mathematician, was born at Campen in Overyssell, towards the close of the fifteenth century, and was educated at Louvain. He acquired considerable distinction by his publications against Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and Calvin, and was much esteemed, as indeed he deserved, by popes Adrian VI. Clement VII. and Paul III for, even by the confession of the catholic historians, he was most blindly attached to the powers, privileges, and usurpations of the Romish pontiffs. He died at Utrecht, where he was provost of the church of St. John the Baptist, Dec. 29, 1542, leaving many works; the most considerable among which is entitled “Assertio Hierarchiae Ecclesiastical,” Colog. 1572, folio. His mathematical treatises, which do him most credit, were, “De Ratione Paschalis celebrationis,” 1520; “De Æquinoctiorum Solstitiorumque inventione” a defence of the Alphonsine tables, and “Astrologiae Defensio” against the pretenders to prognostics, and annual predictions.

, nephew to the preceding, was born at Campen in 1520;. and, when grown up, went to Rome, where he spent eight years in the study of Roman antiquities, of which he acquired a knowledge that was not exceeded by any of his time. He then returned to Germany, and was taken into the family of the cardinal de Granvelle, who made him his librarian. He published an early, but not very correct eaition of Valerius iYlaximus, in 1567, 8vo. Afterwards he became preceptor to Charles, prince of Juliers and Cleves, and was to have attended him to Rome: but in this he was disappointed by the death of the prince, whose loss he deplored in a panegyric, entitled “Hercules Prodicus;” for which the prince’s father, William, made him canon of the church, and head master of the school, at Santen. He died at Santen in 1604, aged eighty-four.

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

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

, or Leo Pilatus, a monk of Calabria, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is considered as one of the most industrious of those eminent scholars who contributed to the revival of literature and taste in Europe, and was the first who taught Greek in Italy, where he had Petrarch and Boccaccio for his scholars. He was on his return from a journey through Greece, in search of manuscripts in that language, when he was killed by lightning. Notwithstanding his knowledge of Greek, he was thought but moderately skilled in Latin.

, an ingenious Frenchman, was born at Clameci, of a good family, in 1635 and was educated at Nevers, Auxerre, and Paris, and lastly studied divinity in the Sorbonne. In the mean lime, he cultivated the art of painting, which he was supposed to understand in theory as well as practice. The former accomplishment led him to an acquaintance with du Fresnoy, whose Latin poem upon painting he translated into French. Menage also became acquainted with his great merit, and procured him, in 1652, to be appointed tutor to the son of Mons Amelot: in which he gave such satisfaction, that, when his pupil was old enough to travel, he attended him to Italy. There he had an opportunity of gratifying his taste for painting; and upon his return to Paris, he devoted himself to the study of that art, and soon acquired a name among connoisseurs. In 1682, Amelot, his quondam pupil, being sent on an embassy to Venice, de Piles attended him as secretary; and, during his residence there, was sent by the marquis de Louvois into Germany, to purchase pictures for the king, and also to execute a commission relating to state affairs. In 1685, he attended M. Amelot to Lisbon; and in 1689 to Switzerland, in the same capacity. In 1692, he was sent to Holland, apparently as a picturecollector, but in reality to act secretly with the friends of France. On this occasion, however, he was discovered, and thrown into prison, where he continued till the peace of Ryswick, and amused himself with writing “The Lives of Painters.” In 1705, old as he was, he attended Amelot into Spain, when he went as ambassador extraordinary: but, the air of Madrid not agreeing with him, he was forced to return, and died in 1709, aged seventy-four.

, a learned and pious English prelate, was the third son of Richard Pilkington of Riving-­ton, in the county of Lancaster, esq. as appears by the pedigree of the family in the Harleian collection of manuscripts in the British Museum. He was born at Rivington in 1520, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken the degree of D. D. but Mr. Baker and Mr. Cole are of opinion he proceeded only B. D. In 1558, however, he was made master of that college, and was one of the revivers of the Greek tongue in the university. Strype says that he was presented by Edward VI. to the vicarage of Kendal in Westmoreland. Tie was obliged to leave the country during the Marian persecution, and abroad he appears to have associated with the Geneva reformers, and imbibed their opinions as to externals. When he returned, he was made bishop of Durham by queen Elizabeth, Feb. 1560-1, a proof that he must have been distinguished for learning and abilities, as he appears always to have been for piety. In 1562 he is said to have been queen’s reader of divinity lectures. For this, Mr- Baker allows that he was well qualified, for besides that he bore a part in the disputation at the visitation of Cambridge, under king Edward, while Bucer was at Cambridge, he voluntarily read in public upon the Acts of the Apostles, and acquitted himself learnedly and piously.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

The year 1564 was remarkable for a contest about the ecclesiastical habits, and about various irregularities which had taken place in the service of the church. Bishop Pilkington, who had adopted the notions of the Geneva reformers on such subjects, entertained some scruples in his own mind about the habits, and particularly disliked the cap and surplice, though not so as to refuse to wear them. He was, however, very averse to forcing compliance upon others; and when he observed that this matter was about to be urged by the court, he wrote a long and earnest letter, dated from Auckland, Get 25, 1564, to the earl of Leicester, entreating him to use his interest to oppose it, and at the same time justified his own practice as we'aring the habits for the sake of peace, but not forcing others whose consciences prevented their compliance. In all other respects our prelate was a true friend to church and state, as appears by many of his writings, and was very assiduous in ecclesiastical duties.

He wrote a “Commentary of Aggeus (Haggai) the Prophet,” 1560, 8vo. A sermon on the “Burning of St. Paul’s Church in London, in 1561,” 1563, 12mo. This occasioned a short controversy, as the papists and protestants mutually accused each other. He wrote also “Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Epistle of St. Peter, and of St. Paul to the Galatians,” and “A Defence of the English Service;” but it seems doubtful whether these were printed. After his death, his “Exposition on Nehemiah” was published 1585, 4to. He left in manuscript “Statutes for the Consistory.” He died Jan. 23, 1575, aged fifty-five, and was first buried at Auckland; but afterwards removed and interred in the choir at Durham cathedral, with an inscription, now defaced, but which Willis copied from a ms. in the Bodleian library. Mr. Baker has a different one. His brothers, John and Leonard, were prebendaries of Durham; Leonard was D. D. master of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and regius professor there. Our prelate founded a school at Rivington, the seat of his family. He had by his wife Alicia, of the family of the Kingsmills, at Sigmanton, in Hampshire, two sons and two daughters. He had a brother, Leonard, who was a prebendary of Durham, rector of Middleton, regius professor of divinity, Cambridge, in 1561, and master of St. John’s college. He died probably about 1600.

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

She came afterwards to England, and settled in London; where, Col ley Gibber making interest for her, she lived some time upon contributions from the great; but at length these succours failed, and we find her in the prison of the Marshalsea. After lying nine weeks here, she was released by another effort of her friend Gibber, and then, weary of attending upon the great, she resolved to employ five guineas she had left, in trade; and accordingly, taking a little shop in St. James’s-street, she furnished it with pamphlets and prints. She did not probably succeed in this scheme, for on Aug. 29, 1750, she died at Dublin, in her thirty-ninth year.

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

is the name of an ancient fabulist, a Bramin; he was, as is supposed, governor of part of Indostan, and counsellor to a powerful Indian king, named Dabschclin, whose preceptor he had been. His work is said to have been written 2000 years B. C. but all internal evidence is against this. It is called in the Indian language, Kelile Wadimne, a name the Orientals give to an animal very much resembling a fox, and which is made to speak throughout the work. All the modern translations of this Orientalist, are made either from the Greek or the Persian, and are said to differ much from the original. His fables were translated into French, by Ant. Galland, 1714, 12mo. Another work is also attributed to him, entitled, in the translation, “Le Naufrage des isles flotantes,” or, “The Basiliade,” 1755.

, usually styled the prince of Lyric poets, was a contemporary of Æschylus, and born somewhat above forty years before the expedition of Xerxes, against the Greeks, and more than 500 B. C. His birth-place was Thebes, the capital of Bceotia; a country, the air of which was esteemed gross, and the stupidity of its inhabitants proverbial. We find the poet, in his sixth Olympic, confessing the disadvantage of his climate, yet resolving to exempt himself from the general censure. His parents are supposed to have been of low condition, so that he was more indebted for his attainments to his genius than to any advantages of education. We hrtve, however, few particulars of his life, amidst the numerous panegyrics to be found in ancient writers. He was highly courted and respected by most of the princes and states of Greece, and even allowed a share with the gods in their gifts and offerings, by the command of the oracle itself. For the priestess at Delphi ordered the people to give a part of thrir (irstfruits, which they brought thither, as a present to Pindar: and he had an iron stool set on purpose for him in that temple, on which he used to sit and sing verses in honour of Apollo. His countrymen, the Thebans, were irritated at his commending their enemies, the men of Athens; and fined him, for this affront to the state. Out of spleen too, they determined a poetical prize against him, in favour of a woman, the ingenious and beautiful Corinna. In the mean time, the Athenians made him a present of double the value of his fine; and erected a noble statue in honour of him. His greatest patron was Hiero king of Syracuse, whom he has celebrated in his poems, and it is supposed he left Thebes to attend the court of that prince. He is thought to have passed his whole time in the ease and tranquillity commonly allowed to men of his profession, without intermeddling in affairs of state: for we find him, in his “Isthmics,” defending this way of life. His death is said to have been an answer to his wishes: for, having prayed the gods to send him the greatest happiness of which a mortal is capable, he expired immediately after in the public theatre, in his fifty-fifth year. His relations were highly respected after his decease, and such was the veneration for his memory, that the Lacedemonians, at the taking of Thebes, saved his house; a mark of respect which was afterwards repeated by Alexander the Great. The ruins of this house were to be seen in the time of Pausanias, who lived under the reign of Antoninus the philosopher.

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

The best editions of this poet are, that of Henry Stephens, 1560, 2 vols. 8vo; that of Erasmus Schmidts, in 1616, 4to; and that of Oxford, by West and Welsted, in 1697, folio. From which there was a neat and correct edition, with a Latin version, printed at London by Bowyer in 1755, small 8vo. Of late years, the edition of Heyne, 1773, 8vo, but particularly that of 1798, 3 vols. 8vo, have been in high and just estimation. Two volumes of a more complete edition, with notes on the text, and on the Scholia, were published by the celebrated Beck, in 8vo, at Leipsic, in 1792 and 1795. The remainder is much wanted. We have an excellent translation of this poet bt the amiable Gilbert West, esq.

, an eminent engraver, who, says lord Orford, “need but be mentioned, to put the public in mind of the several beautiful and fine works for which they are indebted to him,” was born in 1690. We have no account of his education, but, independent of his art, he appears to have been a scholar. His first engravings exhibited the splendid ceremonial of the installation of the knights of the bath in 1725. These were followed by his admirable prints, ten in number, representing the tapestry hangings in the House of Lords. These were so highly approved, that the parliament passed an act to secure the emolument arising from their publication to him. Tnese, with the letter-press, form a volume, “rivalling the splendid editions of the Louvre.” The order of the battle, and other circumstances relative to the memorable Spanish armada, are most accurately executed: the portraits of the admirals and captains of the English fleet are not the least valuable part of the whole. He engraved five other plates of the same size, to accompany them, being, 1. A Plan of the House of Peers; another of the House of Commons A View of the Creation of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by Henry VIII. from a drawing in the College at Arms. 2. The House of Peers, with Henry VIII. on the throne, the Commons attending, from a drawing by the then Garter King at Arms. Another View of the House of Peers, with Elizabeth on the throne, the Commons presenting their Speaker at t;he bar, from a painted print in the Cottonian Library. A copy of a beautiful Illumination of the Charter of Henry VI, to the Provost and College of Eton. 3. The House of Lords, shewing his majesty on the throne, the Lords in their proper robes and seats, the Commons at the bar, and the Speaker addressing the throne. 4. The House of Commons, shewing the Commons assembled in their House, the Speaker in his Chair, and sir Robert Walpole, the Minister, standing forth in his usual posture toward the chair. A View of the Lord High Steward, in both Houses of Parliament, Judges, &c. assembled in Westminster-hall, Lord Lovat, the crijmnal at the bar, on his trial. He also engraved the whole text of Horace, illustrating it with ancient bas reliefs and gems, and in the same manner Virgil’s Bucolics and Georgics. These are his principal works, except his “Magna Charta:” one of the copies of which he presented to the Aldermen of London, who voted him a purse with twenty guineas in it. He, with Tinney and Bowles, published a large Plan of London and Westminster, with all their buildings, on a large scale, from an actual survey taken by John Rorque. Jn 1743 he was made Blue Mantle in the Heralds’ roiltge, and his Majtsty, George II. gave him thr appointment of marker of the dice, and afterward his engraver of the signets, seals, and stamps: places which he held to his death, which happened in the college, May 4, 1756, aged sixty-six.

His son, Robert Edge Pine, was a painter of considerable merit at his outset in life, when he painted his “Surrender at the Siege of Calais,” and his “Canute on the Sea-shore;” but did not improve as he went on, and not meeting with encouragement, went to Philadelphia, where he died in 1790. Edwards has given a short, but not very favourable account of him. Mr. Fuseli says that he had breadth, richness, and mellowness of colour, a forcible chiaroscuro, and an historic tone; his composition was not despicable; but his drawing was too provokingly feeble, to suffer the most unexperienced or indulgent eye to dwell long on his work.

, a celebrated lawyer, was born in 1573, of a good family at Angers. He attended the bar with a degree of reputation superior to his age; and going afterwards to Paris, distinguished himself both in the parliament and grand council, by his eloquent pleadings. In 1600 he married Frances Ladvocat, daughter of Amauri Ladvocat, seigneur de Fougeres, and counsellor to the presidial of Angers, and at his return to his native place, was appointed counsellor to the same presidial. Mary de Medicis becoming acquainted with him in 1619, conceived the highest esteem for his merit, created him master of the requests in her palace, and endeavoured to support herself in her disgrace by his credit and advice; but M. du Pineau’s whole aim was to inspire her with resignation, in which he at last succeeded. Louis XIII. in return appointed him mayor and captain-general of the city of AngerSj June 2, 1632, in which situation he gained the flattering title of “Father of the People.” His house became also a kind of academy, in which every one freely proposed his difficulties on the most intricate points of law or history, and when du Pineau had spoken, the point in dispute was considered as decided. He died Oct. 15, 1644, aged 71. His works are, Notes in Latin, against those of du Moulin on the canon law, printed under the inspection of Francis Pinsson, with du Moulin' s works; “Comm. des observations et consultations surlaContume d'Anjou,” reprinted, 1725, 2 vols. fol. by the care of M. de Livoniere, who has enriched them with very useful observations. Menage relates that when his father William Menage, and du Pineau, agreed in their opinions on the same question, the people of Angers used to say, “This must certainly be right, for Pineau has confirmed the opinion of Menage.” His house was so much frequented, that the street in which he lived was called “Rue Pineau.”

, a learned Spaniard, was born at Seville, of a noble family, and entered into the society of Jesuits in 1572. He taught philosophy and theology in several colleges, and was skilled in the oriental languages. He wrote, among other things, 1. Two volumes folio, of “Commentaries on Job.” 2. The same on Ecclesiastes. 3. A book “De rebus Salomonis,” folio, curious and learned, but not always correct. 4. “An universal History of the Church,” in Spanish, 4 vols. folio. 5. “A History of Ferdinand Hi.” in the same language. He died in 1637, much regretted.

, an Italian nobleman, celebrated for his love of letters, and the library he formed, and well compared by Thuanus to Pomponius Atticus, was born at Naples, in 1533, the son of a noble Genoese. After having received an excellent education, he went and settled at Padua, at the age of twenty-four, and early in life began to form his library, which he collected from all parts with incredible diligence. Lipsius, Jos. Scaliger, Sigonius, Pancirollus, Pithou, and all the most learned men of his time, corresponded with him, and have celebrated him for erudition. His whole mind was occupied with the love of knowledge, which embraced history, medals, antiquities, natural history, and botany; and it is said, that in forty -three years he never was out of Padua, except twice, one of which times his removal was occasioned by the plague. He died in 1601. At his death, his library was removed to his heirs at Naples, in 130 cases, fourteen of which were full of manuscripts. Two hundred volumes were retained by the republic of Venice, as treating of affairs pertaining to that state. In 1790, this noble library, augmented considerably by the descendants of this Pinelli, was purchased by Messrs. Edwards and llobson, two eminent booksellers, and sold by auction in London; and thus in a few weeks was dissipated, what it had been the labour of near two centuries to collect.

, a French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, in 1711. In 1727 he became a member of the canons regular of the congregation of France. He was intended for the church, hut the freedom of his opinions displeased his superiors, and after a few years’ study of theology, he devoted himself entirely to the sciences. In 1749 he was appointed a member of the academy of sciences in Rouen, and was elected to fill the office of astronomer, and attained to first-rate excellence. His earliest production, as an author, was the “Calculation of an Eclipse of the Moon,” on the 23d of December 1749. Lacaille had calculated it at Paris; but the calculations differed by four minutes: Lacaille., however confessed his error, and received Pingre into his friendship. In May 1753 he was elected correspondent of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, after having sent them an observation of the transit of Mercury, which he made at Rouen. He was next appointed librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, obtained the construction of an observatory, and was furnished by the abbot and chapter with a six-foot telescope, while he had the loan of an excellent quadrant from the academy. At the desire of Le Monnier, he next engaged in calculating “A Nautical Almanack,” to enable navigators more easily to ascertain the longitude by means of lunar observations. He calculated a table of the eclipses visible of the sun and moon from the commencement of the Christian aera to 1900, and afterwards a table of the eclipses visible from the northern pole to the equator, for a thousand years before our aera. The utility of these labours for verifying historical dates, induced the Academy of Inscriptions to insert a part of them in the forty-second volume of their Memoirs. He published the “State of the Heavens” for 1754: in this the moon’s place was calculated with the utmost exactness according to the tables of Dr. Halley for noon and midnight, with the right ascension in seconds of time twice a day. In 1753 he published “A Memoir relating to the Discoveries made in the South Sea, during the Voyages of the English and French round the World.” In 1760, Pingre left France for the island of Rodriguez, in the Indian ocean, to observe the transit of Venus, that was to take place in the following year; and on the 6th of June of that year he made his observations, from which he concluded that the parallax, of the sun was 10“. 2. At the same time the English astronomer Mason concluded, from the observations which he made at the Cape of Good Hope, that the parallax was 8”. 2. La Lande, in his “Astronomy,” published in 1764, adopted a medium between these conclusions, and supposed l,he parallax to be 9“, in which he was followed by astronomers in general, till more numerous observations, made on the transit of 1769, led to a different result. After the return of Pingre from the East, he published a description of Pekin, in which he shewed the position of that capital from the result of a number of calculations of eclipses; and ascertained its longitude by other calculations, with a degree of precision to which none of the labours of the scientific missionaries had any pretensions. In 1769 he sailed for the island of St. Domingo, on board the Isis man of war, to observe the transit of Venus, and performed the service committed to him in the most able and satisfactory manner possible. An account of this voyage, which proved of considerable importance to the science of geography, as well as astronomy, appeared in 1773, in two vols. 4to. After comparing the results of the immense number of calculations made by the observers of the transit in 1769J the sun’s parallax has been concluded to be about 8”. 6. In 1771, Pingre made another voyage, on board the Flora frigate, with a view of extending the interests of geographical and astronomical knowledge, having with him, as the companion of his pursuits, the chevalier de Borda, a celebrated engineer and geometrician. The account of their proceedings, observations, and experiments, was published in 1778, in two vols. 4to. In 1784, M. Pingre published his “Cometography, or historical and theoretical treatise on Comets,” in two vols. 4tc, which is his most considerable work, and contains calculations of the orbits of all the comets of which an. account has been preserved. After a long life, spent in the most important services to the world, he died in the month of May 179tf, leaving behind him a high character for integrity, having enjoyed the esteem of the public, as well as that of his friends. He was author of many other works besides those that have been already noticed.

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

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

His last work was a Nativity, for the monastery of St. Francis, at Sienna; in which place he had a room assigned him to paint in, without the danger of his being interrupted, and out of which he requested every thing might be removed. Every thing, accordingly, was taken away, except an old chest, which was so crazy, that when the attempt was made, it broke to pieces, and a treasure of 500 pieces of gold was discovered concealed within it. The joy of the monks was equalled only by the mortification of the painter, who is said to have died of chagrin soon after, in 1513, at the age of 59.

, was called also Venetiano, from Venice, the place of his birth, which occurred in 1485. He was renowned, in early life, as a musician, and particularly for his skill in playing upon the lute. While he was yet in his youth, he abandoned that science, and was taught the rudiments of the art of painting by Giovanni Bellini; but Giorgione da Castel Franco having just then exhibited his improved mode of colouring and effect, Sebastian became his disciple and most successful imitator. His portraits, in particular, were greatly admired for the strength of resemblance, and the sweetness and fulness of style, which made them be frequently mistaken for the work of Giorgione. His portrait of Julio Gonzaga, the favourite of cardinal Hippolito di Medici, is by many writers mentioned in the highest terms. Being induced to go to Rome, he soon attracted public notice; and in the contest respecting the comparative merits of Raphael and M. Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, who in consequence favoured him on all occasions, and even stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael, by painting a picture in competition with that great man’s last great work, the Transfiguration; which had just been placed, with great form, in the church of St. Pietro a Montorio. The subject Sebastian chose was the resurrection of Lazarus; for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael’s; and, when completed, was placed in the same consistory, and was very highly applauded. The cardinal di Medici sent it to his bishopric of Narbonno, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans. It is now in England, and in possession of J. Angerstein esq. who gave 2000 guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author, yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution.

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

, an English comic painter, was the son of a Kentish gentleman descended from a Walloon family. His father, having a plentiful estate, gave this his eldest son a liberal education, and would have had him bred a scholar, or else a merchant; but his genius leading him wholly to designing, he could not fix to any particular science or business but the art to which he naturally inclined. Drawing took up all his time and all his thoughts; and being of a gay facetious humour, his manner partook of it. He delighted in drawing ugly faces; and had a talent so particular for it, that he would by a transient view of any remarkable face he met in the street, retain the likeness so exactly in his memory, that it might be supposed the person had sat several times for it. It was said of him, that he would steal a face and a man, who was not handsome enough to desire to see his picture, sat in danger in his company. He had a fancy peculiar to himself in his travels: he would often go away, and let his friends know nothing of his departure; make the tour of France and the Netherlands, a-foot; and sometimes his frolic carried him as far as Grand Cairo. He never advertised his friends of his return, any more than he did of his intended absence, delighting to baffle their conjectures, or tantalize their feelings. In this manner he travelled, at several times, through Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Holland; in which several countries he examined the works of the several painters with pleasure and judgment, and formed to himself a manner of design which no man in that kind ever excelled, or perhaps equalled.

Having a good estate of his own, and being generous, as most men of genius are, he would never take any thing for his pieces. He drew them commonly over a bottle, which he loved so well, that he spent great part of his hours of pleasure in a tavern. This was the occasion that some of his best pieces, especially such as are as large as the life, are to be found in those houses; particularly at the Mitre Tavern, in Stocks-market, where there was a room called the Amsterdam, adorned with his pictures in black and white. The room took its name from his pieces; which, representing a Jesuit, a Quaker preaching, and other preachers of most sects, was called the Amsterdam; as containing an image of almost as many religions as are professed in that free city. He drew also other pieces of humour for a Mr. Shepheard, a vintner, at the Bell, in Westminster, which Mr. Holmes, of the Mitre, purchased, to make his collection of this master’s pieces the more complete; and the benefit of shewing them was not a little advantageous to his house. Piper drew also a piece, representing a constable with his myrmidons, in very natural and ludicrous postures. He seldom designed after the life, and neglected colouring: yet he sometimes, though very rarely, coloured some of his pieces, and is said not to have been very unsuccessful in it. He was a great admirer and imitator of Augustine Caracci, Rembrandt, and Heemskirk’s manner of design, and was always in raptures when he spoke of Titian’s colouring: for, notwithstanding he never had application enough to make himself a master of that part of his art, he admired it in those that were so, especially the Italians. He drew the pictures of several of his friends in black and white; and maintained a character of truth, which shewed, that if he had bestowed time to perfect himself in colouring, he would have rivalled the best of our portrait-painters. Towards the latter end of his life, having impaired his fortune, he sometimes took money. He drew some designs for Mr. Isaac Becket, who copied them in mezzothto. Those draughts were generally done at a tavern; and, whenever he pleased, he could draw enough in half an hour to furnish a week’s work for Becket .

