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

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, a celebrated Italian monk, was born at Ferrara in 1452. In 1466 he became a Dominican at Bologna, and afterwards preached at Florence, but with very little success, and left the place. In 1489 he was invited by Lorenzo de Medici to return to Florence, where he became a very popular preacher. By pretensions to superior sanctity, and by a fervid eloquence, he hurried away the feelings of his hearers, and gained an ascendancy over their minds by his prophecies, which were directed both against church and state. Having by these means acquired a powerful influence, he began to despise the patronage of Lorenzo, and avoided his presence. After the death of Lorenzo, he placed himself at the head of a popular party in Florence, who aimed at the establishment of a free constitution. Savonarola seems to have promised them something between a republic and a theocracy. By such means his party became very formidable; and to flatter them yet more, he denounced terrible judgments to the court of Rome, and to the rest of the Italian states. In 1498 many complaints having been carried to Rome, in which he was accused of having reproached, in his sermons, the conduct of that court and the vices of the clergy, he was publicly excommunicated, which at first he regarded so far as to abstain from preaching, but finding that silence was considered as submission, and would ruin his cause, he resumed his function, and renewed his invectives against the pope and the court of Rome. But when the pope Alexander threatened to interdict the city, the magistrates commanded him to desist from preaching. At length he procured the assistance of a friar of his own convent, named Fra. Domenico da Pescia, who proposed to confirm his master’s doctrines by the ordeal of xvalking through the flames, provided any one of their adversaries would do the same. The challenge was accepted by a Franciscan friar, and a day was appointed for the trial. Savonarola, finding that the adverse party were not to be intimidated, proposed that Domenico should be allowed to carry the host with him into the fire. This was exclaimed against by the whole assembly as an impious and sacrilegious proposal. It was, however, insisted upon by Domenico, who thereby eluded the ordeal. But the result was fatal to the credit of Savonarola, who was deserted by the populace, apprehended and dragged to prison, and condemned to be first strangled and then burnt, which sentence was put into execution on the 23d of May, 1498.

, an Italian, eminent as a statesman and man of letters, when letters were just reviving in Europe, was born about 1424, some say 1430. He was only the son of a miller but, going early to Florence, he fell under the notice of Cosmo de Medici who, observing uncommon parts in him and a turn for letters, took him under his protection, and gave him an education. He studied the law; and, taking a doctor’s degree in that faculty, frequented the bar. After the death of Cosmo in 1464, Peter de Medici shewed the same regard for him; and Scala, through his means, was trusted by the republic in the most important negociations. In 1471, the freedom of the city was conferred on him and his Descendants; and the year after he obtained letters of nobility; he was then secretary or chancellor of the republic. In 1484, the Florentines sent a solemn embassy to Innocent VIII, to congratulate him on his being raised to the pontificate; when Scala, one of the embassy, delivered a speech so very pleasing to the pope, that he was made by him a knight of the golden spur, and senator of Rome. In 1436, he was made holy-standard-bearer to the republic. He died at Florence in 1497; and left, among other children, a daughter, named Alexandra, who afterwards became famous for her learning and skill in the Greek and Latin tongues.

During his life-time were published the above-mentioned speech to pope Innocent; another speech which he made as chancellor of Florence, “Pro Imperatoriis miiitaribus siguis dandis Constantio Sfortise Imperatori,” 1481 and “Apologia contra vituperatores civitatis Florentiae,” 1496, in folio. His posthumous works are four books, “De Historia Floremina,” and “Vita di Vitaliani Borromeo;” both printed at Rome in 1677, 4to. This history of the Florentine republic was written in twenty books, and deposited in the Medicean library; but, as only four of these books and part of a fifth were finished, no more have been thought fit for the press. He was the author also of “Apologues,” and of some Latin and Italian “Poems.” Some few of his letters have been published; and there are eight in the collection of Politian, with whom Scala, as appears from the correspondence, had the misfortune to be at variance. Politian probably despised him for being his superior in every thing but letters, and Scala valued himself too much on his opulence. Erasmus also has not passed a very favourable judgment on him: he represents him as a Ciceronian in his style. Scala' s daughter Alexandra, above mentioned, was no less distinguished by her personal beauty, than her literary acquirements. She gave her hand to the Greek Marullus (See Mahullus); and Politian is numbered among her unsuccessful admirers; a circumstance that may in some degree account for the asperities which marked his controversy with her father. She is said to have been assisted in her studies by. John Lascaris, and Demetrius Chalcondylas. In evidence of her proficiency, we are told that she replied to a Greek epigram, which the gallantry of Politian addressed to her, in the same language and measure; and in a public representation of the “Electra” of Sophocles at Florence, she undertook to perform the principal female character, which, according to Politian, she did with great success. She died in 1506.