His invention was fruitful, and his drawing bold and free. He understood landscape-painting, and performed it to perfection. He was particularly a great master in. perspective. In designing his landscapes, he had a manner peculiar to himself. He always carried a long book about with him, like a music-book, which, when he had a mind to draw, he opened; and, looking through it, made the lower corner of the middle of the book his point of sight: by which, when he had formed his view, he directed his perspective, and finished his picture. His hand was ready, his strokes bold; and, in his etching, short. He etched several things himself, generally on oval silver plates for his friends; who, being most of them as hearty lovers of the bottle as himself, put glasses over them, and made lids of them for their tobacco-boxes. He drew several of the grand seignors’ heads for sir Paul Rycaut’s “History of the Turks,” which were engraved by Mr. Elder. In the latter part of his life, he applied himself to modelling in wax in basso-relievo; in which manner he did abundance of things with good success. He often said, he wished he had thought of it sooner, for that sort of work suited better with his genius than any; and had he lived longer, he would have arrived to great perfection in it. Some time before his death another estate fell to him, by the decease of his mother; when, giving himself new liberty on this enlargement of his fortune, he fell into a fever by his free way of living; and, employing a surgeon to let him blood, the man unluckily pricked an artery, which accident proved mortal. Piper was very fat, which might contribute to this misfortune. He died in Aldermanbury, about 1740.

However corpulent and heavy Piper’s body was, his mind was always sprightly and gay. He was never out of humour, nor dull; and had he borrowed more time from his mirth to give to his studies, he had certainly been an. honour to his country. However, he lives still in the memory of his acquaintance, with the character of an hoiiest man, and a great master in his art. His pieces are scattered up and down, chiefly in London; and the best and most of them were lately in the hands of Mr. Le Piper, his brother, a merchant in that city.

, called more frequently Julio Romano, a very eminent painter, was born in 1492, and was the principal disciple of Raphael, his heir, the cominuator of his works, and himself at the head of a school. Whilst a pupil, he imbibed all his master’s energy of character, and chiefly signalized himself in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and erudition. As a designer, he commands the whole mechanism of the human body; and, without fear of error, turns and winds it about to serve his purposes; but sometimes oversteps the modesty of nature. Vasari prefers his drawings to his pictures, as the original fire which distinguishes his conception was apt to evaporate, in the longer process of finish: and some have, with more reason, objected to' the character of his physiognomies, as less simple than vulgar; and often dismal and horrid, without being terrible. In colour, whether fresco or oil, his hand was as expeditious, a.nd his touch, especially in the former, as decided, as his eye and choice were ungenial: bricky lights, violet demitints, black shades, compose, in general, the raw opaque tone of his oil-pictures. The style of his draperies is classic, but the management of the folds generally arbitrary and mannered; the hair and head-dresses of his women are always fanciful and luxurious, but not always arranged by taste, whilst those of the men frequently border on the grotesque.

He came to Mantua, and there found antique treasures, of which the statues, busts, and basso-relievos, at. present in the academy, are but insignificant remains. To the stores of the Gonzaghi he added his own, rich in designs of Raphael, and studies and plans from the antique; for no designer ever possessed such industry with so much fire, so much consideration with such fecundity, or combiued with equal rapidity such correctness, and with great recondite knowledge in mythology and history, that popularity and ease in treating it. The increased practice, and the authority derived from the superintendance of the works left unfinished by his master, established his reliance on himself, and the call of the Gonzaghi roused that loftiness of conception, and gave birth to those magnificent plans, from which Mantua and the wonders of the palace del T. as it was called, rose, as from enchantment. This palace furnishes specimens in every class of picturesque imagery. Whatever be the dimension, the subject, or the scenery, minute or colossal, simple or complex, terrible or pleasing, we trace a mind bent to surprise or to dazzle by poetic splendor: but, sure to strike by the originality of his conception, he often neglects propriety in the conduct of his subjects, considered as a series, and in the arrangement or choice of the connecting parts; hurried into extremes by the torrent of a fancy more lyric than epic, he disdains to fill the intermediate chasms, and too often leaves the task of connexion to the spectator.

, a very celebrated architect and engraver, was a native of Venice, but resident for the greater part of his life at Rome. The time of his hirth is not known here, but it must have been about1711. He was remarkable for a bold and free style of etching; which, in general, he drew upon the plate at once, without any, or with very little previous sketch. He worked with such rapidity and diligence, that the magnitude and number of his plates almost exceed belief; and they are executed with a spirit and genius which are altogether peculiar to hi Ib. The earliest of his works appear to have been published in 1743, and consist of designs invented by himself, in a very grand style; with views of ruins, chiefly the work of imagination, and strongly characterizing the magnificence of his ideas. These are sometimes found in a volume, collected by Bourchard, in 1750: with views of Roman antiquities, not in Rome, among which are several of Pola, in Istria. The dedication to these views is dated 1748. Considering these as forming his first work, we may enumerate the rest from a catalogue print, published by himself many years after. 2. “Antichita Romane,” or Roman Antiquities, comprised in 218 plates of atlas paper, commencing by a topographical view of ancient Rome, made out from the fragments of a most curious antique plan of that city, found in the pavement of the temple of Romulus, and now preserved in the Museum at the Capitol. These, with the descriptions in Italian, form four volumes in folio. 3. “Fasti consulares triumphalesque Romanorum, ab urbe condita, usque ad Tiherium Csesarem.” 4. “Del Castello dell' acqua Giulia, e della maniera in cui anticamente si concedevano e distribuivano le acque,” 21 folio plates. 5. “Antichita d'Albano, e di Castel Gandolfo,” 55 plates. 6. “Campus Martins Antique urbis,” with descriptions in Italian and Latin, 54 plates. 7. “Arcbi trionfali antichi, Tempi, ed Anfiteatri, esistenti in Roma, ed in altre parti d'ltalia,” 31. plates. 8. “Tro.fei d'Ottaviano Augusto,” &c. 10 plates. 0. “Delia Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani,” 44 plates, with above 200 pages of letter- press, in Italian and Latin. This great work appears to have been occasioned, in great measure, by some dialogues published in London in 1755, but now forgotten here, and entitled, “The Investigator.” These, containing many foolish calumnies against the ancient Romans, had been interpreted to Piranesi, and inflamed his ardent spirit to this mode of vindication. 10. “Architetture diverse,” 27 plates. 11.“Carceri d'inventione,” 16 plates, full of the most wild, but picturesque conceptions. 12. About 130 separate views of Rome, in its present state; in the grandest style of design, and the boldest manner of etching. Besides these, there is also extant, in very few hands (as it was not published, but only given to particular friends), a small work of this author, containing letters of justification to lord Charlemont; in which he assigns the reasons why he did not dedicate his Roman antiquities to that nobleman, as had been intended. Piranesi here appears extremely irritated against his lordship, and his agents, for neglect and ill-treatment; but the most curious part of the work is, that he has taken the pains to etch, in a small quarto size, and with the utmost neatness, yet with all his accustomed freedom, exact copies of the four original frontispieces, in which the name of his intended patron was to hare been immortalized: with views of the inscriptions reengraved as they now stand; as if the first inscriptions had been cut out of the stones, and the new ones inserted on small pieces let into them, as the ancients sometimes practised. In this form they still remain in his frontispieces; a peculiarity which would not be understood without this key. There are also head-pieces and tail-pieces, all full of imagination, and alluding to the matters and persons involved in the dispute. This work is dated in 1757. Piranesi was well known to most of the English artists who Studied at Rome; among others, to Mr. Mylne, the architect of Blackfriars-bridge, with whom he corresponded for several years, and for whom he engraved a fine view of that structure, in its unfinished state; representing, with precision, the parts subservient to its construction; such as the centres of the arches, &c. for the sake of preserving a memorial of them. Some of his works are dedicated to another British architect, Robert Adam; and as Piranesi was an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries in, London, he always carefully subjoined that title to his name. He was also a member of the academy of the Arcadi, by the name of Salcindio Tiseio. as he has given it in one of his frontispieces, according to the fantastic custom of that society, of giving new names to the persons admitted. All who knew him agree that he was of a fiery and impetuous temper, but full of genius. He left a son, who has been employed in a diplomatic line. The exact time of his death we have not been able to learn; but it is supposed to have happened in or near the year 1780. Pijanesi has been accused, and not without reason, of suffering his imagination to embellish even the designs that were given as real views. He was employed, as an architect, to ornament a part of the priory of Malta, in Rome; in which place his son has erected a statue of him. It is thus mentioned by baron Stolberg, in his Travels: “Here is a fine statue of the architect Piranesi, as large as life, placed there by his son. It is the work of the living artist Angolini; and though it certainly cannot be compared with the best antiques, it still possesses real merit.” His portrait, engraved by Polanzani, in 1750, is in the style of a mutilated statue, and is very spirited. It is prefixed to some of his works.

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

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

“Here lies Piron, who was nothing, not even an academician.” He died of the effects of a fail, Jan. 21, 1773. His works have been collected in seven vols. 8vo, and nine 12mo. But it is agreed, that out of the seven, five at least might be spared; since, besides his “Metromanie,” his “Gustavus,” a tragedy; his “Courses de Tempe,” a pastoral piece; some odes, about twenty epigrams, and one or two tales, there is very little in the whole collection that is above mediocrity. His comedies are reckoned better than, his tragedies; and the prefaces to his dramas, though not excellent in point of style, are full of new and agreeable thoughts, with natural and happy turns of wit and expression.

, an Italian by birth, but the author of many compositions in French prose and verse, was born at Venice about 1363, being the daughter of Thomas Pisan, of Bologna, much celebrated at that time as an astrologer. When she was five years old, her father settled with her in France, and her extraordinary beauty and wit procured her an excellent husband by the time she was fifteen. After ten years she lost this husband, Stephen Castel, by whom she was most tenderly beloved, and found her chief resource for comfort and subsistence in her pen; her husband’s fortune being entangled in several law-suits. Charles VI. of France, and other princes, noticed and assisted her on account of her talents, and provided for her children. When she died is uncertain. Some of her poems, which are full of tenderness, were printed at Paris in 1529, others remain in manuscript in the royal library. “The Life of Charles V.” written by desire of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, is considered as her best performance in prose. It is preserved in ms. in the library of the king of France, but a transcript was published by the abbé Le Beuf in the third volume of “Dissertations on the Ecclesiastical History of Paris,” where he gives a Life of Cnristina. She wrote also “An hundred Stories of Troy,” in rhyme “The Treasure of the City of Dames,” Paris, 1497 “The Long Way,” translated by John Chaperon, 1549, under the title of “Le Chemin de long etendue.” In the Harleian collection of Mss. (No. 219, 5) is a piece by Christina entitled “Epistre d'Otnea deese de Prudence a Hector, &c. Mis en vers Francois, et dedie a Charles V. de France.” Anthony WidviSle, earl Rivers, translated a work of hers, we know not whether included in any of the above, entitled “The Moral Proverbs of Christian of Pyse,” printed by Caxton. Lord Orford, who has noticed this work in his account of WidviUe, has also introduced an account of Christina, which, although written in his flippant and sarcastic manner, contains some interesting particulars of her history.

, a protestant German divine, was born at Strasburgh in 1546. In his early studies he acquired the character of an able philosopher, but was most approved as a commentator on the scriptures. He inclined at first to the Lutheran opinions, but afterwards embraced those of Calvin, and lastly endeavoured to give an Arminian modification of some of the Calvinistic opinions respecting original sin, grace, and predestination, which, as usual, pleased neither party. He was for some time professor of divinity in the newly-established university of Herborn, where he died in 1626, in the eightieth year of his age. Besides a translation of the Bible into German, he wrote commentaries, in Latin, on the Bible, first printed in 8vo, afterwards in 4 vols. fol. 1643, &c. and many controversial treatises.

, a learned divine, was born February 4, 1546, at Nidda. He first took a doctor’s degree in physic, but, as he did not succeed according to his hopes, he studied the law, and was counsellor to Ernest Frederic, margrave of Baden Dourlach, whom he persuaded to embrace the protestant religion, but turned catholic himself sometime after. After the death of his wife he was admitted doctor in duinity, was made counsellor to the emperor, provost of the cathedral at Breslaw, and domestic prelate of the abbey of Fulde. He died in 1608, at Friburg. He left several controversial tracts against the Lutherans, “Scriptores Rerum Polonicarum,” 1582, 3 vols. fol.; “Scriptores de Rebus Germanicis,” 1607, 1613, 3 vols. fol. a curious collection, which Struvius very much improved in a new edition published at Ratisbon in 1726, 3 vols. fol. Pistorius also published an edition of “Artis cabalisticae Scriptores,” Basil, 1587, fol.

, an eminent Scotch physician of the mechanical sect, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Fife, and born at Edinburgh Dec. 25, 1652. After some classical education at the school of Dalkeith, he was removed in 1668 to the university of Edinburgh; where, having gone through a course of philosophy, he obtained in 1671 his degree of M. A. and studied first divinity, which does not appear to have been to his taste, and then the civil law, which was more seriously the object of his choice, and he pursued it with so much intenseness as to impair his health. He was then, advised to travel to Montpelier in France, but found himself recovered by the time he reached Paris. He determined to pursue the study of the law in the university there; but there being no able professor of it, and meeting with some of his countrymen, who were students in physic, he went with them to the lectures and hospitals. A few months after, he was called home by his father; and now, having laid in the first elements of all the three professions, he found himself absolutely undetermined which to follow. In the mean time he applied himself to the mathematics, in which he made a very great progress; and an acquaintance which he formed with Dr. David Gregory, the celebrated mathematical professor, probably conduced to cherish his natural aptitude for this study. At length, struck with the charms of mathematical truth which been lately introduced into the philosophy of medicine, and hoping to reduce the healing art to geometrical method, he unalterably determined in favour of medicine as a profession. As there was however at this time no medical school in Edinburgh, no hospital, nor opportunity of improvement but the chamber and the shop, he returned to Paris about 1675, and cultivated the object of his pursuit with diligence and steadiness. Among his various occupations, the study of the ancient physicians seems to have had a principal share. This appears from a treatise which he published some time after his return, “Solutio problematis de inventoribus,” which shews that he wisely determined to know the progress of medicine from its earliest periods, before he attempted to reform and improve that science. In August 1680 he received from the faculty of llheims the degree of Doctor, which in 1699 was likewise conferred on him by the university of Aberdeen, and he was likewise appointed a member of the college of surgeons of Edinburgh in 1701. He was before chosen a member of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh from the time it was established by charter in 1681. On his return to Edinburgh, which was about the time of the revolution, he presently came into good business, and acquired an extensive reputation. Such, however, was his attachment to the exiled James II. that he became excluded from public honours and promotion at home, and therefore, Laving in 1692 received an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, to be professor of physic there, he accepted it, and went and made his inauguration speech the 26th of April that year, entitled “Oratio qua ostenditur meclicinam ab omni philosophorum secta esse Jiberam.” He continued there little more than a year; during which short space he published several dissertations, chiefly with a view of shewing the usefulness of mathematics to physic. Pitcairne was the first who introduced the mechanic principles into that art, now so generally exploded, but they do not appear to have influenced his practice, which did not differ essentially from the present. He returned to Scotland in 1693, to discharge an engagement to a young lady, who became his second wife, the daughter of sir Archibald Stephenson, an eminent physician in Edinburgh; and, being soon after married to her, was fully resolved to set out again for Holland; but, the lady’s parents being unwilling to part with her, he settled at Edinburgh, and wrote a valedictory letter to the university of Leyden. His lady did not survive her marriage many years; yet she brought him a daughter, who was in 1731 married to the earl of Kelly.

In 1701 he republished his “Dissertationes Medicæ,” with some new ones and dedicated them to Bellini, professor at Pisa, in return to the same compliment, which Bellini had made him, when he published his “O'puscula.” They were printed at Rotterdam in one volume 4to, under this title, “Disputationes Medicac,” of which there are eight. The last edition published in his life- time carne out at Edinburgh, a few months before his death, which happened' Oct. 13, 1713. Afterwards were published, in 1717, his lectures to his scholars, under the title of “Klementa Medicine Physico-Mathematica,” although he had taken great pains to prevent the publication of any thing in that way. He even shews some concern about this in his Dissertation “de Circulatione Sanguinis in animaiibns genitis, et non genitis.” There are editions of his whole works at Venice, 1733, and Leyden, 1737, 4to. In 169, being hindered by sickness from attending the calls of his profession, he amused himself with writing remarks upon sir Robert Sibbald’s “Prodromus Historic Tslaturalis Scotiae,” who had published a treatise ridiculing the new method of applying geometry to physic; in return to which Pitcairne wrote, “Dissertatio de Legibus Histories Naturalis,” and published it, but not anonymously, as has been asserted, in the abovementioned year. Pitcairne likewise used to divert himself sometimes with writing Latin verses of considerable merit, which were collected after his death. The occasion of their appearance was a remark of Peter Burman, in his preface to his edition of Buchanan’s history, on the inconsiderable number of Latin writers, especially in poetry, whom Britain had produced. Ruddirnan on this endeavoured to vindicate his native country from its share in this degrading censure; and with that view published, in 1727, a small volume entitled “Selecta Poemata Archibaldi Pitcairnii et aliorum,” &c. But, says lord Woodhouselee, this very attempt affords a demonstration of the truth of the proposition it was meant to disprove, for the poems of Pitcairne comprise almost all that are of any merit in the volume; and even these, from the nature of their subjects, temporary political satire (against the revolution) the commemoration of local incidents, or allusions to private characters, have none of the requisites to found either a. general or a permanent reputation.

These poems, says the same critic, which have the merit of excellent Latinity, and easy and spirited numbers, must have had a poignant relish in his own age, from the very circumstances which render them little interesting in ours. Lord Hailes once intended to have redeemed them from oblivion by a commentary, a specimen of which he gave in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for February 1774; but, as he had no congeniality of opinion with Pitcairne, either as to religion or politics, there would have been a perpetual war betwixt the author and his commentator. With respect to his religion, although Dr. Webster tells us he “died a worthy and religious man,” there is reason to think he had not always lived with much religious impression on his mind. He wrote a comedy, called “The Assembly,” printed at London in 1722, which Mr. George Chalmers says is “personal and political, sarcastic and prophane, and never could have been acted on any stage.” He was also the author of an attack on revealed religion, entitled “Epistola Archimedis ad regem Gelonem Albre Graccae reperta, anno aeree Christianas 1685.” This was made the subject of the inaugural oration of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton, professor of divinity in the uniTersity of St. Andrew’s in 1710, and published at Edinburgh in 1714, 4to. The kte Dr. William and Dr. David Pitcairne were related to our author, but not his immediate descendants.

, or Pithceus, a French gentleman of eminence in the republic of letters, was descended from an ancient and noble family in Normandy, and born at Troy es Nov. 1, 1539. His taste for literature discovered itself early, and it was cultivated to the utmost by the care of his father. He entered upon his studies at Troyes, and was afterwards sent to Paris, where he became tirst the scholar, and then the friend, of Turnebus. When he had finished his pursuits in languages and the belles letters, he was removed to Bourges, and placed under Cujacius, in order to study the civil law. His father was learned in the law, and has left no inconsiderable specimen of his judgment, in the advice he gave his son, for acquiring this branch of knowledge, which was, not to spend his time and pains upon voluminous and barren commentators, but to confine his reading chiefly to original writers. He made so wonderful a progress, that at seventeen he was able to discuss without preparation the most difficult questions; and his master was not ashamed to own, that he was indebted to him for some useful suggestions. Cujacius removing to Valence, Pithou followed him thither, and continued to profit by his lectures, to 1560. He then returned to Paris, and frequented the bar of the parliament there, for the sake of joining practical forms and usages to theoretic knowledge.

In 1563, being then twenty-four, he gave the first fruits of his studies to the public, in a work entitled “Adversaria Snbseciva;” which was highly applauded by Turnebus, Lipsius, and other learned men, and laid the foundation of that great and extensive fame which he afterwards acquired. A little time after, he was advanced by Henry III. to some considerable post; in which, as well as at the bar, he acquitted himself with high honour. Pithou was a Protestant, and was almost involved in the terrible massacre of Saint Bartholomew in 1572. His escape indeed was very narrow, for he was at Paris during the whole, and in the same lodgings with several protestants, who were all murdered. Whether from fear or conviction, he soon afterwards openly embraced the Catholic faith. Afterwards he attended the duke of Montmoiency into England; and in 1572 was honoured with the degree of LL. D. at Oxford, where he resided for some time; and upon his return, by reason of his great wisdom, amiable manners, and profound knowledge, became a kind of oracle to his countrymen, who consulted him on all important occasions. Nor was his fame less in other parts of the continent; Ferdinand the Great duke of Tuscany not only consulted him, but even submitted to his determination, in a point contrary to his interests. Henry III. and IV. were greatly obliged to him for combating the league in the most intrepid manner, and for many other services, in which he had recourse to his pen, as well as to other means.

Pithou died upon his birth-day, November 1, 1596, leaving behind him a wife, whom he had married in 1579, and some children. Thuanus has represented him as the most excellent and accomplished man of the age in which he lived; an opinion in which his learned contemporaries seem agreed. He collected a most valuable library, which was rich in manuscripts, as well as printed books; and he took many precautions to hinder its being dispersed after his death, but in vain. He published a great number of works on various subjects of law, history, and classical literature; and he gave several new and correct editions of ancient writers. He was the first who made the world acquainted with the “Fables of Ptuedrus:” they, together with the name of their author, being utterly unknown, till published from a manuscript, which had been discovered by his brother, Francis Pithou. The principal works of Peter Prthou are, 1. “A Treatise on the Liberties of the Gallican Church,” four volumes folio; the foundation of all that has been written on that subject since. The best edition is Paris, 1731. 2. Editions of many importan' monuments relative to Fre: ch history. 3. Notes on many classical authors. 4. A volume of smaller works, or “Opuscula,” printed collectively at Paris in 1609, besides many publications on civil and canon law, some issued separately, and some in conjunction with his brother. It was his intention to hare published a complete body of French historians, but he published only two volumes on the subject, one in octavo, and the other in quarto.

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, brother of the preceding, and also a very learned man, was born in 1544, at Troyes. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres, and law, and discovered, as we have just observed, the ms. of the fables of Phaedrus, which he sent to his brother, and which was published in 1596, in 12mo. Francis, with the assistance of his brother, applied himself particularly to revise and explain the “Body of Canon Law,” which was printed according to their corrections, 1687, 2 vols. folio; an edition which is reckoned the best. His other works are, “Codex Canonum,” 1687, folio. An edition of the “Salic Law,” with notes. The “Roman Laws,” compared with those of Moses, 1673, 12mo. “Observationes ad Codicem,” 1689, folio. “Antiqui Rhetores Latini, Rutilius Lupus, Aquila Romanus, Julius Rufinianus, Curius Fortunatianus, MariusVictorinus,” &c. Paris, 1599, 4to. republished by M. Caperonier, Strasburg, 4to. &c. He died February 7, 1621, aged seventy-eight.

, a very learned scholar and editor, was born at Zutphen, March 30, 1637. His grandfather, there is reason to think, was Bartholomew Pitiscus, preacher to the elector palatine, who died in 1613, and was the author of a Latin work on “Trigonometry,” reprinted in 1612, and very much approved by Tycho Brabe. His father, Samuel, appears to have been a refugee for the sake of the protestant religion, and took up his abode at Zutphen, where our author was first educated, but he afterwards studied polite literature at Daventer under John Frederick Qronovius, for two years, and divinity for three, at Groningen. After finishing this course he was admitted into the church, and appointed master of the public school at Zutphen in 1685. About the same time he was intrusted with the direction of the college of St. Jerome at Utrecht, which he retained until 1717, when, being in his eightieth year, he resigned with great credit, but lived ten years longer, and died Feb. 1, 1727. He married two wives, one while schoolmaster at Zutphen, who gave him much uneasiness, having contracted a habit of drunkenness, to gratify which she used to steal and sell his books. The other, whom he married at Utrecht, restored that domestic happiness which suited his retired and studious disposition. He acquired considerable property by his works, and left at his death 10,000 florins to the poor. He was a man of extensive learning, directed chiefly to the illustration of the classical authors, and was long in the highest esteem as a teacher

His works are, 1. “Fundamenta religionis Christianas in usum Gymnasii Zutphaniensis,” 8vo. 2. “Quintus Curtius cum c'ommentario perpetuo, variisque iconismis aeri affabre incisis,” Utrecht, 1635, the first of the classic authors whom he illustrated by the explanation of ancient customs, represented by engravings. 3. “Suetonius,” ibid. 1690, 2 vols. 8vo, and Leovard. 1715, 2 vols. 4to. This last is the best edition of this elegant and useful work, which is well known to classical scholars. 4. “Aurelius Victor,” with the notes of various commentators and engravings, Utrecht, 1696, 8vo, a rare and valuable edition. 5. “Lexicon Latino-Belgicum,” the best edition of which is that printed at Dort in 1725, 4to. 6. “Lexicon Antiquitatum Romanarum,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio, a work of great erudition, and the labour of many years. 7. “Solini Polyhistor, cum Salmasii exercitationibus Plinianis,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio. 8. ' Francisci Pomey Pantheon Mythicum.“9.” Rosini Antiq. Romanarum corpus," Utrecht, 1701, 4to. Of these last three he was only the editor.

, an ingenious mathematician, descended of a noble family of Languedoc, was born in 1695. In his early mathematical studies, he appears to have had no instructor; but going, in his twenty-third year, to Paris, he formed an acquaintance with Reaumur. In 1724 he was received into the academy of sciences, in the Memoirs of which he wrote a great many papers, He wrote a valuable work, entitled “The Theory of working Ships,” 1731, which procured him to be elected a member of the Royal Society of London. In 1740, the states-general of Languedoc gave him the appointment of principal engineer to the province, and also that of inspector- general of the famous canal which forms a navigable junction between the Mediterranean sea and the bay of Biscay. One of his greatest works Was that for supplying Montpelier with water from sources at the distance of three leagues. For this and other services the king honoured him with the order of St. Michael. He died in 1771, at the age of seventy-six.

, an English biographer, was born at Alton, in Hampshire, in 1560 and at eleven, sent to Wykeham’s school near Winchester. He was elected thence probationer fellow of New college in Oxford, at eighteen; but, in less than two years, left the kingdom as a voluntary Romish exile, and went to Douay, where he was kindly received by Dr. Thomas Stapleton, who gave him advice relating to his studies. Pursuant to this, he passed from Douay to Rheims and, after one year spent in the English college there, was sent to the English college at Rome, where he studied seven years, and was then ordained priest. Returning to Rheims about 1589, he held the office of professor of rhetoric and Greek for two years. Towards the latter end of 151*0, being appointed governor to a young nobleman, he travelled with him into Lorraine; and, at Pont-a-Mousson, he took the degree of master of arts, and soon after that of bachelor of divinity. Next, going into Upper Germany, he resided a year and a half at Triers; and afterwards removed to Ingolstadt in Bavaria, where he resided three years, and took the degree of doctor of divinity. After having travelled through Italy as well as Germany, and made himself master of the languages of both countries, he went back to Lorraine; where, being much noticed by Charles cardinal of Lorraine, he was preferred by him to a canonry of Verdun. When he had passed two years there, Antonia, daughter to the duke of Lorraine, who was married to the duke of Cleves, invited him to be her confessor; and, that he might be the more serviceable to her, he learned the French language with so much success, that he often preached in it. In her service he continued twelve years; during which time he studied the histories of England, ecclesiastical and civil, whence he made large collections and observations concerning the most illustrious personages. On the death of the duchess of Cleves he returned a third time to Lorraine, where, by the favour of John bishop of Toul, formerly his scholar, he was promoted to the deanery of Liverdun, a city of Lorraine, which was of considerable value. This, with a canonry and an officialship of the same church, he held to the day of his death, which happened at Liverdun in 1616. He published three treatises: “De Legibus,” Triers, 1592; “De Beatitudine,” Ingolst. 1595; “De Peregrinatione,” Dusseld. 1604.

During the leisure he enjoyed, while confessor to the duchess of Cleves, he employed himself in that work which alone has made him known to posterity, in compiling “The Lives of the Kings, Bishops, Apostolical Men, and Writers of England.” They were comprised in four large volumes; the first containing the lives of the kings; the second, of the bishops; the third, of the apostolical men; and the fourth, of'the writers. The three first are preserved in the archives of the collegiate church of Verdun: the fourth only was published, and that after his decease, at Paris, 1619, and 1623, in 4to, under the title of “J. Pitsei Angli, &c. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis tomus primus;” but the running title, and by which it is oftenest quoted, is, “De Illustribus Angliae. Scriptoribus.” It is divided into four parts; the first of which is preliminary matter, “De laudibus Historiae, de Antiquitate Ecclesise Britannicae, de Academiis tarn antiquis Britonum quam recentioribus Anglorum.” The second part contains the lives and characters of three hundred English writers; the third is an “Appendix of some Writers, in alphabetical order, and divided into four Centuries,”- together with “An Index of English Books, written by unknown Authors.” The last part consists of “Fifteen Alphabetical Indexes,” forming a kind of epitome of the whole work. Pits appears to have acted in a very disingenuous manner, especially in the second part of this work; the greater part of which he has taken without any acknowledgment from Bale’s book “De Scriptoribus majoris Britanniae,” while he takes every opportunity to shew his abhorrence both of Bale and his work. He pretends also to follow, and familiarly quotes, Leland’s “Collectanea de Scriptoribus Anglise;” whereas the truth is, as Wood and others have observed, he never saw them, being but twenty years of age, or little more, when he left the nation: neither was it in his power afterwards, if he had been in England, because they were kept in such private hands, that few protestant antiquaries, and none of those of the church of Rome, could see or peruse them. What therefore he pretends to have from Leland, he takes at second-hand from Bale. His work is also full of partiality: for he entirely leaves out Wickliflfe and his followers, together with the Scots and Irish writers, who are for the most part commemorated by Bale; and in their room gives an account of the Roman catholic writers, such especially as had left the kingdom, after the Reformation in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and sheltered themselves at Rome, Douay, Louvain, &c. This, however, is the best and most valuable part of Pits’s work. Pits was a man of abilities and learning. His style is clear, easy, and elegant; but he wants accuracy, and has fallen into many mistakes in his accounts of the British writers. His work, however, will always be thought of use, if it be only that “Historia quoquo modo scripta delectat.”

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

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Though he held no place immediately from the crown, Mr. Pitt had for some time enjoyed that of groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, but resigned it in 1745; and continuing steady in his opposition to the measures of the ministry, experienced about the same time that fortune, which more than once attended him, of having his public services repaid by private zeal. The dowager duchess of Marlborough left him by will 10,000l. expressly for defending the laws of his country, and endeavouring to prevent its ruin. It was thought soon after an object of importance to obtain his co-operation with government, and in 1746 he was made joint vice-treasurer of Ireland; and in the same year treasurer, and pay-master-general of the army, and a privy-counsellor. In 1755, thinking it necessary to make a strong opposition to the continental connections then formed by the ministry, he resigned his places, and remained for some time out of office. But in December 1756, he was called to a higher situation, being appointed secretary of state for the southern department. In this high office he was more successful in obtaining the confidence of the public, than that of the king, some of whose wishes he thought himself bound to oppose. In consequence of this he was soon removed, with Mr. Legge, and some others of his friends. The nation, however, was not disposed to be deprived of the services of Mr. Pitt. The most exalted idea of him had been taken up throughout the kingdom: not only of his abilities, which were evinced by his consummate eloquence, but of his exalted, judicious, and disinterested patriotism. This general opinion of him, and in some degree of his colleagues, was so strongly expressed, not merely by personal honours conferred on them, but by addresses to the throne in their favour, that the king thought it prudent to restore them to their employments. On June 29, 1757, Mr. Pitt was again made secretary of state, and Mr. Legge chancellor of the exchequer, with other arrangements according to their wishes. Mr. Pitt was now considered as prime minister, and to the extraordinary ability of his measures, and the vigour of his whole administration, is attributed the great change which quickly appeared in the state of public affairs. It was completely shewn how much the spirit of one man may animate a whole nation. The activity of the minister pervaded every department. His plans, which were ably conceived, were executed with the utmost promptitude; and the depression which had arisen from torpor and ill success, was followed by exertion, triumph, and confidence. The whole fortune of the war was changed; in every quarter of the world we were triumphant; the boldest attempts were made by sea and land, and almost every attempt was fortunate. In America the French lost Quebec; in Africa their principal settlements fell; in the East-Indies their power was abridged, and in Europe their armies defeated; while their navy, their commerce, and their finances, were little less than ruined. Amidst this career of success king George the Second died, Oct. 25, 1760. His present majesty ascended the throne at a time when the policy of the French court had just succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of Spain. The family compact had been secretly concluded; and the English minister, indubitably informed of the hostile intentions of Spain, with his usual vigour of mind, had determined on striking the first blow, before the intended enemy should be fully prepared for action. He proposed in the privy council an immediate declaration of war against Spain, urging, with great energy, that this was the favourable moment, perhaps never to be regained, for humbling the whole house of Bourbon. In this measure he was not supported, and the nation attributed the opposition he encountered to the growing influence of the earl of Bute. Mr. Pitt, of much too high a spirit to remain as the nominal head of a cabinet which he was no longer able to direct, resigned his places on the 5th of October, 1761; when, as some reward for his eminent services, his wife was created baroness of Chatham in her own right, and a pension of three thousand pounds was settled on the lives of himself, his lady, and his eldest son.

No fallen minister ever carried with him more completely the confidence and regret of the nation, over whose councils he had presided: but the king was also popular at this time, and the war being continued by his new ministers with vigour and success, no discontent appeared till after the conclusion of peace. Our triumphs in the West Indies over both France and Spain, had particularly elated the spirits of the people, and it was conceived that we ought either to dictate a peace as conquerors, or continue the war till our adversaries should be more effectually humbled. With these ideas, when the preliminaries for peace were discussed in parliament, Mr. Pitt, though he had been for some time confined by a severe fit of the gout, went down to the House of Commons, and spoke for nearly three hours in the debate. He gave his opinion distinctly upon almost every article in the treaty, and, upon the whole, maintained that it was inadequate to the conquests, and just expectations of the kingdom. Peace was however concluded on the 10th of February, 1763, and Mr. Pitt continued unemployed. He had the magnanimity not to enter into that petulant and undiscriminating plan of opposition, which has so frequently disgraced the ill-judging candidates for power; but maintained his popularity in dignified retirement, and came forward only when great occasions appeared to demand his interference. One of these was the important question of general warrants in 1764; the illegality of which he maintained with all the energy of his genius and eloquence. A search or seizure of papers, without a specific charge alledged, would be, as he justly contended, repugnant to every principle of liberty. The most innocent man could not be secure. “But by the British constitution,” he continued, “every man’s house is his castle. Not that it is surrounded with walls and battlements. It may be a straw-built shed. Every wind of heaven may whistle round it. All the elements of nature may enter it. But the king cannot; the king dare not.”

When the discontents in America began to appear, on the occasion of the stamp act, Mr. Pitt again found a subject for his exertions. The repeal of that act being proposed in March 1766, by the new ministry of the Rockingham-party, Mr. Pitt, though not connected with them, very forcibly supported the measure, which was carried; whether wisely or fortunately, is still a matter of dispute. About this time died sir William Pynsent, of Burton Pynsent, in Somersetshire, a man of considerable property, who, through mere admiration of Mr. Pitt in his public character, disinherited his own relations, and made him heir to the bulk of his estate. It was certainly a remarkable proof of the very uncommon estimation in which this statesman was held, that a circumstance of this nature should have happened to him at two different periods of his life.

The Rockingham ministry proving unable to maintain its ground, a new administration was formed, and Mr. Pitt, in 1766, was made lord privy seal. At the same time he was created a peer, by the titles of viscount Pitt, of Burton Pynsent, in the county of Somerset, and earl of Chatham, in the county of Kent. Whatever might be his motives for accepting this elevation, he certainly sunk by it in popularity, at least as much as he rose in nominal dignity. The great commoner, as he was sometimes styled, had formed a rank to himself, on the sole basis of his talents and exertions, for which the titular honours, which he was now to participate with many others, could not in the public opinion compensate. Still it must be owned that the high and hereditary distinction of the peerage is a just and honourable object of ambition to a British commoner; which, if he attains it, as Mr. Pitt appears to have done, without any improper concession or stipulation, may be considered as the fair reward of past services, and the most permanent monument of public gratitude. Lord Chatham, whatever might be the cause, did not long continue in office; he resigned the place of lord privy seal on the 2d of November, 1768, and it was the last public employment which he ever accepted. He does not indeed appear to have been desirous of returning to office. He was now sixty; and the gout, by which he had been long afflicted, had become too frequent and violent in its attacks, to allow of close or regular application to business. In the intervals of his disorder he continued occasionally to exert himself, on questions of great magnitude, and was particularly strenuous in 1775, and the ensuing years, against the measures pursued by the ministers in the contest with America. Nevertheless, in all things he maintained his native spirit. When France began to interfere in the contest, he fired with indignation at the insult; and when, in 1778, it was thought necessary, after the repeated misfortunes of the war, to acknowledge the independence of America, he summoned up all the strength that remained within him, to pour out his disapprobation of a measure so inglorious. He did so in a speech of considerable energy, and being answered in the course of the debate by the duke of Richmond, seemed agitated with a desire to reply: but when he attempted to rise, the effort proved too violent for his debilitated constitution, and he sunk, in a kind of fit, into the arms of those who were near him. This extraordinary scene of a great statesman, almost dying in the last exertion of his talents, has been perpetuated by the pencil, and will live for ever in the memory of his countrymen. He did not long survive this effort. This debate happened on the 8th of April, 1778, and he died on the 11th of May ensuing.

All parties appeared now to contend to do honour to his memory: a public funeral and a monument in Westminster abbey, at the national expence, were immediately voted by parliament, and his majesty was addressed to settle upon his family “such a lasting provision as he in his wisdom and liberality should think fit, as a mark of the sense the nation entertains of the services done to this kingdom by that able statesman.” A pension of 4,000l. a-year was accordingly appointed by his majesty, out of the civil list revenue, and confirmed in perpetuity by parliament, to the heirs of the earl of Chatham, to whom the title should descend. The monument raised to his memory is highly worthy of the occasion, being perhaps the noblest effort of British sculpture. His figure appears upon it, at full length, in his parliamentary robes, and in the attitude of speaking; the accompaniments are grand and appropriate, and the inscription has a simple dignity, much more impressive than any pomp of words, announcing merely, that the king and parliament have paid this tribute to his merits.

The principal outlines of lord Chatham’s character, sagacity, promptitude, and energy, will be perceived in the foregoing narrative. The peculiar powers of his eloquence have been characterized since his death in language which will convey a forcible idea of it to every reader. “They who have been witnesses to the wonders of his eloquence, who have listened to the music of his voice, or trembled at its majesty; who have seen the persuasive gracefulness of his action, or have felt its force; they who have caught the flame of eloquence from his eye, who have rejoiced in the glories of his countenance, or shrunk from his frowns, will remember the resistless power with which he impressed conviction. But to those who have never seen or heard this accomplished orator, the utmost effort of imagination will be necessary, to form a just idea of that combination of excellence, which gave perfection to his eloquence. His elevated aspect, commanding the awe and mute attention of all who beheld him, while a certain grace in his manner, arising from a consciousness of the dignity of his situation, of the solemn scene in which he acted, as well as of his own exalted character, seemed to acknowledge and repay the respect which he received.—This extraordinary personal dignity, supported on the basis of his well-earned fame, at once acquired to his opinions an assent, which is slowly given to the arguments of other men. His assertions rose into proof, his foresight became prophecy.—No clue was necessary to the labyrinth illuminated by his genius. Truth came forth at his bidding, and realised the wish of the philosopher: she was seen, and beloved.”—We have omitted some parts of this spirited character because not written with equal judgment: but the result of the whole is, that while he sought, with indefatigable diligence, the best and purest sources of political information, he had a mind which threw new lights upon every topic, and directed him with more certainty than any adventitious aid. Another account of his extraordinary powers, more concise, but drawn with wonderful spirit, is attributed to the pen of Mr. Wilkes. “He was born an orator, and from nature possessed every outward requisite to bespeak respect, and even awe. A manly figure, with the eagle eye of the famous Condé, fixed your attention, and almost commanded reverence the moment he appeared; and the keen lightnings of his eye spoke the high spirit of his soul, before his lips had pronounced a syllable. There was a kind of fascination in his look when he eyed any one askance. Nothing could withstand the force of that contagion. The fluent Murray has faultered, and even Fox (afterwards lord Holland) shrunk back appalled, from an adversary, ‘ fraught with fire unquenchable,’ if I may borrow the expression of our great Milton. He had not the correctness of language so striking in the great Roman orator (we may add, and in his son), but he had the verba ardentia, the bold glowing words.”—Lord Chesterfield has given a more general picture of his character, in the following words: “Mr. Pitt owed his rise to the most considerable post and power in this kingdom, singly to his own abilities. In him they supplied the want of birth and fortune, which latter, in others too often supply the want of the former. He was a younger brother, of a very new family, and his fortune was only an annuity of one hundred pounds a-year. The army was his original destination, and a cornetcy of horse his first and only commission in it. Thus unassisted by favour or fortune, he had no powerful protector to introduce him into business, and (if I may use that expression) to do the honours of his parts; but their own strength was fully sufficient. His constitution refused him the usual pleasures, and his genius forbid him the idle dissipations of youth; for so early as at the age of sixteen he was the martyr of an hereditary gout. He therefore employed the leisure which that tedious and painful distemper either procured or allowed him, in acquiring a great fund of premature and useful knowledge. Thus by the unaccountable relation of causes and effects, what seemed the greatest misfortune of his life, was perhaps the principal cause of its splendor. His private life was stained by no vice, nor sullied by any meanness. All his sentiments were liberal and elevated. His ruling passion was an unbounded ambition, which, when supported by great abilities, and crowned with great success, makes what the world calls a great man. He was haughty, imperious, impatient of contradiction, and overbearing; qualities which too often accompany, but always clog great ones. He had manners and address, but one might discover through them too great a consciousness of his own superior talents. He was a most agreeable and lively companion in social life, and had such a versatility of wit, that he would adapt it to all sorts of conversation. He had also a most happy turn to poetry, but he seldom indulged, and seldom avowed it. He came young into parliament, and upon that theatre he soon equalled the oldest and the ablest actors. His eloquence was of every kind, and he excelled in the argumentative, as well as in the declamatory way. But his invectives were terrible, and uttered with such energy of diction, and such dignity of action and countenance, that he intimidated those who were the most willing and best able to encounter him. Their arms fell out of their hands, and they shrunk under the ascendant which his genius gained over theirs.” As a proof of this wonderful power, it is related that sir Robert Walpole scarcely heard the sound of his voice in the House of Commons, when he was alarmed and thunder-struck. He told his friends, that he would be glad at any rate, “to muzzle that terrible cornet of horse.” That minister would have promoted his rise in the army, if he would have given up his seat in the house.

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

To reconcile themselves to this disappointment, and perhaps to regain ground with the public, the ministers industriously circulated the report that the bill owed its rejection to secret intrigue and undue influence. It was said that lord Temple, afterwards the marquis of Buckingham, had demanded a private audience of his majesty, and represented the danger in such a light, that directions were sent to all the noblemen connected with the court to vote against it. This, however, had it been true in its full extent, made no difference in the public opinion. In a case of such danger, a departure from the ordinary forms was not thought to bear any unfriendly aspect to the welfare of the state; and some were of opinion that all which lord Temple was supposed to communicate, must have already occurred to his majesty’s reflection. The consequence, however, was, that the ministry resigned their places, and in the new arrangement, Mr. Pitt, whose fitness for office was no longer a doubt, was made first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer.

His appearance, at the early age of twenty-four in this high character, was as much applauded on the part of the nation at large, as it was ridiculed and despised by his opponents, as the arrogant assumption of a stripling who owed to accident or intrigue, what a few weeks or months must certainly deprive him of. For some time, indeed, all this seemed not very improbable. The adherents of the coalition-ministry, in the House of Commons, had suffered no great diminution, and formed yet so considerable a majority, that when Mr. Pitt introduced his own bill into the House for the regulation of India affairs, it was rejected by 222 against 214. In this state matters remained for some months, during which meetings were held of the leading men of both parties, with a view to a general accommodation; but as Mr. Pitt’s previous resignation was demanded as a sine qua non, he determined to adhere in the utmost extremity to the sovereign by whom he had been called into office, and the people by whom he found himself supported. After many unavailing efforts, therefore, he determined on a step which, had his cause been less popular, might have been fatal to his sovereign as well as to himself. This was a dissolution of parliament, which took place in the month of March 1784; and although during the general election the country was thrown, by the struggles of the parties, into a greater degree of political heat and irritation than ever was known, and although some of his higher opponents greatly embarrassed their estates and families by the most wasteful expenditure, in order to secure the return of their friends, above thirty of the latter, all men of consideration, were thrown out, and the minister was enabled to meet the new parliament with a decided majority, including almost the whole of that class that had the credit of patriotism and independence, but certainly excluding a mass of talent such as few ministers have had to encounter.

The first important measure introduced into this parliament was the India Bill rejected by the last, which was passed; and, with some few alterations, constitutes the system by which the affairs of the East India company have ever since been managed. Another important plan, executed by Mr. Pitt, was that for the prevention of smuggling. This, in all branches of the revenue, occupied his attention for some years afterwards, but his present object was the frauds on the revenue in the article of tea, which he obviated by what was called the Commutation Act, which took off the principal duties from tea, and supplied the deficiency by a large addition to the window-tax. This, if we remember right, was the first circumstance which occasioned some murmuring, and it was the first instance in which Mr. Pitt showed that he was not to be diverted from what he conceived would be generally a benefit, by any dread of the loss of popularity. If at this time he seems ambitious of any distinctive ministerial character, it was that of an able and successful minister of finance; and there cannot be a more decided proof of his having attained that honour, than that his plans are still operating, and have enabled the country to sustain for upwards of twenty years a war of unexampled expence, and at the same time to support feebler nations in recovering their independence from a tyranny to which they were thought to be irreversibly doomed.

In 1786, when few could have foreseen its future importance, he introduced a bill for setting apart a million annually for the purchase of stock, which sum was to be augmented by the interest of the stock so purchased. Perseverance in this plan, with occasional improvements, has already, amidst all the pressure of public burdens, extinguished between two and three hundred millions of debt, and produced a very considerable revenue to be applied to the same purpose. These effects his enemies are ready to acknowledge, but with a view to detract from his merit, they tell us that this was the least efficient of three plans given to him by Dr. Richard Price, and that for such an obligation he did not think it worth his while to make the smallest public acknowledgement. Whatever may be in this, the general system of finance now established was soon powerfully aided by various alterations in the mode of collecting taxes, and by a commercial treaty with France, concluded in 1787, so much in favour of our merchants, as to occasion considerable dissatisfaction among those of France.

Among the subsequent measures, in which Mr. Pitt was personally concerned, we may notice his acceding to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings; and his joining in the support of the established church by opposing the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, in both which he agreed with the majority, although in the latter he disappointed the hopes of the various sects of dissenters. His interference also to preserve the power of the Stadtholder in Holland, was a popular measure. But he was less successful in two other instances of interference in continental politics, the one to check the aggrandizement of Russia under the empress Catherine, which the parliament forced him to abandon; and the other a dispute with Spain respecting the fur-trade at Nootka Sound, which was equally unpopular, and at length was adjusted by a convention.