, was born Feb. 15, 1749, at Herborn (where his father was at that time divinityprofessor), and was educated at the university at Leyden, where he applied himself with great diligence to the Arabic, under his father’s instructions, and those of Scheidius, who then lodged in his house. By his father’s advice, he commenced his study of the eastern languages by learning the Arabic, to which he applied during two years, before he began the Hebrew. This, among other reasons, may account for the preference which he always gave to the Arabic literature, and which was so great that he was often heard to wish that the duties of his station would allow him to devote the whole of his time to it. He, however, studied the Greek and Latin classics with the utmost diligence under Hemsterhuis, Rhunkenius, and Valkenaar. He also cultivated an acquaintance with the best modem writers, among whom he in general gave the preference to the English; he was remarkably fond of Pope; and of Shakspeare he was an enthusiastic admirer.

, a learned German writer, and one of the most arrogant and contentious critics of his time, was born about 1576; and studied first at Amberg, then at Heidelberg, afterwards at Altdorf, at the charges of the elector palatine. Having made a considerable stay at Ingolstadt, he returned to Altdorff, where he began to publish some of his works. Ottavia Ferrari, a celebrated professor at Padua, says, that he “published books when he was but sixteen, which deserved to be admired by old men;” some, however, of his early productions do not deserve this encomium. He took a journey into Italy; and, after he had been some time at Verona, returned into Germany, whence he went again into Italy, and published at Ferrara a panegyric upon the king of Spain and pope Clement VIII. Iti 1599, he embraced the Roman catholic religion, but had an extraordinary antipathy to the Jesuits; against whom, Baillet tells us, he wrote about thirty treatises under fictitious names. Nor was he more lenient to the Protestants, and solicited the princes to extirpate them by the most bloody means, in a book which he published at Pavia in 1619, under the title of “Gasp. Scioppii Consiliarii Regii Classieum belli sa'cri, sive, Heldus Redivivus.” The following is the title of another, printed at Mentz in 1612, against Philip Mornay du Plessis; and which, as he tells us in the title-page, he sent to James I. of England, by way of new-year’s gift: “Alexipharmacum Regium felli clraconum et veneno aspidum sub Philippi Mornaei de Piessis nuper Papatus historia abdito appositum, et sereniss. Jacobo Magnae Britanniae Regi strenae Januariae loco muneri missum.” He had before attacked the king of England, by publishing in 1611, two books with these titles; “Ec­clesiasticus auctoritati Sereniss. D. Jacob), &c. oppositus,” and “Collyrium Regium Britanniae Regi graviter ex oculis laboranti muneri missum;” that is, “An Eye-salve for the use of his Britannic majesty.” In the first of these pieces he ventured to attack Henry IV. of France in a most violent manner which occasioned his book to be burnt at Paris. He gloried, however, in this disgrace and, according to his own account, had the farther honour of being hanged in effigy in a farce, which was acted before the king of England. He did not, however, always escape with impunity; for, in 1614, the servants of the English ambassador are said to have beaten him with great severity at Madrid. Of the wounds he received in this conflict, he, as usual, made his boasts, as he also did of having been the principal contriver of the Catholic league, which proved so ruinous to the Protestants in Germany. In his way through Venice in 1607, he had a conference with father Paul, whom he endeavoured by promises and threats to bring over to the pope’s party; which, perhaps, with other circumstances, occasioned his being imprisoned there three or four days. After he had spent many years in literary contests, he applied himself to the prophecies of holy scripture, and flattered himself that he had discovered the true key to them. He sent some of these prophetical discoveries to cardinal Mazarine, who paid no attention to them. It has been said that he had thoughts at last of going back to the communion of Protestants; but this, resting upon the single testimony of Hornius, has not been generally believed. He died in 1649.