The second great æra of Mr. Pitt’s public life was now approaching, in which his power and popularity arose to the greatest height in the very moment when in all human probability he was about to be deprived of both. In the autumn of 1788, the country was thrown into a state of alarm by a calamity which rendered his majesty incapable of exercising the royal functions. Parliament having been prorogued to Nov. 20, it became necessary it should meet that day, as the sovereign, by whom only it could be further prorogued, was not in a situation to assert his prerogative. In the mean time, the leaders of the different parties who were interested in the event, assembled in the capital; and an express was dispatched to Mr. Fox, then absent on the continent, to accelerate his return. This occurrence gave occasion to a display of the firmness and decision of Mr. Pitt’s character. In this article we cannot enter into many particulars; but we may observe, that the first material question brought up by this event was, in whom the office of regent was vested The prince of Wales being then connected with the party in opposition, Mr. Fox contended that the regency devolved upon him as a matter of course; while, on the other hand, Mr. Pitt supported the doctrine, that it lay in the two remaining branches of the legislature to fill up the office, as they should judge proper; admitting, at the same time, that no other person than the prince could be thought of for the office. By adopting this principle, he carried with him the concurrence as well of those who were attached to the popular part of the constitution, as of the king’s friends, whose great object was to secure his return to power, on the cessation of his malady; and he was enabled to pass a bill, greatly restricting the power of the regent, which his majesty’s timely recovery in the beginning of 1789 rendered unnecessary; but such was the general conviction of its propriety, that on a subsequent more melancholy occasion, the minister of the day, Mr. Perceval, found no great difficulty in reviving it, and it became the rule of the present regency. Mr. Pitt was now left to pursue his plans of internal economy, without those interruptions to which he had lately been subjected. He had received, during the discussions on the regency, very decisive tokens of esteem from many of the great public bodies in the kingdom; and he had the satisfaction of knowing, that the firm and steady conduct which he observed, on a question peculiarly calculated to try the firmness, steadiness, and consistency of a public character, had obtained for him, in a very marked manner, the confidence of their majesties, and greatly increased his popularity throughout the nation.

The third great æra in Mr. Pitt’s life, and which, beyond all preceding parts of his conduct, will determine his character with posterity, was the French revolution, an event the most momentous in its consequences that modern history records. The influence of this vast convulsion could not be viewed, by the politician and the minister of a great empire, but in a double light, as exerted upon France itself, and upon the neighbouring states. In both cases, Mr. Pitt took up the opinion that it afforded just cause for jealousy, and he was the more strengthened in this opinion from observing the effects which the conduct of the French had already produced in this country. It is allowed by his enemies that he did not precipitately rush into war with France, or interfere in the affairs of that country, while the French seemed to be operating a change by means which were rational; and while their only objects seemed to be a representative government and a limited monarchy. It was not until they had destroyed the freedom of their representatives by the terrifying influence of clubs and parties more powerful than their legalized assemblies, and until they had dragged their helpless sovereign to the scaffold, that he saw the danger that would accrue to every country where such measures should be considered as a precedent. In England, it might have been thought that the enormities which preceded and followed the execution of the French king, would have excited universal abhorrence; that a moral, thinking, and industrious people, prosperous beyond all other nations in arts and commerce, and secure beyond all others in the essentials of liberty, would have found no provocation to imitate the most inhuman barbarities of the darkest ages. It soon, however, appeared that although the majority of the nation was disposed to contemplate what had happened in France, with the abhorrence it was naturally fitted to create, a party was arising, selected indeed from the lower and illiterate orders, but guided by leaders of some knowledge, and of great activity and resolution, who seemed determined on a close imitation of all the licentiousness of France, and whose attacks were at once directed against the throne, the state, and the church. For some time their sentiments were considerably disguised. They affected moderation, and derived too much countenance from those who really were inclined to moderate changes, moderate reforms; and, with no little art, they revived the popular delusions of annual parliaments and universal suffrage; but moderation was neither the characteristic nor the object of this party: and finding themselves for some time unnoticed by government, they began to disdain the protection of their insignificance, and boldly avowed that they did not mean to leave the accomplishment of their projected changes to any of the legal authorities. In imitation of the French clubs, they were to produce the effect by self-created societies that should dictate to parliament, and when parliament was completely overawed, supply its place.

Such were the effects which the proceedings in France had already produced in England, among a party, which, if not originally numerous, was fast increasing, when Mr. Pitt thought it necessary to interfere. In taking this step he was accused of precipitation and of severity: the dangers he dreaded were represented as in a great measure imaginary; and the plan he adopted was said to be pregnant with mischief to the freedom of the press. It appeared, however, in consequence of inquiries instituted, that had he exercised a longer forbearance, the greatest of the dangers he apprehended must have followed in regular progress. Forbearance, in the republican language of the day, was “timidity, and the happy consequence of the vigour and spirit of the people.” It was time therefore to set the question at rest by appealing to the nation at large; and Mr. Pitt had no sooner begun the experiment of checking a licentiousness so dangerous and unprovoked, than he was supported by the general mass of the people, who assembled in every county, city, town, and village, to testify their satisfaction with the constitution as then administered, and to offer their lives and fortunes in support of the government under which they had flourished. It has been objected to Mr. Pitt by his opponents that in some instances he followed, rather than produced, public opinion: why this should be an objection with those hold public opinion sacred, we know not. In the present instance, however, it may be allowed as a matter of fact, and it is a fact very honourable to the people of England, that he had, at this crisis, only to anticipate their wishes, and that in consequence of the precautions he took, harsh as they might have been thought at any other time, all the dangers of internal disturbance gradually disappeared, and the wild theories that had been propagated from the press either appeared ridiculous, or became obsolete.

With respect to the origin of the war with France, there was long a controversy turning on the question, whether it might not have been avoided by Great Britain preserving her relations of amity with the republican government of that nation. The party in opposition to Mr. Pitt contended that this was practicable, and the minister therefore was long censured as the cause, and held accountable for all the consequences of that war. The opinion of the minister, however, was, that enough had occurred in France to convince us that no relations of amity could be preserved with a country, which had decreed not only to spread its anarchical principles, but to send its arms to every people that sought its assistance. A negociation, indeed, had been opened between the French minister in this country, and lord Grenville, secretary of state, but was conducted on the part of the former in such a manner as to prove fruitless. The very last propositions offered by the French minister, lord Grenville said, involved new grounds of offence, which would prove a bar to every kind of negociation. The pretended explanations, his lordship added, were insults rather than concessions or apologies; and the motives which had induced his sovereign to prepare for violent extremities, still existed in full force; nor would the preparations be discontinued or omitted, “while the French retained that turbulent and aggressive spirit which threatened danger to every nation in Europe.” By a subsequent communication in the king’s name, the French minister was ordered to quit the realm within eight days. This mandate was considered by the French as equivalent to a declaration of war; and, as soon as the intelligence reached Paris, the convention declared that the king of Great Britain, and the Stadtholder of the United Provinces, were to be treated as enemies of the republic.

What has been termed the system or the principle of Mr. Pitt in commencing and continuing the war with France, cannot perhaps be better expressed than in the above language of lord Grenville. Mr. Pitt considered it as our duty to continue it, “while the French retained that turbulent and aggressive spirit which threatened danger to every nation in Europe,” and which at length actually destroyed the independence of every nation in Europe, and ended in an attempt at universal empire, and slavish subjection to the ruler of France. It was Mr. Pitt’s opinion, and the opinion of all who acted with him, of the great majority of parliament and of the people at large, that no peace could be permanent or secure with France until she had returned to her proper station among the nations of Europe, admitted of the independence of other nations, and contented herself with the territories she possessed at the commencement of the revolution. On this principle the war was instituted, and on this principle it was supported at a risk and an expense beyond all precedent, but with a success so inadequate to produce the wished-for result, that when the opposition represented the continuance of it as obstinacy and infatuation, they seemed to speak a language which events fully justified. On our own element, our success was so great as to raise the character of our navy beyond all precedent; under such men as Howe, St. Vincent, Duncan, and Nelson, the navies of France, Spain, and Holland were almost annihilated, while ours had become, humanly speaking, invincible. Mr. Pitt was therefore blamed for not confining himself to a naval war, and his sending troops to join the powers of Europe in league against France, was represented as a species of Quixotism which would soon prove its own absurdity. All this for some years seemed confirmed by events. The French armies not only out-numbered those sent against them, but acquired a military skill absolutely new in their history. So frequent and decisive were their victories that all resistance seemed in vain, and either by valour or treachery they were enabled to dissolve every confederacy formed against them. Still the English minister saw nothing in this to prove his original opinion to be wrong; France, he conceived, must be ruined at last by successes of which she did not know how to make the proper use. With every extension of territory, she carried a portion of tyranny and a system of plunder and destruction, that must one day excite an effectual resistance in the nations which she had deluded by offers of liberty and friendship. Mr. Pitt and his supporters, therefore, persisted in the opinion that France must at last yield to some confederacy or other; and when the state of Europe was such as to render it unwise to send English troops to join the confederates, he conceived that no better use could be made of the annual supplies than to subsidize the powers that were still willing to take the field. He even determined to continue the struggle when, in 1800, Bonaparte, the most successful of the French generals, had assumed the sovereign power, under the name of consul, and addressed a letter to our king intimating a desire for peace. The answer of our minister was, that it would be useless to negociate while the French seemed to cherish those principles which had involved Europe in a long and destructive war. And although he gave his assent to the experiment made by Mr. Addington in 1801, to conclude a peace with the French government, he soon had reason to revert to his former sentiments, and when recalled into office in 1804, again exerted all the vigour of his character to render the contest successful.

He did not, however, live to witness that glorious and wonderful termination which was at last brought about by a continuance of the same system he all along pursued, and which finally ended in the conquest of France, the annihilation of her armies, and the banishment of her ruler. The last event of importance in Mr. Pitt’s life-time was the fatal battle of Austerlitz, and he was at this time in a state of health ill calculated to meet this stroke. He had, from an early period of life, given indications of inheriting his father’s gouty constitution, with his talents, and it had been thought necessary to make the liberal use of wine a part of his ordinary regimen, a stimulant which, added to the cares and exertions of office during his long and momentous administration, brought on a premature exhaustion of the vital powers. In December 1805, he was recommended to go to Bath, but the change afforded him no permanent relief. On the 11th of January he returned to his seat at Putney, in so debilitated a state, as to require four days for the performance of the journey. The physicians, even yet, saw no danger, and they said there was no disease, but great weakness, in consequence of an attack of the gout. On the following Sunday he appeared better, and entered upon some points of public business with his colleagues in office: the subject was supposed to relate to the dissolution of the new confederacy, by the peace of Presburgh, which greatly agitated him. On the 17th, at a consultation of his physicians, it was agreed, that though it was not advisable he should attend to business for the next two months, yet there was hope he would be able to take a part in the House of Commons in the course of the winter. On the 20th, however, he grew much worse, and his medical friends now saw that he was in the most imminent danger, and that, probably, he had not many hours to live. The bishop of Lincoln, who never left him during his illness, informed him of the opinion now entertained by sir Walter Farquhar, and requested to administer to him the consolations of religion. Mr. Pitt asked sir Walter, who stood near his bed, “How long do you think I have to live?” The physician answered that he could not say, at the same time he expressed a faint hope of his recovery. A half smile on the patient’s countenance shewed that he placed this language to its true account. In answer to the bishop’s request to pray with him, Mr. Pitt replied, “I fear I have, like too many other men, neglected prayer too much, to have any ground for hope that it can be efficacious on a death-bed—but,” making an effort to rise as he spoke, “I throw myself entirely on the mercy of God.” The bishop then read the prayers, and Mr. Pitt appeared to join in them with a calm and humble piety. He desired that the arrangement of his papers and the settlement of his affairs might be left to his brother and the bishop of Lincoln. Adverting to his nieces, the daughters of earl Stanhope by his elder sister, for whom he had manifested the sincerest affection, he said, “I could wish a thousand or fifteen hundred a-year to be given them; if the public should think my long services deserving of it.” He expressed also much anxiety respecting major Stanhope, that youthful hero, who fell a sacrifice to his valour at Corunna, in company with his friend and patron, general sir John Moore, and his brother, who was also at Corunna at the same time, and who has been engaged in all the great battles in the peninsula, and more than once severely wounded in his country’s service. Mr. Pitt died about four o'clock in the morning of the 23d of January 1806, in the 47th year of his age. A public funeral was decreed to his honour by parliament, and 40,000l. to pay those debts which he had incurred in his country’s service. Public monuments have been since erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey, in the Guildhall of the city of London, and by many public bodies in different parts of the kingdom.

Mr. Pitt possessed no particular advantages of person or physiognomy, but as a speaker he was thought to be without a rival; such was the happy choice of his words, the judicious arrangement of his subject, and the fascinating effect of a perennial eloquence, that his wonderful powers were acknowledged even by those who happened to be prepossessed against his arguments. In his financial speeches he manifested a perspicuity, eloquence, and talent, altogether wonderful; which carried the audience along with him in every arithmetical statement, left no calculation obscure or ambiguous, and impressed the House, at its close, with tumultuous admiration. When employed, say his opponents, in a good cause, he was irresistible; and in a bad one he could dazzle the judgment, lead the imagination captive, and seduce the heart, even while the mind remained firm and unconvinced. Yet they allow that although ambition and the love of power were his ruling passions, his mind was elevated above the meanness of avarice. His personal integrity was unimpeached, and so far was he from making use of his opportunities to acquire wealth, that he died involved in debts, which negligence, and the demands of his public station, rather than extravagance, had obliged him to contract; for his tastes were simple, and he does not appear to have had a fondness for splendour or parade. His private character has been drawn by a friend (the right hon. George Rose), and it corresponds perfectly with other accounts that we have had from those much in his confidence, and who were frequently in his company at times when the man and not the minister was displayed in all its native colours: “With a manner somewhat reserved and distant in what might be termed his public deportment, no man was ever better qualified to gain, or more successful in fixing, the attachment of his friends, than Mr. Pitt. They saw all the powerful energies of his character softened into the most perfect complacency and sweetness of disposition in the circles of private life, the pleasures of which no one more cheerfully enjoyed, or more agreeably promoted, when the paramount duties he conceived himself to owe the public, admitted of his mixing in them. That indignant severity with which he met and subdued what he considered unfounded opposition; that keenness of sarcasm with which he expelled and withered, as it might be said, the powers of most of his assailants in debate, were exchanged in the society of his intimate friends for a kindness of heart, a gentleness of demeanour, and a playfulness of good humour, which no one ever witnessed without interest, or participated without delight.”

, one of the seven sages of Greece, of whom some sayings are preserved, but not many particulars of his life, was born at Mitylene in the island of Lesbos, about 649 B. C. By his valour and abilities he obtained the sovereignty of his native city, which he employed only to lead the people to happiness, by giving them the best laws he could devise. Having fulfilled this task, and put his laws into verse, according to the fashion of the times, that they might be more easily remembered, he resigned his authority, and returned to a private life. His fellow-­citizens would have rewarded his benefits by a large donation of land, but he positively refused to accept more than a circular portion, taking the cast of his javelin from the centre every way, as the measure of its circumference. “It is better,” he said, “to convince my country that I am sincerely disinterested, than to possess great riches.” He died about 579 B. C. aged seventy. Some of his sayings were, “The first office of prudence is to foresee threatening misfortunes, and prevent them. Power discovers the man. Never talk of your schemes before they are executed; lest, if you fail to accomplish them, you be exposed to the double mortification of disappointment and ridicule. Whatever you do, do it well. Do not that to your neighbour, which you would take ill from him. Be watchful for opportunities, &c.”

, an English divine, was born in the Isle of Wight, and became a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1652, where, after taking the degree of B. A. he removed to Lincoln college, and had the reputation of a good disputant. Having taken his master’s degree he gave offence to the then ruling party in the university, by a speech he made in the character of Terræ Filius, for which he was expelled, in 1658. On the restoration he was preferred to the rectory of Gatcombe in the Isle of Wight, proceeded in his degrees of B. and D. D. and was made one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. Dr. Morley, bishop of Winchester, gave him afterwards, the living of Holy Rood in Southampton, and the king the rectory of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, which he exchanged for that of St. Botolph Bishopsgate, London. This last he held at his death, along with the rectory of Gatcombe, his chaplainship, and the lectureship of Christchurch, Newgate-street. He died Dec. 28, 1687, and was buried at Gatcombe. Besides a few occasional sermons, he published, 1. “A private conference between a rich alderman and a poor country vicar,” &c. respecting the obligation of oaths, Lond. 1670, 8vo. 2. “A Discourse on Prayer,” &c. 1683, 8vo, and, which is still frequently to be met with. 3. “A discourse concerning the trial of Spirits,” against enthusiastic notions of inspiration, 1684, 8vo.

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

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

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

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

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

, the conqueror of Peru, celebrated rather for his abilities than for his virtues, his glory being tarnished by the cruelties which he practised towards those whom he had conquered, was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, by a very low woman, and apparently destined by his ungenerous parent not to rise above the condition of his mother, being put to the mean employment of keeping hogs. The genius of young Pizarro disdained this low occupation. He enlisted as a soldier, served some time in Italy, and then embarked for America, which offered at that period a strong allurement to every active adventurer. Distinguished by his utter disdain of every hardship and danger, he was soon regarded, though so illiterate that he was unable to read, as a man formed for command; and being settled in Panama, where the Spanish emigrants had found their sanguine expectations wholly disappointed, he united in 1524 with Diego de Almagro, another military adventurer, and Hernando Lucque, a priest, to prosecute discoveries to the eastward of that settlement. This attempt had frequently been made, but had failed through the inability of the persons concerned in it; it had now fallen into such hands as were calculated to make it successful, and their confederacy was sanctioned by the governor of Panama. The enterprise was begun in a very humble manner. Pizarro set sail with a single vessel, and, from universal ignorance of the climate, at the very worst season of the year, in November, when the periodical winds were precisely against his course. He had no success, nor was his colleague Almagro, who followed, more fortunate. After undergoing extreme hardships, and obtaining only a glimpse of a better country, the utmost they could do was to establish themselves in an island near the coast. Nothing could deter Pizarro from his enterprise; the refusal of further sanction from the governor, the desertion of all his associates, except thirteen, all was in vain. He remained with his small band, till, in spite of all obstacles, they obtained another vessel, with some reinforcements. They set sail again in 1526, and on the twentieth day after their departure, discovered the fertile coast of Peru. They were yet too weak to attempt the invasion of an empire so populous, and Pizarro contented himself with carrying back, by means of an amicable intercourse, such specimens of the wealth and civilization of the country as might invite others to accede to the enterprise. Unable to bring the governor of Panama to adopt his views, he returned to Spain, and explaining to that court the magnitude of the object, obtained every grant of authority he could wish, but no other assistance; and being left to his own resources, could have effected nothing had he not been assisted with money by Cortez, just then returned from Mexico. It was February 1531, before he and his associates were again able to sail from Panama on their great undertaking; and then their whole armament consisted only of three small vessels and 180 soldiers, thirty-six of whom were horsemen. When they landed in Peru, as they had the imprudence to attack the natives, instead of conciliating them, they were at first exposed to famine, and several other calamities. Pizarro, however, had the good fortune to enter Peru when the forces of the empire were divided by an obstinate civil war between Huascar the legitimate monarch, and Atahualpa (commonly called Atabalipa), his half brother. By degrees understanding the state of the country, Pizarro engaged to be the ally of Atahualpa, and under that pretence was permitted to penetrate unmolested to Caxamalca, twelve days’ journey within the country. He was received pacifically and with state, as the ambassador of a great monarch but, perfidiously taking advantage of the unsuspecting good faith of Atahualpa, he made a sudden attack, and took him prisoner. The exaction of an immense ransom, the division of which served to invite new invaders; the disgraceful breach of faith by which the king was kept a prisoner after his ransom was paid; and the detestable murder of him, a short time after, under the infamous mockery of a trial; with the insults superadded by bigotry, to make him die a Christian, without being able to comprehend that faith; all contribute to accumulate disgrace upon the head of the treacherous and unfeeling conqueror, and form such odious additions to the reproachful scenes acted by the Spaniards in America, as nothing can palliate or obliterate. Pizarro, favoured by the distracted state of Peru, which now increased, though Huascar had been put to death by order of his brother, and reinforced by more soldiers from Spain, proceeded in his conquests, and on Jan. 18, 1535, laid the foundation of Lima, called by him and his countrymen Ciudad de los Reyes. In 1537 he found a new enemy in his original associate Almagro, who claiming Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, as belonging to his jurisdiction, got possession of it. This, and other advantages gained by him, at once distressed and roused Pizarro. They came to an engagement in 1538, in which Almagro was defeated and taken prisoner; and, after an interval of confinement, was tried and executed. This was the last of the successes of Pizarro; the son and friends of Almagro conspired against him, and on June 26, 1541, he was assassinated by them in his palace, making a most resolute defence, well worthy of his long-tried courage. He was at this time advanced in years, though his exact age is not known. The glory he justly acquired by military talents, courage, and sagacity, would have placed him in the rank of heroes, had not his character been disgraced by the indelible stains of perfidy and cruelty.

, an eminent philologer of Hamburgh, where he was born in 1642, completed his studies at Helmstadt and Leipsic, and improved his talents by travelling in France and Italy. When he returned, he applied himself to the bar, and afterwards became professor of morals and eloquence, in which situation he continued twenty-four years. He was beloved by his pupils, and when he died, April 6, 1699, regretted by his countrymen in general, who had considered him as an oracle. His works are, 1. “A Dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous Authors,” published in 1708, in 2 vols. folio, by the care of Fabricius; a curious work, but abounding with faults. 2. “De jurisconsulto perito Liber,” 1693, 8vo. 3. “Carmina juvenilia,” Amst. 1667, 12mo. 4. “De arte excerpendi,” Hamburgh, 1689, 8vo, with several others, all testifying, and abundantly proving, his talents and erudition.

, a man of taste in various pursuits, but chiefly known as an engraver, was the son of Mr. Rowland Place, of Dinsdale, in the county of Durham. He was at first intended for the law, and was placed as a clerk to an attorney in London, with whom he resided until 1665, when a house he had taken being shut up on account of the plague, he left London and quitted his profession at the same time. He now turned projector, and expended considerable sums of money in attempting to make porcelaine, which he put in practice at the manor-­house of York. In this it is probable he had not due perseverance; for one Clifton, of Pontefract, took the hint from him, and realized a fortune. Who was his teacher as an artist is not known, and his works are very rare, for he painted, drew, etched, and engraved, merely for his own amusement; and as his productions prove him a man of great abilities, it is to be lamented that he had not equal application, and left many valuable designs unfinished. In the reign of Charles II. it is said he was offered a pension of 500l. to draw the royal navy, but he refused this sum, large as it then was, from a dislike of confinement and dependence. He died in 1728, and his widow, on quitting the manor-house at York, disposed of his paintings; among which was an admired picture of fowls, others of fishes and flowers unfinished, together with his own portrait by himself. He left behind him a daughter, who was married to Wadham Wyndham, esq. This lady was living in 1764.

, a learned protestant minister, and celebrated professor of divinity at Saumur, was descended from a noble and ancient family, and born in 1596. He gained great credit by his writings against the Socinians, but held a singular opinion concerning the imputation of Adam’s sin, which was condemned in a French synod. He died August 7, 1655, at Saumur, aged fifty-nine. His works were reprinted at Franeker, 1699, and 1703, 4to, 2 tom. The first contains a treatise “On Types;” treatises on “The imputation of Adam’s first Sin,” or, “The order of the Divine Decrees, and on Freewill,” with an “Abridgment of Theology:” the second volume contains his “Disputes against the Socinians,” the most important part of his works. He also wrote “An Examination of the arguments for and against the Sacrifice of the Mass,” 8vo.

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

, is said to have been the real name of a German author, who, tinder the fictitious one of Publius Porcius Porcellus, wrote the Latin poem entitled “Pugna porcorum,” consisting of 360 verses, in which every word begins with a P. It was published separately at Antwerp, in 1530, and is in the “Nugae venales,” &c. We have followed Baillet in- calling him Peter Placentinus, but Le Clerc says that his name was John Leo Placentius, a Dominican monk, who died about 1548, and that he composed an history of the bishops of Tongres, Maestricht, and Liege, taken out of fabulous memoirs, and several poems besides the “Pugna Porcorum.” In this last he imitated one Theobaldus,. a Benedictine monk, who flourished in the time of Charles the Bald, to whom he presented a panegyric on baldness, every word of which began with the letter C (calvities, baldness). Placentinus is said to have had another object,

, a protestant minister of great eminence, was born at Pontac in Berne, Jan. 19, 1639; and his father, who was a minister, trained him with the greatest attention and care. From 1660, he exercised the ministry in France; but, after the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he retired to Denmark, where he continued till the death of the queen in 1711; for that princess, apprised of his gr,eat merit, kept him near her. From Denmark he passed to Holland, and fixed himself first at the Hague then removed to Utrecht, where he died April 25, 1718, aged seventy-nine. He was the author of many works upon piety and morality, which are reckoned excellent in their kind; and of some of the polemic kind, against the church of Rome, and particularly against Bayle’s sceptical works. Among these we may enumerate, 1. “Nouveaux Essais de Morale,” 6 vols. 12mo. 2. “Traité de l'Orgueil,” the best edition of which is 1699, 3. “Traité de la Conscience.” 4. “Traité de la Restitution.” 5. “La Communion deVote,” the best edition of which is that of 1699. 6. “Traité des bonnes CEuvres en general.” 7, “Traité du Serment” 8. “Divers Traités sur des Matieres de Conscience.” 9. “La Mort des Justes.” 10. “Traité de l'Aumône.” 11. “Traité des Jeux de Hazard.” 12. “La Morale Chretien abregee,” 1701. 13. “Reflexions Chretiennes sur divers Sujets de Morale,” all in 12mo. 14. “De Insanabili Edclesia Romana, Scepticismo, Dissertatio,” 1686, or 1696, 4to. 15. “De l'Autorite des Sens contre la Transubstantiation,” 12mo. 16. “Traité de la Foi divine,” 4 vols. 4to. 17. “Dissertation sur divers Sujets de Theologie et de Morale,” 12mo, &c. Some of the above have been published in English, particularly the “Treatise on Conscience,” and that on the “Death of the Just.”

, an eminent printer, was born at Mont-Louis, near Tours, in 1514. He was instructed in his art at Caen, under Robert Mace, whence he went to Antwerp, and formed by degrees one of the greatest establishments for printing in Europe, and said indeed to be unique in its kind. The whole was upon the most magnificent scale, and even the building was accounted one of the ornaments of the city of Antwerp, and was so amply furnished with presses, founts of letter of all sorts, a foundery, and other matters necessary for the concern, as to have cost an immense sum of money. One of his biographers informs us that Plantin’s ideas were so magnificent as that he cast some founts in silver, and considered himself as having in.that respect done what no other printer had attempted but this is a mistake, as Robert Stephens had before indulged himself in the luxury of silver types, although not so rich a man as Plantin. In 1576 Thuanus paid a visit to Plantin, who, although not now in such good circumstances, still had seventeen presses at work, and the wages of his workmen amounted to 20O florins per day. But what redounds most to his credit was the number of men of learning whom he retained in his service, and rewarded with great liberality for their assistance in correcting the press. Among these were Victor Giselin; Theodore Pulman; Antony Gesdal; Francis Hardouin Cornelius Kilien and Francis Raphelengius, who became his son-in-law. Cornelius Kilien, one of the most learned and accurate of these, spent fifty years in this printing-house. The correctness, therefore, of Plantin’s editions, with such aid, is not much a matter of surprise, and will appear still less so when it is added that he was so fastidious as not altogether to trust to the assistants now mentioned, nor even to rely on his own skill and knowledge, both of which were great, but used also to hang up the proof sheets, after undergoing every possible degree of correction, in some conspicuous place, promising rewards for the detection of errors. In this, likewise, it will be observed, he followed the example of Robert Stephens. Such care on the part of Plantin, with the beauty of his types, and the judicious choice he made of the authors to be printed, gave him very high reputation among the learned of Europe, who are unbounded in their praises of him, particularly Lipsius, Scaliger, Antonio, Baronius, and Arias Montanus, who expatiates on his merits in the introduction to what may be termed Plantin’s capital work, the Antwerp Polyglot. The king of Spain gave him the title of archi-typographus, and accompanied this title with a salary sufficient to support it and his printing-office, and a kind of patent for the printing of certain works, particularly of the religious kind, with which, Bullart says, he almost exclusively served Europe and the Indies.

Besides his great establishment at Antwerp, Plantin set up another at Leyden, notwithstanding the troubles which prevailed in Holland and a third at Paris. The king of France would have fain persuaded him to return to his native country, but he preferred remaining at Antwerp, where, as just noticed, the king of Spain for some time rendered his situation easy, and even splendid. The printing office at Leyden he bestowed on his son-in-law, Raphelengius and took into partnership at Antwerp John Moret, who had married his second daughter. He gave likewise to Giles Beys, a Parisian, the office he had established at Paris, as a portion with his third daughter. After all this, and the constant expences of his living and establishment, he was enabled to leave a considerable fortune to his daughters, for he had no son. He died in 1589, aged seventy-five, and was interred in the great church at Antwerp, where a monument was erected to his memory. His device was a pair of compasses, with the motto “Lahore et constantia.”

Balsac only has aimed at the reputation of Plantin, by a story which, he says, Lipsius told him, that our printer did not understand Latin. The story, however, seems at variance with every other authority. It is also said that the king of Spain had distressed him by re-demanding the money he had lent him to carry on the printing of the Polyglot. We hope this rests on no better authority than the preceding; but it is certain that at one time, when Thuanus visited him, he was, for whatever reason, in less flourishing circumstances. We find, however, that at last he died in opulence.

, a Greek monk of Constantinople, who lived at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth century, is the author of a “Life of Æsop,” full of anachronisms, absurdities, and falsehoods and of 149 “Fables;” which, though he published them as Æsop’s, have been suspected to be his own. There is also a collection of Greek epigrams, under the title of “Anthologia,” made by this monk and it is but just to allow him the merit of having preserved many valuable compositions which otherwise would have been lost. His “Anthologia” was published at Florence, 1494, a very rare edition, reprinted in 1600. No particulars are known of Planudes, except that he suffered some persecution on account of his zeal for the Latin church, and, although he wrote a recantation, Bessarion thinks he was not sincere.

, an eminent physician, was born at Basle in 1536, and educated upder his father’s eye, who was likewise an eminent physician, and principal of the college of Basle. From this place he went to Montpellier, where he obtained the degree of doctor in 1556, and on his return to Basle, was admitted ad eundem, and commenced a very successful career of practice. In 15 60 he was appointed professor of medicine, and became the confidential physician of the princes and nobles of the Upper Rhine. He possessed an extensive knowledge of anatomy, botany, natural history, and other branches of science, and contributed much to the celebrity of his native university, in which he was a teacher upwards of fifty years. He died in July 1614, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. He left the following works: “De Corporis humani structura et usu Libri tres,” Basle, 1583, and 1603, folio; “De Febribus Liber,” Francfort, 1597; “Praxeos Medicae Tomi tres,” Basle, 1602; “Observationum Medicinalium Libri tres,” ibid. 1614, &c.; “Consilia Medica,” Francf. 1615, in the collection of Brendelius; “De Gangraena Epistola,” in the first century of the letters of Hildanus. After his death were published “Qusestionum Medicarum paradoxarum et eudoxarum Centuria posthuma,” Basle, 1625, edited by his brother, Thomas Plater and “Qusestiones Physiologicæ de partium in utero conformatione,” Leyden, 1650.

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

In this hit at the popes, Sannazarius forgot that the case was quite the reverse with these two works, the treatise “De honesta voluptate” being in fact composed before its author’s imprisonment and persecution under Paul II. and the Lives of the Popes not until he became keeper of the Vatican under Sixtus IV. The date of the first edition of the former, 1481, had probably misled Sannazarius. The lives of the popes was continued in subsequent editions by Onuphrius Panvinius and others. We have likewise an English translation and continuation by sir Paul Ricaut, which will be noticed more particularly hereafter.

, an able physician, was born at Chemnitz, in Misnia, in August 1694. He was first intended for merchandize, but the rapid progress which he made in his studies, induced his father to consent that he should direct his attention to medicine, for which he had manifested a strong inclination. He studied, therefore, at Leipsic, for three years, and afterwards at Halle, where he received the degree of doctor in September 1716. He then travelled through various parts of Europe, for four years, and finally settled at Leipsic in 1720. In 1721 he was appointed professor extraordinary of anatomy and surgery. In 1724 he obtained the chair of physiology, which had become vacant by the death of Rivinus; in 1737 he was promoted to the professorship of pathology and in 1747 to that of therapeutics. He was also nominated perpetual dean of the faculty, and consulting physician to the court of Saxony. He did not live long, however, to 6njoy these flattering distinctions; for he was carried off suddenly on the 19th of December 1747, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, by a paroxysm of asthma.

He left only three different works, the first of which, entitled “Institutiones Chirurgise Rationalis, turn medicae, turn manualis,” Leipsic, 1745, was published by himself. It passed through several editions. The second, entitled “Opusculorum Chirurgicorum et Anatomicorum Tomi duo: Dissertationes et Prolusiones,” ibid. 1749, was edited by his son, Frederic Plainer, a professor of law. And the third, entitled “Ars medendi singulis morbis accommodata,” ibid. 1765, which had been bequeathed by the author to his pupil J. B. Boehmer, upon condition that it should not be published, was printed by a bookseller, Fritsch, into whose hands a copy of it fell eighteen years after the author^s death.

, the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, and whose sect outlived every other, was by descent an Athenian, but born in the island of Ægina, then subject to Athens. His origin is traced back, on his father Aristo’s side, to Codrus; and on that of his mother Pericthiohe, through five generations, to Solon. The time of his birth is commonly placed in the first year of the eighty-eighth olympiad, or B.C. 428; but Brucker thinks, it may perhaps be more accurately fixed in the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad, or B. C. 430. He gave early indications of an extensive and original genius, and was instructed in the rudiments of letters by the grammarian Dionysius, and trained in athletic exercises by Aristo of Argos. He applied also with great diligence to the arts of painting and poetry, and produced an epic poem, which he had the wisdom afterwards, upon comparing it with Homer, to commit to the flames. At the age of twenty years, he composed a dramatic piece, which was about to be performed on the theatre, but the day before the intended exhibition, he happened to hear a discourse of Socrates, which induced him to withdraw the piece, and relinquish the muses for the study of philosophy. Accordingly he became a regular pupil of Socrates for eight years, and although he sometimes mixed foreign tenets with those of his master, always preserved a strong attachment to him, and attended him at his trial. During the imprisonment also of that celebrated philosopher, Plato had an opportunity of hearing his sentiments on the immortality of the soul, the substance of which he inserted in his beautiful dialogue entitled “Phajdo,” along with some of his own peculiar opinions. On the death of Socrates, he retired, with other friends of Socrates, to Megara, where they were hospitably entertained by Euclid, who taught Plato the art of reasoning, and probably increased his fondness for disputation.

Desirous of making himself master of all the wisdom and learning which the age could furnish, Plato commenced his travels with visiting that part of Italy, called Magna Græcia, where he was instructed in all the mysteries of the Pythagorean system, the subtleties of which he afterwards too freely blended with the more simple doctrine of Socrates. He next visited Theodorus of Gyrene, and when under this master he found himself sufficiently instructed in the elements of mathematics, he determined to study astronomy, and other sciences, in Egypt, and that he might travel with safety, he assumed the character of a merchant. Wherever he came, he obtained information from the Egyptian priests concerning their astronomical observations and calculations; and it has been asserted, that Plato acquired in Egypt his opinions concerning the origin of the world, and learned the doctrines of transmigration, and the immortality of the soul: but it is more probable that he learned the latter doctrine from Socrates, and the former from Pythagoras. Nor, according to Brucker, is there more reason for thinking that he learned in Egypt, the doctrine of the Hebrews, and enriched his system from the sacred Scriptures, although the contrary has been maintained by several eminent Jewish and Christian writers, and was commonly received by the Christian fathers. As to the supposed agreement between the Mosaic and Platonic doctrines, that historian thinks that either the agreement is imaginary, or it consists in such particulars as might be easily discovered by the light of reason. After learning what distant countries could teach, Plato returned to Italy, to the Pythagorean school at Tarentum, where he endeavoured to improve his own system, by a mixture of the Pythagorean, as then taught by Archytas, TimsEus, and others. And afterwards, when he visited Sicily, he retained such an attachment to the Italic school, that, through the bounty of Dionysius, he purchased, at a vast price, several books, which contained the doctrine of Pythagoras, from Philolaus, one of his followers. In this way Plato accumulated his knowledge. His dialectics he borrowed from Euclid of Megara; the principles of natural philosophy he learned in the Eleatic school from Hermogenes and Cratylus: and combining these with the Pythagorean doctrine of natural causes, he framed from both his system of metaphysics. Mathematics and astronomy he was taught in the Cyrenaic school, and by the Egyptian priests. From Socrates he imbibed the pure principles of moral and political wisdom; but he afterwards obscured their simplicity by Pythagorean speculations.

Returning home richly stored with knowledge of various kinds, he settled in Athens, and formed his celebrated school of philosophy. The place which he made choice of for this purpose was a public grove, called the Academy, from Hecademus, who left it to the citizens for the puiv pose of gymnastic exercises. Adorned with statues, temples, and sepulchres, planted with lofty plane-trees, and intersected by a gentle stream, it afforded a delightful retreat for philosophy and the muses. Within this inclosure he possessed, as a part of his humble patrimony, purchased at the price of three thousand drachmas, a small garden, in which he opened a school, and to shew the value he placed on mathematical studies, and how necessary a preparation be thought them for higher speculations, he placed an inscription over the door, the meaning of which is, “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.” He soon became ranked among the most eminent philosophers, and his travels into distant countries, where learning and wisdom flourished, gave him celebrity among his brethren, none of whom had ventured to institute a school in Athens, except Aristippus, the freedom of whose manners had brought him into discredit. Plato alone inherited the popularity of Socrates, and besides a crowd of young scholars, persons of the first distinction frequented the academy, females not excepted, whose curiosity induced them to put on the male apparel for this purpose. Such reputation could not escape envy and jealousy. Diogenes the Cynic ridiculed Plato’s doctrine of ideas and other abstract speculations; nor was he himself without a tinge of jealousy, for he and Xenophon, who had been fellow pupils of Socrates, studiously avoided mentioning each other. Amidst all this, however, Plato’s fame increased; and such an opinion was formed of his political wisdom, that several states solicited his assistance in new modelling their respective forms of government. But while he gave his advice in the affairs of Elis, and other Grecian states, and furnished a code of laws for Syracuse, he rejected the applications of the Arcadians and Thebans, because they refused to adopt the plan of his republic, which prescribed an equal distribution of property. He was also in high esteem with several princes, particularly Archelaus, king of Maoedon, and Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily. At three different periods he visited the court of this latter prince, and made several bold, but unsuccessful attempts to subdue his haughty and tyrannical spirit. A brief relation of the particulars of these visits to Sicily, may serve to cast some light upon the character of our philosopher

The professed object of Plato’s first visit to Sicily, which happened in the fortieth year of his age, during the reign of the elder Dionysius, the son of Hermocrates, was, to take a survey of the island, and particularly to observe the wonders of Mount Etna. Whilst he was resident at Syracuse, he was employed in the instruction of Dion, the king’s brother-in-law, who possessed excellent abilities, but had not escaped the general depravity of the court. Such, however, was the influence of Plato’s instructions, that he became an ardent lover of wisdom, and hoping that philosophy might produce the same effect upon Dionysius, he procured an interview between Plato and the tyrant. This had like to have proved fatal, for Donysius, perceiving that the philosopher levelled his discourse against the vices and cruelties of his reign, dismissed him with high displeasure from his presence, and conceived a design against his life. And although he did not accomplish this barbarous intention, he procured him to be sold as a slave in the island of Ægina, the inhabitants of which were then at war with the Athenians. Plato, however, could not long remain unnoticed: Anicerris, a Cyrenaic philosopher, who happened to be at that time in the island, discovered him, and purchasing his freedom, sent him home to Athens, and afterwards refused the repayment of the purchase-money, that, as he said, Plato’s friends might not monopolize the honour of serving so illustrious a philosopher.

After a short interval, Dionysius, repenting of his unjust resentment, wrote to Plato, inviting him to return to Syracuse, to which Plato answered, with some contempt, that philosophy would not allow him leisure to think of Dionysius. He was induced, however, to return by another expedient. Plato had made Dion a determined votary of virtue, and he naturally wished to extend this advantage to the younger Dionysius, who also expressed a most earnest desire to become acquainted with Plato< Letters were then dispatched to him, from the tyrant, from Dion and several followers of Pythagoras, importuning him to return to Syracuse, and take upon him the education of the young prince. After considerable hesitation, he consented, and is said to have had some kind of promise on the part of Dionysius that he would adopt the Platonic form of government. In the mean time the enemies of Dion prevailed upon Dionysius to recall from exile Philistus, a man of tyrannical principles and spirit, who, they hoped f would oppose the doctrines and measures of Plato. The philosopher in the mean time was conducted to Syracuse with public honours; the king himself received him into his chariot, and sacrifices were offered in congratulation of his arrival. New regulations were immediately introduced; the licentiousness of the court was restrained; moderation reigned in all public festivals; the king assumed an air of benignity; philosophy was studied by his courtiers; and every good man assured himself of a happy revolution in the state of public manners. It was now that Philistus and his adherents found means to rekindle the jealousy of the tyrant, and through their intrigues, Dion became so obnoxious to Dionysius, that he ordered him to be imprisoned, and afterwards banished him into Italy. With Plato, however, he continued to keep up some appearance of friendship, and under that pretence allotted Plato an apartment in his palace, but at the same time placed a secret guard about him, that no one might visit him without his knowledge. At length, upon the commencement of a war, Dionysius sent Plato back into his own country, with a promise, that he would recal both him and Dion upon the return of peace. Part of this promise he was soon inclined to keep, by recalling Plato but the philosopher received his solicitations with coolness, pleaded in excuse his advanced age, and reminded the tyrant of the violation of his promise respecting Dion nor was it until the request of Dionysius was seconded by the intreaties of the wife and sister of Dion, and by the importunities of Archytas of Tarentum, and other Pythagorean philosophers, to whom the tyrant had pledged himself for the performance of his promises, that he could be prevailed upon to return.

On his third arrival he was received with great respect by Dionysius, who now seemed wholly divested of his former resentments, listened to his doctrines with pleasure, and presented him with eighty talents in gold. The court indeed was not much improved, nor was the disposition of the tyrant really changed, yet Plato supported the credit of philosophy with great dignity, and had considerable influence and authority. But as he soon found that he could not procure the recall of Dion, and that there was little sincerity in the professions of Dionysius, he requested permission to return to Greece. The permission was granted, and a ship provided; but before it could set sail, Dionysius retracted his promise, and detained Plato in Syracuse. This conduct being attended with complaints on the part of Plato, the tyrant was so irritated as to dismiss him from his court, and put him under a guard of soldiers, whom false rumours had incensed against him. His Pythagorean friends at Tarentum, being informed of his dangerous situation, immediately dispatched an embassy to Dionysius, demanding an instant completion of his promise to Archytas. The tyrant, not daring to refuse this demand, with a view to pacify Plato gave him a magnificent entertainment, and sent him away loaded with rich presents.

The personal character of Plato has been very differently represented. On the one hand, his encomiasts have not failed to adorn him with every excellence, and to express the most superstitious veneration for his memory. His enemies, on the other, have not scrupled to load him with reproach, and to charge him with practices inconsistent with the purity of the philosophical character. Several anecdotes, however, are preserved, which reflect honour upon his morals and principles. He had in particular an extraordinary command of temper. When he was told that his enemies were busily employed in circulating reports to his disadvantage, he said, “I will live so, that none shall believe them.” One of his friends remarking, that he teemed as desirous to learn himself, as to teach others, asked him, how long he intended to be a scholar “As long,” says he, “as I am not ashamed to grow wiser and better.”

It is from the writings of Plato, chiefly, that we are to form a judgment of his merit as a philosopher, and of the service which he rendered to science. No one can be conversant with these without perceiving, that his diction always retained a strong tincture of that poetical spirit which he discovered in his first productions. This is the principal ground of those lofty encomiums, which both autient and modern critics have passed upon his language, and, particularly, of the high estimation in which it was held by Cicero, who, treating on the subject of language, says, that “if Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would borrow the style of Plato.” The accurate Stagyrite describes it, as “a middle species of diction, between verse and prose.” Some of his dialogues are elevated by such sublime and glowing conceptions, are enriched with such copious and splendid diction, and flow in so harmonious a rythmus, that they may truly be pronouncedhighly poetical. Most of them are justly admired for their liter rary merit the introductions are pertinent and amusing the course of the debate, or conversation, is clearly marked; the characters are accurately supported every speaker has his proper place, language, and manners the scenery of the conference is painted in lively colouring and the whole is, with admirable art, adorned and enlivened by those minute embellishments, which render the colloquial mode of writing so peculiarly pleasing. Even upon abstract subjects, whether moral, metaphysical, or mathematical, the language of Plato is often clear as the running stream, and in simplicity and sweetness vies with the humble violet which perfumes the vale. In these beautiful parts of his works, it has been conjectured, not without probability, that Socrates and Lysias were his models. At other times, however, we find him swelling into the turgid style, a tincture of which he seems to have retained from his juvenile studies, and involving himself in obscurities, which were the offspring of a lofty fancy, or were borrowed from the Italic school. Several ancient critics have noticed these blemishes in the writings of Plato. Dionysius Halicarnassensis particularly censures Plato for the harshness of his metaphors, and his bold innovations in the use of terms, and quotes from his Phædrus examples of the bombast, the puerile, and the frigid style. The same inequality, which is so apparent in the style of Plato, may also be observed in his conceptions. Whilst he adheres to the school of Socrates, and discourses upon moral topics, he is much more pleasing than when he loses himself, with Pythagoras, in abstruse speculations.

The writings of Plato were originally collected by Hermodorus, one of his pupils: they consist of thirty-five dialogues, and thirteen epistles. They were first published by Aldus Manutius, at Venice, in 1513, 2 vols, folio. The subsequent editions of Ficinus and Serranus are the most valuable; but the notes and interpretations of both are to be read with caution, as not representing Plato’s sentiments with fidelity. The Deux Ponts edition of 1781, 12 vols. 8vo, is a copy of the Greek of Serranus, and the Latin of Ficinus. Of the “Dialogues of Plato,” an edition was published by Foster at Oxford, 1745, 8vo, reprinted in 1752 and 1765. In 1771, Etwall published, at the same place, the “Alcibiades,” and “Hipparchus;” to which he prefixed the life of Plato by Olympiodorus, and the introduction of Albinus. The “Euthydemus” and “Gorgias” were also published at Oxford in 1784, by the very learned Dr. Routh, president of Magdelen college. There are many English translations of the Dialogues, but none superior to those by Floyer Sydenham, published in four volumes, from 1767 to 1780. Mr. Thomas Taylor has since published a translation of the whole works of Plato, including Sydenham’s share, with copious notes, &c. 1804, 5 vols. 4to.

The truth appears to have been, that Plato, ambitious of the honour of forming a new sect, and endued by nature with more brilliancy of fancy than strength of judgment, collected the tenets of other philosophers, which were, in many particulars, contradictory, and could by no exertion of ingenuity be brought to coalesce; and that, out of this heterogeneous mass, he framed a confused system, destitute of form or consistency. This will be acknowledged by every one, who, in perusing the philosophical writings of Plato, is capable of divesting himself of that blind respect for antiquity, by which the learned so frequently suffer themselves to be misled. The followers, too, of Plato, far from dispersing the clouds which from the first, hung over his system, appear to have entered into a general combination to increase its obscurity. The successive changes, which took place in the academy after the death of its founder, by introducing a succession of new opinions, continually increased the difficulty of arriving at the true sense of Plato. And when, in a subsequent, period, the Platonic philosophy was professed in Alexandria, it was still further adulterated by an injudicious and absurd attempt to mould into one system the doctrines of Plato, the traditionary tenets of Egypt and the eastern nations, and the sacred creeds of the Jews and Christians: a coalition which proved exceedingly injurious both to philosophy and religion.

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

It is doubtful how many plays he composed. We have only twenty extant, and not all entire. Varro allowed twenty- six to be of his composition, which were all extant in Gellius’s time. Some made the number of his plays to exceed an hundred but this might arise from his revising the plays of other poets, which Gellius supposes he did and Varro' s account ought to be decisive. This learned Roman had written a particular treatise on Plautus’s works, from the second book of which, quoted by Gellius, the preceding particulars are taken. Many other critics are there mentioned by GelHus, who had all written some pieces upon Plautus, which shew the great admiration in which he was held by the Romans and it should seem as if this admiration continued long for there is a passage in Arnobius, whence it seems reasonable to infer that some of his plays were acted on solemn occasions, so late as the reign of Dioclesian. Two circumstances contributed to his fame; the one, his style, which was thought the standard of the purest Latin, for the learned Varro did not scruple to say, that were the Muses to speak Latin, they would certainly speak in the language of Plautus; the other, the exquisite humour of his characters, which set him above all the Roman comic writers. This is the constant opinion of Varro, Cicero, Gellius, Macrobius, and the most eminent modern critics, as Lipsius, the Scaligers, Muretus, Turnebus, &c. Horace only blames the coarseness of his wit, in which opinion a modern reader of taste will perhaps be inclined to join. Bonnell Thornton endeavoured to naturalize them by a translation, which however is too liberal to afford the mere English reader an idea of the humour which delighted a Roman audience.

The first edition of Plautus was edited by George Merula, and published at Venice in 1472, fol. The most valuable of the subsequent editions are, that of Camerarius, Basil, 1551, and 1558, 8vo of Lambinus, Paris, 1577, fol. of Taubman, Francfort and Wittemberg, 1605, 1612, and 1622, 4to the Variorum by Gronovius, Amst. 1684, 8vo; of Ernesti, Leipsic, 1760, 2 vols. 8vo and of Schmeider, at Gottingen, 1804, 2 Vols. 8vo

, a man distinguished in the musical world, was born in 1613. He was a stationer and a seller of musical instruments, music-books, and musicpaper, and was clerk of the Temple church. What his education had been, is not known; but that he had attained to a considerable proficiency in the practice of music and musical composition, is certain. His skill in music was not so great as to entitle him to the appellation of a master; he knew nothing of the theory of the science, but was very well versed in the practice, and understood the rules of composition well enough to write good harmony. He was also the first and the most intelligent printer of music during the seventeenth century; and he and his son Henry, appear, without a special licence, or authorized monopoly, to have had almost the whole business of furnishing the nation with musical instruments, music books, and music paper, to themselves. In 1655 he published the first edition of his “Introduction to the Skill of Music,” a compendium compiled from Morley, Butler, and other more bulky and abstruse books, which had so rapid a sale, that in 1683 ten editions of it had been circulated through the kingdom. The book, indeed, contained no late discoveries or new doctrines, either in the theory or practice of the art; yet the form, price, and style, were so suited to every kind of musical readers, that it seems to have been more generally purchased and read, than any elementary musical tract that ever appeared in this or in any other country.

In the same year this diligent editor also published, in two separate books, small 8vo, “Court Ayres, by Dr. Charles Colman, William Lawes, John Jenkins, Simpson, Child, Cook, Rogers,” &c. These being published at a time when there was properly no court, were probably tunes which had been used in the masques performed at Whitehall during the life of Charles I. In 1671 he published the first edition of his “Psalms and Hymns in solemn Musick, in foure Parts, on the common Tunes to Psalms in Metre used in Parish churches. Also six Hymns for one Voice to the Organ,” folio. The several editions of this work, published in various forms, at a small price, rendered its sale very general, and psalm-singing in parts, a favourite amusement in almost every village in the kingdom. He died about 1693, and Tate, then poet-laureat, wrote an elegy upon him.

His second son, Henry, succeeded his father as a musicseller, at first at his shop in the Temple, but afterwards in the Temple Exchange, Fleet-street; but the music-books advertised by him were few compared with those published by his father. Among them were the “Orpheus Britannicus,” and the ten sonatas and airs of Purcell. He published, in 1701, what he called the second book of the '< Pleasant Musical Companion, being a choice collection of catches for three or four voices" published chiefly for the encouragement of the musical societies, which, he said, would be speedily set upn the chief cities and towns of England. We know not that this v as the case, but certainly the publication of Purcell’s catches in two small volumes of the elder Walsh in queen Anne’s time, was th means of establishing catch-clubs in almost every town in the kingdom. It is conjectured that Henry Playford survived his father but a short time, for we meet with no publication by him after 17 10.

, an eminent physician, was born at Amsterdam in December 1601. He studied at Ghent, Louvain, Leyden, Padua, and Bologna, at which last university he took his degree of doctor. On his return to Holland, he began practice, but was induced to accept the vacant professorship of the Institutes of Medicine, at Louvain, of which he took possession in 1633. At the same time he abjured the Protestant faith, became a Catholic, and took a new degree of doctor, in conformity with the rules of the university. In the following year, however, he quitted this chair, for the professorship of pathology. He was soon afterwards nominated principal of the college of Bretigel. He died at Louvain, in December 1671, aged seventy.

Plempius left the following works “A Treatise on the Muscles,” in Dutch. “Ophthalmographia, sive de Oculi Fabrica, Actione, et Usu,” Amst. 1632; Lovaen. 1648. A translation of the Anatomy of Gabrolius into Dutch, with notes, Amst. 1633. “Fundamenta, seu Institutiones Medicinae,” Lov. 1638, 1644, &c. In the first edition of this work, Plempius doubted the circulation of the blood but in the second, he was a strenuous advocate for that doctrine. “Animadversiones in veram Praxim curandos Tertianse propositam a Doctore Petro Barba” ibid. 1642. “Antimus Coningius Peruviani pulveris defensor, repulsus a Melippo Protymo” ibid. 1655. Coningius is the assumed name of Honoratus Fabri Protymus was that assumed by Plempius, in order to decry the use of cinchona. “Avicennae Canonis Liber primus et secundus ex Arabica Lingua in Latinam translatus,” ibid. 1658. “Tractatus de Affectuum Pilorum et Unguium,” ibid. 1662. “De Togatorum Valetudine tuenda Commentarius,” Brux. 1670. The two following are generally ascribed to this author, though Mangetus and Lipenius (probably misinterpreting the initial) ascribe them to Francis Plempius, viz. “Munitio Fundamentorum Medicinae V. F. Plempii adversus Jacobum Primerosium,” Amst. 1659. “Loimographia, sive, Tractatus de Peste,” ibid. 1664.

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

The circumstances of his death, like his manner of livr ing, were very singular, and are also described at large by the elegant pen of his nephew. He was at that time, with a fleet under his command, at Mis en urn, in the gulf of Naples; his sister and her son, the younger Pliny, being with him. On the 24th of August, in the year 79, about one in the afternoon, his sister desired him to observe a cloud of a very unusual size and shape. He was in his study; but immediately arose, and went out upon an eminence to view it more distinctly. It was not at that distance discernible from what mountain this cloud issued, but it was found afterwards to ascend from mount Vesuvius. Its figure resembled that of a pine-tree; for it shot up to a great height in the form of a trunk, which extended itself at the top into a sort of branches; and it appeared sometimes bright, and sometimes dark and spotted, as it was either more or less impregnated with earth and cinders. This was a noble phenomenon for the philosophic Pliny, who immediately ordered a light vessel to be got ready; but as he was coming out of the house, with his tablets for his observations, the mariners belonging to the gallies stationed at Retina, earnestly intreated him to come to their assistance, since that port being situated at the foot of mount Vesuvius, there was no way for them to escape, but by sea. He therefore ordered the gallies to put to sea, and went himself on board, with intention of assisting not only Retina, but several other towns, situated upon that beautiful coast. He steered directly to the point of danger, whence ethers fled with the utmost terror; and with so much calmness and presence of mind, as to be able to make and dictate his observations upon the motion and figure of that dreadful scene. He went so nigh the mountain, that tha cinders, which grew thicker and hotter the nearer he approached, fell into the ships, together with pumice-stonet and black pieces of burning rock: they were likewise in danger, not only of being aground by the sudden retreat of the sea, but also from the vast fragments which rolled down from the mountain, and obstructed all the shore. Here he stopped to consider, whether he should return; to which the pilot advising him, “Fortune,” said he, “befriends the brave; carry me to Pomponianus.” Pomponianus was then at Stabioe, a town separated by a gulf, which the sea, after several windings, forms upon that shore. He found him in the greatest consternation, but exhorted him to keep up his spirits; and, the more to dissipate his fears, he ordered, with an air of unconcern, the baths to be got ready; when, after having bathed, he sat down to supper with apparent cheerfulness. Jn the mean while, the eruption from Vesuvius flamed out in several places with much violence, which the darkness of the night contributed to render still more visible and dreadful. Pliny, to soothe the apprehensions of his friend, assured him it was only the burning of the villages, which the country people had abandoned to the flames: after this he retired, and had some sleep. The court which led to his apartment being in the mean time almost filled with stones and ashes, if he had continued there any longer, it would have been impossible for him to have made his way out: it was therefore thought proper to awaken him. He got up, and went to Pomponianus and the rest of the company, who were not unconcerned enough to think of going to bed. They consulted together, whether it would be most prudent to trust to the houses, which now shook from side to side with frequent and violent rockings; or to fly to the open fields, where the calcined stones and cinders, though light indeed, yet fell in large showers, and threatened destruction. In this distress they resolved for the fields, as the less dangerous situation of the two; and went out, having pillows tied upon their heads with napkins, which was all their defence against the storms of stones that fell around them. It was now day every where else, but there a deeper darkness prevailed than in the most obscure night; which, however, was in some degree dissipated by torches, and other lights of various kinds. They thought proper to go down farther upon the shore, to observe if they might safely put out to sea; but they found the waves still run extremely high and boisterous. There Pliny, taking a draught or two of water, threw himself down upon a cloth which was spread for him; when immediately the flames and a strong smell of sulphur, wkich was the forerunner of them, dispersed the rest of the company, and obliged him to arise. He raised himself, with the assistance of two of his servants, for he was corpulent, and instantly fell down dead: suffocated, as his nephew conjectures, by some gross and noxious vapour; for he had always weak lungs, and was frequently subject to a difficulty of breathing. As soon as it was light again, which was not till the third day after, his body was found entire, and without any marks of violence upon it; exactly in the same posture that he fell, and looking more like a man asleep than dead.

The sister and nephew, whom the uncle left at Misenum, continued there that night, but had their rest extremely broken and disturbed. There had been for many days before some shocks of an earthquake, which was the less surprising, as they were always extremely frequent in Campania: but they were so particularly violent that night, that they seemed to threaten a total destruction. When the morning came, the light was exceedingly faint and languid, and the buildings continued to totter; so that Pliny and his mother resolved to quit the town, and the people followed them in the utmost consternation. When at a convenient distance from the houses, they stood still, in the midst of a most dangerous and dreadful scene. The chariots, they had ordered to be drawn out, were so agitated backwards and forwards; though upon the most level ground, that they could not keep them stedfast, even by supporting them with large stones. The sea seemed to roll back upon itself, and to be driven from its banks by the convulsive motion of the earth; it was certain at least, the shore was considerably enlarged, and several sea animals were left upon it. On the other side, a black and dreadful cloud, bursting with an igneous serpentine vapour, darted out a' long train of fire, resembling flashes of lightning, but much larger. Soon afterwards, the cloud seemed to descend, and cover the whole ocean; as indeed, it entirely hid the island of Capreoe, and the promontory of Misenum. Pliny’s mother earnestly conjured him to make his escape, which; being young, for he was only eighteen years of age, he might easily do; as for herself, she said, her age and unwieldy person rendered all attempts of that sort impossible: but he refused to leave her, and, taking her by the hand, led her on. The ashes began to fall upon them, though in no great quantity: but a thick smoke, like a torrent, came rolling after them. Pliny proposed, while they had any light, to turn out of the high road, lest his mother should be pressed to death in the dark, by the crowd that followed them: and they had scarce stepped out of the path, when utter darkness entirely overspread them. Nothing then was to he heard. says Pliny, but the shrieks of women, the screams of children, and the cries of men: some calling for their children, others for their parents, others for their husbands, and only distinguishing each other by their voices; one lamenting his own fate, another that of his family, some wishing to die from the very fear of dying, some lifting up their hands to the gods, but the greater part imagining that the last and eternal night was come, which was to destroy both the gods and the world together. At length a glimmering light appeared, not the return of day, but only the forerunner of an approaching burst of flames, which, however, fell at a distance from them; then again they were immersed in thick darkness, and a heavy shower of ashes rained upon them, which they were obliged every now and then to shake off, to prevent being buried in the heap. At length this dreadful darkness was dissipated by degrees, like a cloud or smoke: the real day returned, and even the sun appeared, though very faintly, and as when an eclipse is coming on; and every object seemed changed, being covered over with white ashes, as with a deep snow. Pliny owns very frankly, that his support, during this terrible phenomenon, was chiefly founded in that miserable, though strong consolation, that all mankind were involved in the same calamity, and that the world itself was perishing. They returned to Misenum, but without yet getting rid of their fears; for the earthquake still continued, while, as was extremely natural in such a situation, several enthusiastic people ran up and down, heightening their own and their friends calamities by terrible predictions.

This event happened A.D. 79, in the first year of the emperor Titus; and was probably the first eruption of mount Vesuvius, at least of any consequence, as it is certain we have no particular accounts of any preceding eruption. Dio, indeed, and other ancient authors, speak of this mountain as burning before; but still they describe it as covered with trees and vines, so that the eruptions must have been inconsiderable.

As to the writings of Pliny, his nephew informs us that the first book he published was, a treatise, “Concerning the art of using the javelin on horseback,” written when he commanded a troop of horse. He also was the author of “The Life of Pomponius Secundus,” who was his friend; and “The history of the Wars in Germany;” ia which he gave an account of all the battles the Romans had had with the Germans. His nephew says, that a dream, which occurred when he served in the army in Germany, first suggested to him the design of this work: it was, that Drusus Nero, who extended his conquests very far into that country, and there lost his life, appeared to him, and conjured him not to suffer his memory to be buried in oblivion. He wrote likewise “A treatise upon Eloquence; and a piece of criticism” concerning dubious Latinity.“This last work, which was published in Nero’s reign, when the tyranny of the times made it dangerous to engage in studies of a freer kind, is often cited by Prisrcian, He completed a history which Aufidius Bassus left unfinished, by adding to it thirty books, which contained the history of his own times. Lastly, he left thirty-seven books upon the subject of natural history: a work, sayi his nephew, of great compass and learning, and almost as full of variety as nature herself. It is indeed a most valuable treasury of ancient knowledge. For its defects, which in the estimation of modern students of natural history must unavoidably be numerous, he thus apologizes, in the dedication to Vespasian:” The path which I have taken has hitherto been, in a great measure, untrodden; and holds forth to the traveller few enticements. None of our own writers have so much as attempted these subjects; and even among the Greeks no one has treated of them in their full extent. The generality of authors in their pursuits attend chiefly to amusement; and those who have the character of writing with great depth and refinement are involved in impenetrable obscurity. Such is the extent of my undertaking, that it comprehends every topic which the Greeks include under the name of Encyclopedia; of which, however, some are as yet utterly unknown, and others have been rendered uncertain by excessive subtlety. Other parts of my subject have been so often handled, that readers are become cloyed with them. Arduous indeed is the task to give what is old an appearance of novelty; to add weight and authority to what is new; to cast a lustre upon subjects which time has obscured; to render acceptable what is become trite and disgusting; to obtain credit to doubtful relations; and, in a word, to represent every thing according to nature, and with all its natural properties. A design like this, even though incompletely executed, will be allowed to be grand and noble.“He adds afterwards,” Many defects and errors have, I doubt not, escaped me; for, besides that I partake of the common infirmities of human nature, I have written this work in the midst of engagements, at broken periods which I have stolen from sleep."

To the works of this author may be added a vast quantity of manuscripts, which he left to his nephew, and for which he had been offered by Largius Licinius 400,000 sesterces, that is, about 3200l. of our money. “You will wonder,” says his nephew, “how a man, so engaged as he was, could find time to compose such a number of books; and some of them too upon abstruse subjects. Your surprise will rise still higher, when you hear, that for some time he engaged in the profession of an advocate, that he died in his 56th year, that from the time of his quitting the bar to his death he was employed in the highest posts, and in the service of his prince: but he had a quick apprehension, joined to an unwearied application.” Ep. iii. 5. Hence he became not only a master in polite literature, in grammar, eloquence, and history, but possessed a knowledge of the various arts and sciences, geography, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, botany, sculpture, painting, architecture, &c. for of all these things has he treated in the very important work that he has left us. The first edition of Pliny’s “Naturalis Historia” canlfc from the press of Spira at Venice in 1469, and is reckoned one of the most beautiful, rare, and valuable publications of the fifteenth century. Mr. Dibdin describes the copy in lord Spencer’s library as the finest extant. Five other editions were published from 1470 to 1476, such was the demand for this store-house of natural history. Of the modern editions, the preference is usually given to that by the celebrated father Hardouin, of which there are two, the first “in usum Delphini,” Paris, 5 vols. 4to; the second, 1723, 3 vols. folio, which is a more copious, splendid, and critical performance. Since that, we have an excellent edition by Franzius, Leipsic, 1778 9J, 10 vols, 8vo. Another by Brotier, Paris, 1779, 6 vols. 8vo. And a third, Bipont, 1783, 6 vols, 8vo. There are translations of it, or of parts, in all languages. That endless translator Philemon Holland exerted his own and his readers’ patience on a version into English, published in 1601, folio.

, nephew of the preceding, was born A. D. 62, at Novocomum, a town upon the lake Larius, near which he had several beautiful villas. Caecilius was the name of his father, and Plinius Secundus that of his mother’s brother, who adopted him. He discovered from his infancy, good talents and an elegant taste, which he did not fail to cultivate, and informs us himself that he wrote a Greek tragedy at fourteen years of age. He lost his father when he was young, and had the famous Virginius for his tutor or guardian, of whom he gives a high character. He frequented the schools of the rhetoricians, and heard Quintilian; for whom he ever after entertained so high an esteem, that he bestowed a considerable portion upon his daughter at her marriage. He was in his eighteenth year when his uncle died and it was then that he began to plead in the forum, the usual road to promotion. About a year after, he assumed the military character, and went into Syria with the commission of tribune: but as this did not suit his taste, he returned after a campaign or two. He tells us, that in his passage homewards he was detained by contrary winds at the island Icaria, and that he employed himself in making verses: he enlarges, in the same place, upon his poetical efforts; but in this respect, like Cicero, he valued himself upon a taleftt which he did not eminently possess.

Upon his return from Syria, he settled at Rome, in the reign of Domitian. During this most perilous time, he continued to plead in the forum, where he was distinguished, not more by his uncommon abilities and eloquence, than by his great resolution and courage, which enabled him to speak boldly, when hardly any one else could venture to speak at all. On these accounts he was often singled out by the senate, to defend the plundered provinces against their oppressive governors, and to manage other causes of a like important and dangerous nature. One of these causes was in favour of the province of Baetica, in their prosecution of Baebius Massa; in which he acquired so general an applause, that the emperor Nerva, then a private man, and in banishment at Tarentum, wrote him a letter, in which he congratulated, not only Pliny, but the age which had produced an example so much in the spirit of the ancients. Pliny relates this affair, in a letter to Tacitus; and he was so pleased with it himself, that he could not help informing his correspondent that he should not be sorry to find it recorded in his history. He obtained the offices of questor and tribune, and escaped the proscriptions of the tyrannical reign of Domitian. There is, however, reason to believe that he owed his safety to the death of the emperor, as his name was afterwards found in that savage’s tablets among the number of those who were destined to destruction.

He had married on settling at Rome, but losing his wife in the beginning of Nerva’s reign, he soon after took his beloved Calphurnia; of whom we read so much in his Epistles. He had not however any children by either of his wives: and hence we find him thanking Trajan for the jus trium liberorum, which he afterwards obtained of that emperor for his friend Suetonius Tranquillus. He was promoted to the consulate by Trajan in the year 100, when he was thirty-eight years of age: and in this office pronounced that famous panegyric, which has ever since been admired, as well for the copiousness of the topics, as the elegance of address. He was then elected augur, and afterwards made proconsul of Bithynia; whence he wrote to Trajan that curious letter concerning the primitive Christians, which, with Trajan’s rescript, is happily extant among his “Epistles.” “Pliny’s letter,” as Melmoth observes, in a note upon the passage, “is esteemed as almost the only genuine monument of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the times immediately succeeding the apostles, it being written at most not above forty years after the death of St. Paul. It was preserved by the Christians themselves, as a clear and unsuspicious evidence of the purity of their doctrines; and is frequently appealed to by the early writers of the church, against the calumnies of their adversaries.” It is not known what became of Pliny, after his return from Bithynia; nor have we any information as to the time of his death; but it is conjectured that he died either a little before, or soon after, his patron the emperor Trajan, that is, about A. D. 116.

Pliny was unquestionably a man of talents, and various accomplishments, and a man of virtue; but in dislike of the Christians he seems to have indulged equally his master Trajan, whose liberal sentiments respecting informers in his short letter cannot be sufficiently admired. Pliny wrote and published a great number of books: but nothing has escaped the wreck of time, except the books of Epistles, and the “Panegyric upon Trajan,” which has ever been considered as a master-piece. His Letters seem to have been intended for the public; and in them he may be considered as writing his own memoirs. Every epistle is a kind of historical sketch, in which we have a view of him in some striking attitude, either of active or contemplative life. In them are preserved anecdotes of many eminent persons, whose works are come down to us, as Suetonius, Silius Italicus, Martial, Tacitus, and Quintilian; and of curious facts, which throw great light upon the history of those times. They are written with great politeness and spirit; and, if they abound too much in turn and metaphor, we must impute it to that degeneracy of taste, which was then accompanying the degenerate manners of Rome. Pliny, however, seems to have preserved himself in this latter respect from the general contagion: whatever the manners of the Romans were, his were pure and incorrupt. His writings breathe a spirit of great goodness and humanity: his only imperfection is, he was too desirous that the public and posterity should know how humane and good he was; and while he represents himself, as he does, calling for Livy, reading him at his leisure, and even making extracts from him, when the eruption of Vesuvius was shaking the ground beneath him, antl striking terror through the hearts of mortals by appearances unheard of before, it is not possible to avoid being of the opinion of those, who think that he had, with all his virtues, something of affectation.

The “Epistles” have been translated into English by lord Orrery but this gave way to the more elegant translation of Melmoth some of whose opinions appear to have been borrowed by our predecessors in this and the preceding life. The first edition of the original “Epistolse” is that of Carbo, printed probably by Valdarfer at Venice, in 1471, folio. Of the modern editions, the Variorum, at Leyden, 1669, 8vo, is praised by Dr. Harwood as one of the scarcest and most valuable of the octavo variorum classics. There are also correct and critical editions by Thomasius, Leipsic, 1675, 8vo; by Hearne, Oxford, 1703, 8vo; by Longolius, Amst. 1734, 4to; by Gesner, Leipsic, 1770, 8vo; a beautiful edition published by Mr. Payne in 1790, edited by Mr. Homer and a very recent one by Gierigius, Leipsic, 1806, 2 vols. 4to. Most of these are accompanied by the “Panegyricus,” which was first printed separately, in 1476, quarto, without place or printer’s name. The best edition since is that of Schwarz, at Nuremberg, 1746, 4to.

, eminent for being the first who formed a plan for a natural history of England, the son of Robert Plot, esq. captain of the militia, in the hundred of Milton, in Kent, was born in 1640, at Sutton Baron, in the parish of Borden, in that county, and educated at the free -school of Wye, in the same county. In March 1658, he went to Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, where Josiah Pullen was his tutor took a bachelor of arts degree in 1661, a master’s in 1664, and both the degrees in law in 1671. He removed afterwards to University-college, where he was at the expence of placing the statue of king Alfred over the hall-door. His general knowledge and acuteness, and particularly his attachment to natural history, procured his being chosen, in 1677, a fellow of the royal society and in 1682, elected one of the secretaries of that learned body. He published their “Philosophical Transactions,” from No. 143, to No. 166, inclusive. In 1683, Elias Ashmole, esq. appointed him the first keeper of his museum and about the same time he was nominated by the vicechancellor the first reader in chemistry in that university. In 1687, he was made secretary to the earl-marshal, or court of chivalry, which was then renewed, after it had lain dormant from the year 1641. In 1690, he resigned his professorship of chemistry, and also his place of keeper of the museum; which he then augmented by a very large collection of natural curiosities, being such as he had figured and described in his Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire, and there distinguished by the names of “Scrinium Plotianum Oxoniense,” and “Scrinium Plotianum Staffordiense.” In 1688 he received the title of Historiographer to James II. which he could not long retain, as this was just before the abdication of that sovereign. In 1694-5, Henry Howard, earl-marshal, nominated him Mowbray herald extraordinary; and two days after, he was constituted registrar of the court of honour. He died of the stone, April 30, 1696, at his house in Borden, and was buried in the church there, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He left two sons by his wife Rebecca, widow of Henry Burman, to whom he was married in August 1690.

Natural history was his delight; and he gave very agreeable specimens of it, in his “Natural Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.” The former was published at Oxford, in 1677, folio, and reprinted 1705, with additions and corrections, by John Burman, M. A. fellow of University-college, his step-son, and afterwards vicar of Newington, in Kent; the latter was printed also at Oxford, 1686, in the same size . These were intended as essays towards “A Natural History of England” for, in order to discover antiquities and other curiosities, and to promote learning and trade, he formed a design of travelling through England and Wales. By such researches, he was persuaded that many additions might be made to Camden’s Britannia, and other works, concerning the history and antiquities of England. He drew up a plan of his scheme in a letter to bishop Fell, which may be seen at the end of the second volume of Leland’s Itinerary, of the edition of 1744. In these Histories, whatever is visible in the heavens, earth, and waters; whatever is dug out of the ground, whatever is natural or unnatural; and whatever is observable in art and science, were the objects of his speculation and inquiry; and various and dissimilar as his matter is, it is in general well connected; and his transitions are easy. His books indeed deserve to be called the “natural and artificial histories” of these counties. In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits, he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, upon mature consideration, he must have rejected. He did not, perhaps, know enough of experimental philosophy to exert a proper degree of scepticism in the information given to him. Besides these works, he was the author of several other productions. In 1685, he published “De Origine Fontium, Tentamen Philosophicum,” 8vo and the nine following papers of his are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “An Account of Elden Hole, in Derbyshire,” No. 2. 2. “The Formation of Salt and Sand from Brine,” No. 145. 3. “Discourse concerning the Effects of the great Frost on Trees and other Plants, in 1683,” No. 165. 4. “A Discourse of perpetual Lamps,” No. 166. 5. “The History of the Weather at Oxford, in 1684 or the Observations of a full Year, made by Order of the Philosophical Society at Oxford,” No. 169. 6. “A large and curious Account of the Amianthos or Asbestine Linen,” No. 1708. 7. “Discourse concerning the most seasonable Time of felling Timber, written at the request of Samuel Pepys,esq. secretary of the admiralty,” No. 192. 8. “Of an Irishman of an extraordinary size, viz. Edward Mallone, nineteen years old, seven feet six inches high,” No. 240. 9. “A Catalogue of Electrical Bodies,” No. 245. In 1680, he published “The Clog, or Staffordshire Almanack,” engraven on a copper-plate, and inserted afterwards in his “History of Staffordshire.”

, a celebrated Platonic philosopher, was born at Lycopolis, in Egypt, in the year 205, but concerning his family or education, nothing is known. About the age of twenty, he first studied philosophy at the different schools of Alexandria, but attached himself particularly to Ammonius, in whom he found a disposition to superstition and fanaticism like his own. On the death of this preceptor, haying in his school frequently heard the Oriental philosophy commended, and expecting to find in it that kind of doctrine concerning divine natures which he was most desirous of studying, he determined to travel into Persia and India, to learn wisdom of the Magi and Gymnosophists and as the emperor Gordian was at this time undertaking an expedition against the Parthians, Plotinus seized the occasion, and in the year 243 joined the emperor’s army; but the emperor being killed, Plotinus fled to Antioch, and thence came to Rome, where Philip was now emperor.

Although Plotinus’s plan was new, it was obscure, and he had but few disciples. He was not the less assiduous, however, in teaching, and studied very hard, preparing himself by watching and fasting. He was so respected for wisdom and integrity, that many private quarrels were referred to his arbitration, and parents on their death-beds were very desirous of consigning their children to his care. During his residence of twenty-six years at Rome, he became a favourite with Galienus, and would have persuaded that emperor to re-build a city in Campania, and people it with philosophers, to be governed by the laws of Plato but this was not effected. Although skilled in the medical art, he had such a contempt for the body, that he would never take any medicines when indisposed; nor for the same reason would he suffer his birth-day to be celebrated, or any portrait to be taken of his person. His pupil Amelius, however, procured one by stealth, painted while he was lecturing. Such abstinence, and neglect of health, brought him into a state of disease and infirmity, which rendered the latter part of his life exceedingly painful. When he found his end approaching, he said to Eustochius, “The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine being which animates the universe” herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded. Plotinus died in the year 270, aged sixty-six years. Porphyry represents him as having been possessed of miraculous powers, but there is more reason to conclude from his life and writings, that he belonged to the class of fanatics. His natural temper, his education, his system, all inclined him to fanaticism. Suffering himself to be led astray by a volatile imagination, from the plain path of good sense, he poured forth crude and confused conceptions, in obscure and incoherent language. Sometimes he soared in extatic flights into the regions of mysticism. Porphyry relates, that he ascended through all the Platonic steps of divine contemplation, to the actual vision of the deity himself, and was admitted to such intercourse with him, as no other philosopher ever enjoyed. They who are well acquainted with human nature, will easily perceive in these flights, unequivocal proofs of a feeble or disordered mind, and will not wonder that the system of Plotinus was mystical, and his writings obscure. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have become, in a great degree, the preceptor of the world, and should, by means of his disciples, have every where disseminated a species of false philosophy, which was compounded of superstition, enthusiasm, and imposture. The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring, were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine.

, a celebrated lawyer, the son of Humphrey Plowden, of Plowden, in Shropshire, of an ancient and genteel family, was born in that county, in 1517, and fjrst studied philosophy and medicine for three years at Cambridge but removed after a time to Oxford, where he continued his former studies for four years more, and in 1552, according to Wood, was admitted to the practice of physic and surgery. Tanner says, that when he left Cambridge, he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and resuming the study of physic, went then to Oxford. It appears, however, that he finally determined on the law as a profession, and entered the Middle Temple, where he soon became reader. His first reading was in autumn, 4 and 5 of Philip and Mary; and his second was in Lent, 3 Eliz. In queen Mary’s time he was called to the degree of serjeant; but, being zealously attached to the Romish persuasion, lost all further hopes of preferment, on the accession of Elizabeth. He continued to be much consulted in private as a counsellor. He died Feb. 6, 1584-5, and was buried in the Middle Ternple church. By a ms note on a copy of his Reports once in the possession of Dr. Ducarel, it appears that he was treasurer of the Middle Temple in 1572, the year in which the hall was built. It is added that “he was a man of great gravity, knowledge, and integrity; in his youth excessively studious, so that (we have it by tradition) in three years space he went not once out of the Temple.”

The work by which Mr. Plowden is best known by the profession, is his “Commentaries or Reports, containing divers cases upon matters of law, argued and determined in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Eliz.” These were originally written in French, and the editions of 1571, 1578, 1599, 1613, and 1684, were published in that language. It was not until 1761, that an English translation appeared, improved by many original notes and references to the ancient and modern Common Law books. To this edition were added his “Queries, or Moot-Book for young Students,” and “The Argument,” in the case of William Morgan et al. v. Sir Rice Manxell. Mr. Daines Harrington calls Plowden the most accurate of all reporters; and Mr. Hargrave says that his “Commentaries” deservedly bear as high a character as any book of reports ever published in our law.

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

, a celebrated English botanist, was born, as he himself has recorded, in 1642, but where he was educated, or in what university he received his degrees, has. not been ascertained. It has been conjectured, from a few circumstances, that it was at Cambridge. His name seems of French extraction, plus que net, and has been Latinized plus quam nitidus. He dates the prefaces to his works from Old Palace-yard, Westminster, where he seems to have had a small garden. It does not appear that he attained to any considerable eminence in his profession of phjsic, and it is suspected he was only an apothecary, but he was absorbed in the study of plants, and devoted all his leisure to the composition of his “Phytographia.” He spared no pains to procure specimens of rare and new plants, had correspondents in all parts of the world, and access to the gardens of Hampton-court, then Very flourishing, and all others that were curious. PIukenet was one of those to whom Ray was indebted for assistance in the arrangement of the second volume of his history, and that eminent man every where bears the strongest testimony to his merit. Yet he was in want of patronage, and felt that want severely. With Sloane and Petiver, two of the first botanists of his own age, he seems to have been at variance, and censures their writings with too much asperity. “Plukenet,” says sir J. E. Smith, whose opinion in such matters we are always happy to follow, “was, apparently, a man of more solid learning than either of those distinguished writers, and having been less prosperous than either, he was perhaps less disposed to palliate their errors. As far as we have examined, his criticisms, however severe, are not unjust.” No obstacles damped the ardour of Plukenet in his favourite pursuit. He was himself at the charge of his engravings, and printed the whole work at his own expence, with the exception of a small subscription of about fifty-five guineas, which he obtained near the conclusion of it. Towards the close of his life he is said to have been assisted by the queen, and to have obtained the superintendance of the garden at Hampton-court. He was also honoured with the title of royal professor of botany. The time of his decease is not precisely ascertained, but it is probable that he did not long survive his last publication, which appeared in 1705. His works were, 1. “Phytographia, sive stirpium illustrium et minus cognitorum Icones,” 1691—1696, published in four parts, and containing 328 plates, in 4to. 2. “Almagestum Botanicum, sive Phytographiae Piukenetianae Onornasticon,” &c. 1696, 4to the catalogue is alphabetical, and contains near 6000 species, of which, he tells us, 500 were new. No man, after Caspar Bauhine, had till then examined the ancient authors with so much attention as he did, that he might settle his synonyms with accuracy. He follows no system. 3. “Almagesti Botanici Mantissa,” 1700, 4to, with twenty-five new plates. Besides many new plants, this volume contains very numerous additions to the synonyms of the Almagestum. 4. Five years after the Mantissa he published the “Amaltheum Botanicum,” with three plates, 4to. It abounds with new subjects, sent from China and the East Indies, with some from Florida. These works of Plukenet contain upwards of 2740 figures, most of them engraved from dried specimens, and many from small sprigs, destitute of flowers, or any parts of fructification, and consequently not to be ascertained: but several of these, as better specimens came to hand, are figured again in the subsequent plates. As he employed a variety of artists, they are unequally executed; those by Vander Gucht have usually the preference. It is much to be regretted that he had it not in his power to give his figures on a larger scale yet, with all their imperfections, these publications form a large treasure of botanical knowledge. The herbarium of Plukenet consisted of 8000 plants, an astonishing number to be collected by a private and not opulent individual: it came, after his death, into the hands of sir Hans Sloane, and is now in the British museum. His works were republished, with new titlepages, in 1720, and entirely reprinted, with some additions, in 1769; and in 1779 an Index Linnaeanus to his plates were published by Dr. Giseke, of Hamburgh, which contains a few notes, from a ms. left by Plukenet. The original ms. of Plukenet’s works is now in the library of sir J. E. Smith, president of the Linnaean society. Plumier, to be mentioned in the next article, complimented this learned botanist by giving his name to a plant, a native of both Indies.

, called Father Plumier, being a religious, of the order of Minims, was born at Marseilles, April 20, 1646, and was a botanist not less famous than his contemporary Plukenet. He entered into his order at sixteen, and studied mathematics and other sciences at Toulouse, under father Maignan, of the same society. He did not only learn the profound sciences, but became an expert mechanic. In the art of turning he became such a proficient as to write a book upon it and learned also to make lenses, mirrors, microscopes, and other mathematical instruments, all which knowledge he gained from Maignan. He was soon after sent by his superiors to Rome, where, by his application to mathematics, optics, and other studies, he nearly destroyed his constitution. As a relaxation from these severer sciences, he applied to botany, under the instruction of father Serjeant, at Romey of Francis de Onuphriis, an Italian physician, and of Sylvius Boccone, a Sicilian. Being recalled by his order into Provence, he obtained leave to search the neighbouring coasts, and the Alps, for plants; and soon became acquainted with Tournefort, then on his botanical tour, and with Garidel, professor of botany at Aix. When he had thus qualified himself, he was chosen as the associate of Surian, to explore the French settlements in the West Indies, as Sloane had lately examined Jamaica. He acquitted himself so well that he was twice afterwards sent at the expence of the king, whose botanist he was appointed, with an increased salary each time. Plumier passed two years in those islands, and on the neighbouring continent, but principally in Domingo; and made designs of many hundred plants, of the natural size, besides numerous figures of birds, fishes, and insects. On his return from his second voyage he had his first work published at the Louvre, at the king’s expence, entitled, 1. “Descriptions des Plantes de PAmerique,” fol. 1695, pp. 94, 108 plates. These figures consist of little more than outlines, but being as large as nature, and well drawn by himself, produce a fine effect. On his return fro/n his third voyage he settled at Paris, and in 1703 published, 2. his “Nova Plantarum Americanarum Genera,” 4to. In the year ensuing he was prevailed upon by M. Fagon to undertake a voyage to Peru, to discover and delineate the Peruvian bark. His great zeal for the science, even at that age, induced him to consent; but while he was waiting for the ship near Cadiz, he was seized with a pleurisy, and died in 1704. Sir J. E. Smith says, that as Rousseau’s Swiss herbalist died of a pleurisy, whilst employed in gathering a sovereign Alpine remedy for that disorder so it is not improbable that Plumier was extolling the Polytrichum (see his preface, p. 2.) as “un antipleuritique des plus assurez,” when he himself fell a victim to the very same distemper; leaving his half-printed book to be his monument. This was, 3. “Traité des Fougeres de l'Amerique,” on the Ferns of America, 1705, folio, 172 plates. He published, as above-mentioned, 4. “L'Art de Tourner,” the Art of Turning, Lyons, 1701, and republished in L740. 5. There are also two dissertations by him, in the Journal des Savant, 1694, and that of Trevoux, to prove, what is now well known, that the cochineal is an insect.

, a great philosopher and historian of antiquity, who lived from the reign of Claudius to that of Adrian, was born at Chaeronea, a small city of Bceotia, in Greece, which had also been the birth-place of Pindar, but was far from partaking of the proverbial dulness of his country. Plutarch’s family was ancient in Chaeronea: his grandfather Lamprias was a man eminent for his learning, and a philosopher; and is often mentioned by Plutarch in his writings, as is also his father. Plutarch was initiated early in study, to which he was naturally inclined; and was placed under Ammonius an Egyptian, who, having taught philosophy with reputation at Alexandria, thence travelled into Greece, and settled at Athens. Under this master he made great advances in knowledge, but being more intent on things than words, he neglected the languages. The Roman language at that time was not only the language of 'Rome, but of Greece also; and much more used there than the French is now in England. Yet he was so far from regarding it then, that, as we learn from himself, he did not become conversant in it till the decline of life; and, though he is supposed to have resided in Rome near forty years, at different times, he never seems to have acquired a competent skill in it.

After he had received his first instructions from Ammonius, he considered with himself, that a larger communication with the wise and learned was yet necessary, and therefore resolved to travel. Egypt was, at that time, as formerly it had been, famous for learning and probably the mysteriousness of their doctrine might tempt him, as it had tempted Pythagoras and others, to converse with the priesthood of that country. This appears to have been particularly his business, by his treatise “Of Isis and Osiris,” in which he shews himself versed in the ancient theology and philosophy of the wise men. From Egypt he returned into Greece; and, visiting in his way all the academies and schools of the philosophers, gathered from them many of those observations with which he has abundantly enriched posterity. He does not seem to have been attached to any particular sect, but chose from each of them whatever he thought excellent and worthy to be regarded. He could not bear the paradoxes of the Stoics, but yet was more averse to the impiety of the Epicureans in many things he followed Aristotle but his favourites were Socrates and Plato, whose memory he reverenced so highly, that he annually celebrated their birth-days with much solemnity. Besides this, he applied himself witri extreme diligence to collect, not only all books that were excellent in their kind, but also all the sayings and observations of wise men, which he had heard in conversation, or had received from others by tradition and likewise to consult the records and public instruments preserved in cities which he had visited in his travels. He took a particular journey to Sparta, to search the archives of that famous commonwealth, to understand thoroughly the model of their ancient government, the history of their legislators, their kings, and their ephori; and digested all their memorable deeds and sayings with so much care, that he has not omitted even those of their women. He took the same methods with regard to many other commonwealths; and thus was enabled to leave in his works such observations upon men and manners, as have rendered him, in the opinion of many, the most valuable author of antiquity.

The circumstances of Plutarch’s life are not known, and therefore cannot be related with any exactness. He was married, and his wife’s name was Timoxena, as Rualdus conjectures with probability. He had several children, and among them two sons, one called Plutarch after himself, the other Lamprias, in memory of his grandfather. Lamprias was he, of all his children, who seems to have inherited his father’s philosophy; and to him we owe the table, or catalogue of Plutarch’s writings, and perhaps also his “Apophthegms.” He had a nephew, Sextus Chseroneus, who taught the emperor Marcus Aurelius the Greek language, and was much honoured by him. Some think that the critic Longinus was of his family; and Apuleius, in the first book of his Metamorphoses, affirms himself to be descended from him.

On what occasion, and at what time of his life, he went to Rome, how long he lived there, and when he finally returned to his own country, are all uncertain. It is probable, that the fame of him went thither before him, not only because he had published several of his works, but because immediately upon his arrival, as there is reason to believe, he had a great resort of the Roman nobility to hear him: for he tells us himself, that he was so taken up in giving lectures of philosophy to the great men of Rome, that he had not time to make himself master of the Latin tongue, which is one of the first things that would naturally have engaged his attention. It appears, that he was several times at Rome; and perhaps one motive to his inhabiting there was, the intimacy he had contracted in some of these journeys with Sossius Senecio, a great and worthy man, who had been four times consul, and to whom Plutarch has dedicated many of his lives. But the great inducement which carried him first to Rome was, undoubtedly, that which had carried him into so many other parts of the world; 'namely, to make observations upon men and manners, and to collect materials for writing “The Lives of the Roman Worthies,” in the same manner as he had already written those of Greece: and, accordingly, he not only conversed with all the living, but searched the records of the Capitol, and of all the libraries. Not but, as we learn from Suidas, he was entrusted also with the management of public affairs in the empire, during his residence in the metropolis: “Plutarch,” says he, “lived in the time of Trajan, who bestowed on him the consular ornaments, and also caused an edict to be passed, that the magistrates or officers of Illyria should do nothing in that province without his knowledge and approbation.”

When, and how, he was made known to Trajan, is likewise uncertain: but it is generally supposed, that Trajan, a private man when Plutarch first came to Rome, was, among other nobility, one of his auditors. It is also supposed, that this wise emperor made use of him in his councils; and much of the happiness of his reign has been imputed to Plutarch. The desire of visiting his native country, so natural to all men, and especially when growing old, prevailed with him at length to leave Italy; and, at his return, he was unanimously chosen archon, or chief magistrate, of Chaeronea, and not long after admitted into the number of the Delphic Apollo’s priests. We have no particular account of his death, either as to the manner or the year; but conjecture has fixed it about the year 120. It is evident that he lived, and continued his studies, to an extreme old age.:,i

His works have been divided, and they admit of a tolerably equal division, into “Lives” and “Morals:” the former of which, in his own estimation, were to be preferred, as more noble than the latter. As a biographer he has great merit, and to him we stand indebted for much of the knowledge we possess, concerning several of the most eminent personages of antiquity. His style perhaps may be justly censured for harshness and obscurity, and he has also been criticized for some mistakes in Roman antiquities, and for a. little partiality to the Greeks. On the other hand, he has been justly praised, for sense, learning, integrity, and a certain air of goodness, which appears in all he wrote. Some have affirmed his works to be a kind of library, and collection of all that was wisely said and done among the ancient Greeks and Romans: and if so, the saying of Theodorus Gaza was not extravagant. This learned man, and great preceptor of the Greek tongue at the revival of literature, being asked by a friend “If learning must suffer a general shipwreck, and he have only his choice of one author to be preserved, who that author should be?” answered, “Plutarch.” But although it is unquestionable that in extent and variety of learning Plutarch had few equals, he does not appear to have excelled as much in depth and solidity of judgment. Where he expresses his own conceptions and opinions, he often supports them by feeble and slender arguments: where he reports, and attempts to elucidate, the opinions of others, he frequently falls into mistakes, or is chargeable with misrepresentations. In proof of this assertion, Brucker mentions what he has advanced concerning Plato’s notion of the soul of the world, and concerning the Epicurean philosophy. Brucker adds, that Plutarch is often inaccurate in method, and sometimes betrays a degree of credulity unworthy of a philosopher.

There have been many editions of Plutarch, but he came later to the press than most other classical authors. There was no edition of any part of the original Greek, before Aldus printed the “Morals,” which was not until 1509. The “Lives” appeared first at Florence, by Junta, in 1517. The first edition of the “Opera Omnia,” was Stephen’s, at Paris, in 1572, Greek and Latin, 13 vols. Dr. Harwood calls it one of the most correct books H. Stephens ever published; but other critics are by no means of this opinion. The next was that of Cruserius, at Francfort, 1599, 2 vols. folio, which has the advantage of Xylander’s excellent Latin version, who himself published two editions, Francfort, 1620, and Paris, 1624, 2 vols. folio; both valuable. Reiske’s, of Leipsic, 1774, &c. 12 vols. 8vo, is a most elaborate edition, which, however, he did not live to finish. But the best of all is that of Wytteubach, published lately at Oxford in quarto and octavo, and too well known to scholars to require any description.

Plutarch’s Works have been translated into most European languages. There is an indifferent one in English by various hands of the “Morals,” printed about the beginning of the last century, in five volumes, octavo; which was accompanied, about the same time, by the “Lives,” translated by Dryden and others: a very superior translation of the latter was published by Dr. Langhorne and his brother, which has been since corrected, and very much improved, by Mr. Wrangham. A good translation of the “Morals” is still a desideratum.

, a gentleman of Dauphiny, is recorded as the first who opened a school for riding the manege in France, which, till then, could be learned only in Italy. He flourished in the reign of Henry IV. who made him his chief master of the horse, and his chamberlain; besides which, he sent him as an ambassador into Holland. He died at Paris in 1620, having prepared a work, which was published five years after, entitled “L'Art de monter a Cheval,” folio, with plates. The figures are portraits, by Crispin de Pas.

, a learned English divine, and the first Oriental scholar of his time, was the son of Edward Pocock, B. D. some time fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, and vicar of Chively in Berkshire. He was born at Oxford Nov. 8, 1604, iii the parish of St. Peter in the East. He was sent early to the free-school of Thame, where he made such progress in classical learning, under Mr. Richard Butcher, an excellent teacher, that at the age of fourteen he was thought fit for the university, and accordingly was entered of Magdalen-hall. After two years residence here, he was a candidate for, and after a very strict examination, was elected to, a scholarship of Corpus Christi college, to which he removed in December 1620. Here, besides the usual academical courses, he diligently perused the best Greek and Roman authors, and, 'among some papers written by him at this time, were many observations and extracts from Quintilian, Cicero, Plutarch, Plato, &c. which discover no common knowledge of what he read. In November 1622, he was admitted bachelor of arts, and about this time was led, by what means we are not told, to apply to the study of the Eastern languages, which at that time were taught privately at Oxford by Matthew Pasor. (See Pasor). In March 1626, he was created M. A. and having learned as much as Pasor then professed to teach, he found another able tutor for Eastern literature in the Rev. William Bedwell, vicar of Tottenham, near London, whom his biographer praises as one of the first who promoted the study of the Arabic language in Europe. Under this master Mr. Pocock advanced considerably in what was now become his favourite study and had 1 otherwise so much distinguished himself that the college admitted him probationer-fellow in July 1628.

As the statutes required that he should take orders within a certain time, he applied to the study of divinity and while employed in perusing the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical writers, he found leisure to exhibit a specimen of his progress in the oriental languages by preparing for the press those parts of the Syriac version of the New Testament which had never yet been published. Ignatius, the patriarch of Antioch, had in the sixteenth century sent Moses Meridinseus, a priest of Mesopotamia, into the West, to get the Syriac version of the New Testament printed, for the use of his churches. It was accordingly printed by the care and diligence of Albertus Widmanstad, at Vienna in 1555. But the Syriac New Testament, which was followed in this edition, wanted the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the whole book of the Revelations, because, as Lewis de Dieu conjectures, those parts of holy Scripture, though extant among them, were not yet received into the Canon by those Oriental Churches. This defect no one had thought of supplying until De Dieu, on the encouragement, and with the assistance of Daniel Heinsius, set about the Revelation, being furnished with a copy of it, which had been given, with many other manuscripts, to the university of Leyden by Joseph Scaliger. That version of the Apocalypse was printed at Leyden, in 1627, but still the four Epistles were wanting, and those Mr. Pocock undertook, being desirous that the whole New Testament might at length be published in that language, which was the vulgar tongue of our Saviour nimself and his apostles. A very fair manuscript for this purpose he had met with in the Bodleian Library, containing those Epistles, together with some other parts of the New Testament. Out of this manuscript, following the example of De Dieu, he transcribed those epistles in the Syriac character: the same he likewise set down in Hebrew letters, adding the points, not according to the ordinary, but the Syriac rules, as they had been delivered by those learned Maronites, Amira and Sionita. He also made a new translation of these epistles out of Syriac into Latin, comparing it with that of Etzelius, and shewing on various occasions the reason of his dissent from him. He also added the original Greek, concluding the whole with a number of learned and useful notes. When finished, although with the utmost care and exactness, yet so great was his modesty and distrust of himself, that he could not be persuaded to think it fit for publication, till after it had lain by him about a year, when he was induced to consent to its publication by Gerard John Vossius, who was then at Oxford, and to whom it had been shown by Rouse, the public librarian, as the production of a young man scarcely twenty-four years old. Vossius not only persuaded him to allow it to be printed, but promised to take it with him to Leyden for that purpose. It was accordingly published there in 1630, 4to, after some few corrections and alterations in the Latin version, in which Mr. Pocock readily acquiesced, from the pen of Lewis de Dieu, to whom Vossius committed the care of the work.

In Dec. 1629 Mr. Pocock was ordained priest by Corbet, bishop of Oxford, by whom he had some time before been admitted into deacon’s orders, and was now appointed chaplain to the English merchants at Aleppo, where he arrived in Oct. 1630, and continued five or six years. Here he distinguished himself by an exemplary discharge of the duties of his function, and when the plague broke out in 1634, was not to be diverted from what he thought his duty, when the merchants fled to the mountains; but continued to administer such comfort as was possible to the inhabitants of the city; and the mercy on which he relied for his own preservation, was remarkably extended to his countrymen, not one dying either of those who left, or those who remained in the city. While here he paid considerable attention to the natural history of the place, as far as concerned the illustration of the Scriptures, and besides making some farther progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopic languages, took the opportunity which his situation afforded of acquiring a familiar knowledge of the Arabic. For this purpose he agreed with an Arabian doctor to give him lessons, and engaged also a servant of the same country to live with him for the sake of conversing io the language. He also studied such grammars and lexicons as he could find read the Alcoran with great care, and translated much from books in the Arabic, particularly a collection which he procured of 6000 proverbs, containing the wisdom of the Arabians, and referring to the most remarkable passages of their history. These opportunities and advantages iri time reconciled him to a situation which at first greatly depressed his spirits the transition indeed from Oxford and its scholars to Aleppo and its barbarians, could not but affect a man of his disposition.

Another object he had very much at heart while here, was the purchase of Arabic Mss. in which he had considerable success. This appears at first to have been done at his private expence and for his private use but in a letter from Laud, then bishop of London, dated Oct. 30, 1631, he received a commission from that munificent prelate, which must have been highly gratifying to him, especially as he had no previous acquaintance with his lordship. The bishop’s commission extended generally to the purchase of ancient Greek coins, and such Mss. either in the Greek or Eastern languages, as he thought would form a valuable addition to the university library. Whether any the Mss. afterwards given by Laud to the Bodleian were procured at this time seems doubtful. In a letter from Laud, then archbishop, dated May 1634, we find him thanking Pocock for some Gr-eek coins, but no mention of manuscripts. In this letter, however, is the first intimation of the archbishop’s design with respect to the foundation of an Arabic professorship at Oxford, and a hope that Pocock, before his return, would so far make himself master of that language as to be able to teach it. And having carried his design into execution about two years afterwards, he invited Mr. Pocock to fill the new chair, with these encouraging words, that “he could do him no greater honour, than to name him to the university for his first professor.” His departure from Aleppo seems to have been much regretted by his Mahometan friends, to whom he had endeared himself by his amiable manners; and it appears also that he had established such a correspondence as might still enable him to procure valuable manuscripts.

On his return he was admitted, July 8, 1636, to the degree of bachelor of divinity. On the 8th of August foU lowing Dr. Baillie, president of St. John’s, and vice-chancellor, informed the convocation that archbishop Laud, then chancellor of the university, in addition to his benefaction of Arabic books to the Bodleian, had founded a professorship, and had settled 40l. a-year, during his life, on a person who should read a lecture on that language fle then mentioned Mr. Pocock of Corpus Christi as the person nominated by the archbishop for the approbation of the convocation, a man, as they very well knew, “eminent for his probity, his learning, and skill in languages.” Being accordingly unanimously elected, he entered on his office two days after, Aug. 10, with an inaugural speech, part of which was afterwards printed, “ad finem notarum in Carmen Tograi,” edit. Oxon. 1661. After this introduction, the book, which he first undertook to read on, was the “Proverbs of Ali,” the fourth emperor of the Saracens, and cousin-german and son-in-law of Mahomet; a man of such account with that impostor, not only for his valour, but knowledge too, that he used to declare, that if all the learning of the Arabians were destroyed, it might be found again in Ali, as a living library. Upon this book, observing the directions of the archbishop in the statutes he had provided, he spent an hour every Wednesday in vacation-time, and in Lent, explaining the sense of the author, and the things relating to the grammar and propriety of the language, and also shewing its agreement with the Hebrew and Syriac, as often as there was occasion. The lecture being ended, he usually remained for some time in the public school, to resolve the questions of his hearers, and satisfy them in their doubts; and always that afternoon gave admittance in his chamber from one o'clock till four, to all who would come to him for farther conference and direction.

He does not appear, however, to have given more than one course of those lectures before he took a second journey to the East, along with Mr. John Greaves, and this by the archbishop’s encouragement, who was still bent on procuring manuscripts, and would not lose the advantage of such agents. The archbishop also allowed him the profits of his professorship to defray his expences, besides which Mr. Pocock enjoyed his fellowship of Corpus, and had a small estate by the death of his father. The whole annual produce of these he is supposed to have expended in this expedition. During his absence Mr. Thomas Greaves, with the archbishop’s consent, supplied the Arabic lecture. On, Mr. Pocock’s arrival at Constantinople, the English ambassador, sir Peter Wyche, entertained him in his house as his chaplain, and assisted him, by his interest, in the great object of his journey. In pursuit of this he made several valuable acquaintances among some learned Jews, particularly Jacob Romano, author of an addition to Buxtorf’s “Bibliotheca Rabbinica,” a man of great learning and candour but his ablest assistant was the learned and unfortunate Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople (see Lucar), to whom we owe that valuable ms. the “Codex Alexandrinus” and Nath. Canopius, who to avoid the fate of his master Lucar, came to England, and lived for some time under the patronage of archbishop Laud, who gave him preferment in Christ church, from which he was ejected in 1648. He derived some assistance also from his fellow-labourer in the collection of books and Mss. Christian Ravius, but especially from John Greaves, whose zeal in this research we have already noticed.

At length about the beginning of 1640, Mr. Pocock' s friends began to solicit his return; the archbishop in a letter dated March 4 of that year says, “I am now going to settle my Arabic lecture for ever upon the university, and I would have your name to 'the deed, which is the best honour I can do for the service.” Accordingly he embarked in August, but did not return home entirely by sea, but through part of France and Italy. At Paris he was introduced to many of the learned men of the time, particularly to Gabriel Sionita, the celebrated Maronite, and to Grotius, to whom he communicated a design he had of translating his treatise “De Veritate” into Arabic, for the benefit of the Mahometans, many of whom he believed were prepared for more light and knowledge than had yet been afforded them. Pocock at the same time candidly told Grotius, who very much approved the design, that there were some things towards the end of his book, which he could not approve, viz. certain opinions, which, though they are commonly in Europe charged on the followers of Mahomet, have yet no foundation in any of their authentic writings, and are such as they are ready on all occasions to disclaim. With this freedom Grotius was so far from being displeased, that he heartily thanked Mr. Pocock for it, and gave him authority, in the version he intended, to expunge and alter whatsoever he should think fit.

His journey home was attended with many melancholy circumstances. While at Paris, and on the road, he heard of the commotions in England, and on his arrival, he found his liberal patron, Laud, a prisoner in the Tower. Here he immediately visited the archbishop, and their interview was affecting on both sides. The archbishop thanked him for the care he had taken in executing his commissions, and for his interesting correspondence while abroad, adding that it was no small aggravation of his present misfortunes that he no longer had it in his power tp reward such important services to the cause of literature. Mr. Pocock then went to Oxford, to dissipate his grief, and in hopes of enjoying some tranquillity in a place which had not yet become the scene of confusion and there he found that the archbishop had settled the Arabic professorship in perpetuity by a grant of lands. He now resumed his lecture, and his private studies. In 1641 he became acquainted with the celebrated John Selden, who was at this time preparing for the press, with no very liberal design, some part of Eutychius’s annals, in Latin and Arabic, which he published the year following, under the title of “Origines Alexandrine,” and Mr. Pocock assisted him in collating and extracting from the Arabic books in Oxford. Selden’s friendship was afterwards of great importance to him, as he had considerable influence with the republican party. In 1642 Oxford became the seat of war, and was that of learning only in a secondary degree. Mr. Pocock was however removed from a constant residence for some time, by the society of Corpus Christi, who bestowed on him the vacant living of Childrey in Berkshire, about twelve miles from Oxford, which of course he could easily visit during term time, when he was to read his lecture. As a parish priest, his biographer informs us, that “he set himself with his utinost diligence to a conscientious performance of all the duties of his cure, preaching twice every Sunday; and his Sermons were so contrived by him, as to be most useful to the persons who were to hear him. For though such as he preached in the university were very elaborate, and full of critical and other learning, the discourses he delivered in his parish were plain and easy, having nothing in them which he conceived to be above the capacities even of the meanest of his auditors. And as he carefully avoided all ostentation of learning , so he would not indulge himself in the practice of those arts, which at that time were very common, and much admired by ordinary people such as distortions of the countenance, and strange gestures, a violent and unnatural way of speaking, and affected words and phrases, which being out of the ordinary way were therefore supposed to express somewhat very mysterious, and in an high degree spiritual. His conversation too was one continued sermon, powerfully recommending to all, who were acquainted with him, the several duties of Christianity.”

But all this found no protection against the violence of the times. Immediately after the execution of archbishop Laud, the profits of his professorship were seized by the sequestrators, as part of that prelate’s estate, although Mr. Pocock, in a letter to these sequestrators, endeavoured to shew the utility of this foundation to the interests of learning, and his own right to the settlement of the founder, which was made with all the forms of law. This for some time had no effect, but at last men were found even in those days who were ashamed of such a proceeding, and had the courage to expose its cruelty and absurdity and in 1647 the salary of the lecture was restored by the interposition of Selden, who had considerable interest with the usurpers. Dr. Gerard Langbaine also, the provost of Queen’s college, drew up a long instrument in Latin, stating the legal course taken by the archbishop in the foundation of the Arabic lecture, and the grant the university had made to Mr. Pocock of its profits. This he and some others proposed in congregation, and the seal of the university was affixed to it with unanimous consent. About the same time, Mr. Pocock obtained a protection from the hand and seal of general Fairfax, against the outrage of the soldiery, who would else have plundered his house without mercy.

In 1648, on the recommendation of Dr. Sheldon and Dr. Hammond, he was nominated Hebrew professor, with the canonry of Christ church annexed, by the king, then a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, and was soon after voted into the same lecture by the Committee of Parliament, but a different canonry being assigned him than that which had been annexed to the professorship, he entered a protest against it, that it might not become a precedent, and prejudice his successors. In the interim he found leisure and composure to publish at Oxford, in the latter end of 1649, his very learned work entitled “Specimen Historic Arabum.” This contains a short discourse in Arabic, with his Latin translation, and large and very useful notes. The discourse itself is taken out of the general History of Gregory Abulfaragius, being his introduction to his ninth dynasty (for into ten dynasties that author divided his work), where being about to treat of the empire of the Saracens or Arabians, he gives a compendious account of that people before Mahomet as also of that impostor himself, and the new religion introduced by him, and of the several sects into which it was divided. And Mr. Pocock’s Notes on this Discourse are a collection of a great variety of things relating to those matters out of more than an hundred Arabic manuscripts, a catalogue of which he adds in the end of his book.

In November 1650, about a year after publishing the preceding work, he was ejected from his canonry of Christ church for refusing to take the engagement, and soon after a vote passed for depriving him of the Hebrew and Arabic lectures but upon a petition from the heads of houses at Oxford, the masters, scholars, &c. two only of the whole number of subscribers being loyalists, this vote was reversed, and he was suffered to enjoy both places, and took lodgings, when at Oxford, in Baliol college. In 1655 a more ridiculous instance of persecution was intended, and would have been inflicted, if there had not yet been some sense and spirit left even among those who had contributed to bring on such calamities. It appears that some of his parishioners had presented an information against him to the commissioners appointed by parliament “for ejecting ignorant, scandalous, insufficient, and negligent ministers.” But the connection of the name of Pocock with such epithets was too gross to be endured, and, we are told, filled several men of great fame and eminence at that time at Oxford with indignation, in consequence of which they resolve'd to go to the place where the commissioners were to meet, and expostulate with them about it. In the number of those who went, were Dr. Seth Ward, Dr. John Wilkins, Dr. John Wailis, and Dr. John Owen, who all laboured with much earnestness to convince those men of the strange absurdity of what they were undertaking particularly Dr. Owen, who endeavoured with some warmth to make them sensible of the infinite contempt and reproach, which would certainly fall upon them, when it should be said, that they had turned out a man for imiifficiency, whom all the leamed, not of England only, but of all Europe, so justly admired for his vast knowledge and extraordinary accomplishments. And being himself one of the commissioners appointed by the act, he added, that he was now come to deliver himself, as well as he could, from a share in such disgrace, by protesting against a proceeding so strangely foolish and unjust. The commissioners being very much mortified at the remonstrances of so many eminent men, especially of Dr. Owen, in whom they had a particular confidence, thought it best to extricate themselves from their dilemma, by discharging Mr. Pocock from any farther attendance. And indeed he had been sufficiently tired with it; this persecution, which lasted for many months, being the most grievous to him of all he had undergone. It made him, as he declared to the world some time after, in the preface to the “Annales Eutychianae,” utterly incapable of study, it being impossible for him, when he attempted it, duly to remember what he had to do, or to apply himself to it with any attention.

In the same year (1655) Mr. Pocock published his “Porta Mosis,” being six prefatory discourses of Moses Maimonides, which in the original were Arabic, expressed in Hebrew characters, together with his own Latin translation of them, and a very large appendix of miscellaneous notes. This was the first production of the Hebrew press at Oxford from types procured, at the charge of the university, and by the influence of Dr. Langbaine. In the year following, Mr. Pocock appears to have entertained some thoughts of publishing the Rabbi Tanchum’s expositions on the Old Testament. He was at this time the only person in Europe who possessed any of the Mss. of this learned rabbi; but probably from want of due encour.agement, he did not prosecute this design. The Mss. are now in the Bodleian. In 1657 the celebrated English Polyglot appeared, in which Mr. Pocock, as was natural to expect, had a considerable hand. Indeed the moment he heard of the design he entered into a correspondence with Dr. Walton, and, although his own engagements were very urgent, agreed to collate the Arabic pentateuch, and also drew up a preface concerning the Arabic versions of that pajt of the Bible, and the reason of the various readings in them. This preface, with the various readings, are published in the appendix to the Polyglot. He was perhaps yet more serviceable by contributing the use of some very valuable Mss. from his own collection, viz. the gospels in Persian, his Syriac ms. of the. whole Old Testament, and two other Syriac Mss. of the Psalms, and an Ethiopic ms. of the same.

In 1658, Mr. Pocock’s translation of the annals of Eutychius, from Arabic into Latin, was published at Oxford, in 2 vols. 4to. This was undertaken by Mr. Pocock at the request of Selden, who bore the whole expences of the printing, although he died before it appeared. He had long before this, in 1642, published an extract which he thought inimical to episcopacy, but which was afterwards proved to be a mere fable; and now Mr. Pocock, in his translation of the whole, farther proves how little reliance was to be placed on many of Eutychius’s assertions. Selden, in a codicil to his will, bequeathed the property of the “Annales Eutychii” to Dr. Langbaine and Mr. Pocock.

The restoration having been at last accomplished, Mr. Pocock was, in June 1660, replaced in, his canonry of Christ church, as originally annexed to the Hebrew professorship by Charles I. and on Sept. 20 took his degree of D. D. In the same year he was enabled by the liberality of Mr. Boyle, to print his Arabic translation of Grotius on the Truth of the Christian religion, which, we have already mentioned, he undertook with the full approbation of the author. His next publication, in 1661, was an Arabic poem entitled “Lamiato'l Ajam, or Carmen Abu Ismaelis Tograi,” with his Latin translation of it, and large notes upon it, with a preface by the learned Samuel Clarke, architypographus to the university, who had the care of the press, and contributed a treatise of his own on the Arabic prosody. This poem is held to be of the greatest elegance, answerable to the fame of its author, who, as Dr. Pocock gives his character, was eminent for learning and virtue, and esteemed the Phoenix of the age in which he lived, for poetry and eloquence. The doctor’s design in this work was, not only to give a specimen of Arabian poetry, but also to make the attainment of the Arabic tongue more easy to those who study it; and his notes, containing a grammatical explanation of all the words of this author, were unquestionably serviceable for promoting the knowledge of that language. These notes bei-ng the sum of many lectures, which, he read on -this poem, the speech, which he delivered, when entering on his office, is prefixed to it, and contains a succinct, but very accurate account of the Arabic tongue.

In 1663, Dr. Pocock published at Oxford, as we noticed in our account of that author, the whole of Gregory Abulfaragius’s “Historia Dynastiarum;” but this work was not much encouraged by the public, which his biographer accounts for in a manner not very creditable to the reign of Charles II. compared to the state of solid learning during tbat of the protectorate. The love of Arabic learning, he informs us, was now growing cold, and Pocock, in his correspondence with Mr. Thomas Greaves, seems very sensible of, and much hurt by this declension of literary taste. This also, his biographer thinks may in some measure account for our author’s rising no higher in church-preferment at the restoration, when such numbers of vacant dignities were filled. Perhaps, adds Mr. Twells, “he is almost the only instance of a clergyman, then at the highest pitch of eminence for learning, and every other merit proper to his profession, who lived throughout the reign of Charles II. without the least regard from the court, except the favour sometimes done him of being called upon to translate Arabic letters from the princes of the Levant, or the credential letters of ambassadors coming from those parts; for which yet we do not find he had any recompenc besides good words and compliments. But he was modest, as he was deserving, and probably, after his presenting Abulfaragius to the king, he never put himself in the way of royal regards any more.”

This discouragement, however, did not abate his zeal in the cause of biblical learning, to which he appears to have devoted the remainder of his life, publishing in 1677 his Commentary on the prophecy of Micah and Malachi, in 1685 on that of Hosea, and in 1691 that of Joel. In 1674 he had published, at the expense of the university, his Arabic translation of church catechism and the English liturgy, i. e. the morning and evening prayers, the order of administering baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the 39 articles. It was supposed that he meant to have commented upon some other of the lesser prophets, but this was prevented by his death on Sept. 10, 1691, after a gradual decay of some months, which, however, had not affected the vigour of his mind. His useful life had been prolonged to his eighty-seventh year, during the greater part of which he was, confessedly, the first Oriental scholar in Europe, and not less admired for the excellence of his private character, of which Mr. Twells has given an elaborate account, and which is confirmed by the report of all his contemporaries, but particularly by a long letter from the celebrated Locke, dated July 1703, to Mr. Smith of Dartmouth, who was then collecting materials for a life of Dr. Pocock.

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

He was interred in one of the north ailes joining to the choir of the cathedral of Christ church, Oxford; and a monument is erected to him on the north wall of the north isle of that church, with the following inscription. “Edwardus Pocock, S. T. D. (cujus si nomen audias, nil hie de fama desideres) natus est Oxoniae Nov. 8, ann. Dom. 1604, socius in Collegium Corp. Christi cooptatus 1628, in Linguae Arabicse Lecturam publice habendam primus est institutus 1636, deincle etiam in Hebraicam Professori Regio successit 1648. Desideratissimo Marito Sept. 10, 1691, in ccelum reverso, Maria Burdet, ex qua novenam suscepit sobolem, tumuium hunc mcerens posuit.” His Theological works were republished at London in 1740, in 2 vo,l$. fol. by Mr. Leonard Twells, M. A. to which is prefixed a Life of the Author. Of this we have availed ourselves in the present sketch, but not without omitting many very curious particulars relating both to Dr. Pocock and to the history of his times, which render Mr. Twells’ s work one of the most interesting biographical documents. Dr. Pocock’s life was first attempted by the rev. Humphrey Smith, a Devonshire clergyman, who was assisted by the doctor’s eldest son, the rev. Edward Pocock, rector of Minall in Wiltshire, and prebendary of Sarum. What they could collect was, after a long interval, committed to the care of the rev. Leonard Tvvells, M. A. rector of the united parishes of St. Matthew’s Friday-street, and St. Peter Cheap, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, with the consent of the rev. John Pocock, the doctor’s grandson. The contents of these two volumes are the “Porta Mosis,” and his English commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi. The Arabic types were supplied by the society for the promoting Christian knowledge, in consequence of an application made to them by the rev. Arthur Bedford, chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital, Hoxton. But what renders this edition peculiarly valuable is, that it was corrected for the press by the rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thomas Hunt, one of Dr. Pocock’s learned successors in the Arabic chair.

Dr. Pocock had married in 1646, while he was resident upon his living in Berkshire and had nine children. We have only an account of his eldest son Edward Pocock, who, under his father’s direction, published, in 1671, 4to, with a Latin translation, an Arabic work, entitled “Philosophus Autodidactus sive, Epistola Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail de Hai Ebn Yokdhan. In qua ostenditur, quomod ex inferiorum contemplationead superiorum notitiam ratio humana ascendere possit.” In 1711, Simon Ockley published an English translation of this book, under the title of “The Improvement of Human Reason, exhibited in the Life of Hai Ebn Yokdhan,” &c. 8vo and dedicated it to Mr. Pocock, then rector of Minal in Wiltshire. Mr. Pocock had also prepared an Arabic history, with a Latin version, and put, to it the press at Oxford but not being worked off when his father died, he withdrew it, upon a disgust at not succeeding his father in the Hebrew professorship. The copy, as much of it as was printed, and the manuscript history, were, in 1740, in the hands of Mr. Pocock’s son, then rector of Minal.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.