After this contest, he began to prepare a work of the critical kind. He had been dissatisfied with some of Dr. Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, and had amassed in the course of his own reading and reflection, a number of observations on Denham, Milton, Pope, Dyer, Goldsmith, and Thomson, which he sent to the press, under the title of “Critical Essays,” but did not live to publish them. On the 25th of October 1783, he accompanied Mrs. Scott to London for the benefit of medical advice for a complaint under which she laboured at that time; but on the 1st of December, while at his house at Radtliff, he was attacked by a putrid fever, which proved fatal on the 12th of that month, and he was interred on the 18th in the Quaker burying-­ground at Radcliff. He had arrived at his fifty-fourth year, and left behind a widow and a daughter, their only child, then about six years old. His death was the more lamented as he was in the vigour of life, and had the prospect of many years of usefulness. “In his person he was tall and slender, but his limbs were remarkably strong and muscular he was very active, and delighted much in the exercise of walking his countenance was cheerful and animated.” The portrait prefixed to his works is not a very correct likeness, nor was he himself satisfied with it.

* Francis Spira was a lawyer of great plied. Shortly after he fell into * reputation at Cittadella in the Venetian deep melancholy, lost his health, and State, at the beginning of the sixteenth was removed to Padua for the adcentury. He had imbibed the prin- vice of physicians and divines but ciples of 'he Reformation, and was ac- his disorders augmented. The recused before John de la Casa, arch- cantation, which he said he had made bishop of Benevento, the pope’s nun- from cowardice and interest, filled his cio at Venice. He made some con- mind with continual horror and remorse, cessions, and asked pardon of the pa- and no means being found to restore pal minister for hi* errors. But the either his health or peace of mind, be nuncio insisted upon a public recanta- fell a victim to his miserable situation tion. Spira was exceedingly averse to in 1548. Collier’s Diet. art. Spira. this measure but at the pressing in- There have been many editions of a stances of his wife and his friends, who “Life of Spira” published in England represented to him, that tie must lose and Scotland, as a “warning to aposhis practice and ruin his affairs by tales.” persisting against it, he at last comchair; but after he had taught for some time at Geneva, a fire broke out in his neighbourhood, by. which his house was consumed, and he himself reduced to great distress. At this time flourished at Augsburg that famous mercantile family, the. Fuggers. Ulric Fugger, its then representative, a man possessed of prodigious wealth, and a munificent patron of learned men, having heard of the misfortune which had befallen Mr. Scrimzeor, immediately sent him a pressing invitation to accept an asylum beneath his roof till his affairs could be re-established. Mr. Scrimzeor, gladly availing himself of such a hospitable kindness, lost no time in going to Germany.

His works were printed in 1719, 2 vols. 8vo; and consist of plays, translations, songs, prologues, epilogues, and small occasional pieces. His poems are generally of the licentious kind, and do not afford great marks of genius, and his dramas are quite forgotten. Pope, according to Spence, thought him very insipid, except in some of his little loveverses. Malone thinks he was the Luideius of Dryden’s “Essay on dramatic poetry,” and Dryden certainly shewed his respect for him by dedicating to him his “Assignation.”

, a poetaster, much noticed in poetical history, and of whom, therefore, some account may be expected, was the son of Joseph Settle, of Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, and was born in 1648. In 1666 he was entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, but quitted the university and came to London probably in the following year, when he commenced author and politician. At his outset he joined the whigs, who were then, though the minor, yet a powerful party, and employed his talents in their support. Afterwards, he went over to the other side, and wrote for the tories with as much spirit, and doubtless as much principle, as he had employed for the whigs. Among other effusions, he published a heroic poem on the coronation of James II.; and wrote paragraphs and essays in the newspapers in support of the administration. In this change of party he had woefully miscalculated; the revolution took place, and from that period having lost the little credit he had, he lived poor and despised, subject to all the miseries of the most abject state of indigence, and destitute of any advantageous and reputable connection. In 1680 he was so violent a whig, that the famous ceremony of pope-burning on the 17th of November was entrusted to his management, and he seems to have been at that time much in the confidence of those who opposed government. After his change he became equally violent against those with whom he had before associated, and actually entered himself a trooper in king James’s army at Hounslow Heath. In the latter part of his life he was so reduced as to attend a booth in Bartholomew-fair, the keepers of which gave him a salary for writing drolls. He also was obliged to appear in his old age as a performer in these wretched theatrical exhibitions, and, in a farce called “St. George for England,” acted a dragon inclosed in a case of green leather of his own invention. To this circumstance, Dr. Young refers in the following lines of his epistle to Mr. Pope:

Mr. Seward was himself a poet, and a contributor to Dodsley’s collection; he was also an admirer of our ancient drama, and in 1750 published an edition of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays. Thus accomplished himself, the talents of his daughter did not long escape his observation, and tinder his instructions she laid the foundation of a taste for poetry. The authors he recommended to her were those of queen Anne’s reign. She wasea.ly familiar with Pope, Young, Prior, and their predecessor Dry den, and in later life, used to make little allowance for poetry of an uider date, excepting only that of Sbakspeare and Milton. The desire of imitating the compositions which gave her pleasure, very early displayed itself. She attempted metrical versions of the Psalms, and even exercised herself in original composition, before she was ten years old. An “Address to the first fine day of a backward spring,” which has been preserved, intimates considerable command of numbers and language, though the ideas cannot be called original.

On his arrival in London, which was probably in 1586, when he was twenty -two years old, he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the play-house, to which idleness or taste may have directed him, and where his necessities, if tradition may be credited, obliged him to accept the office of call-boy, or prompter’s attendant. This is a menial, whose employment it is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter, as often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage. Pope, however, relates a story, communicated to him by Rowe, but which Rowe did not think deserving of a place in the life he wrote, that must a little retard the advancement of our poet to the office just mentioned. According to this story, Shakspeare’s first employment was to wait at the door of the play-house, and hold the horses of those who had no servants, that they might be ready after the performance. But “I cannot,” says his acute commentator, Mr. Steevens, “dismiss this anecdote without observing, that it seems to want every mark of probability. Though Shakspeare quitted Stratford on account of a juvenile irregularity, we have no reason to suppose that he had forfeited the protection of his father, who was engaged in a lucrative business 3 or the love of his wife, who had already brought him two children, and was herself the daughter of a substantial yeoman. It is unlikely, therefore, when he was beyond the reach of his prosecutor, that he should conceal his plan of life, or place of residence, from those who, if he found himself distressed, could not fail to afford him such supplies as would have set him above the necessity of holding horses for subsistence. Mr. Malone has remarked in his ‘Attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays of Shakspeare were written,’ that he might have found an easy introduction to the stage; for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian of that period, was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; his connexion with a player might have given his productions a dramatic turn; or his own sagacity might have taught him that fame was not incompatible with profit, and that the theatre was an avenue to both. That it was once the general custom to ride on horse-back to the play, I am likewise yet to learn. The most popular of the theatres were on the Bank-side; and we are told by the satirical pamphleteers of that time, that the usual mode of conveyance to these places of amusement was by water, but not a single writer so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the practice of having horses held during the hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage (if it had existed) must, I think, have been discovered in the course of our researches after contemporary fashions. Let it be remembered too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than that of Gibber’s Lives of the Poets, vol. I. p. 130. Sir Win. Davenant told it to Mr. Betterton, who communicated it to Mr. Howe, who, according to Dr. Johnson, related it to Mr. Pope.” Mr. Malone concurs in opinion that this story stands on a very slender foundation, while he differs from Mr. Steevens as to the fact of gentlemen going to the theatre on horseback. With respect likewise to Shakspeare’s father being “engaged in a lucrative business,” we may remark, that this could not have been the case at the time our author came to London, if the preceding dates be correct. He is said to have arrived in London in 1586, the year in which his father resigned the office of alderman, unless, indeed, we are permitted to conjecture that his resignation was not the consequence of his necessities.

“If tradition may be trusted, Shakspeare often baited at the Crown inn or tavern in Oxford, in his journey to and from London. The landlady was a woman of great beauty and sprightly wit, and her husband, Mr. John Davenant, (afterwards mayor of that city) a grave melancholy man; xvho, as well as his wife, used much to delight in Shaks^ peare’s pleasant company. Their son, young Will. Davenant, (afterwards sir William) was then a little school-boy in the town, of about seven or eight years old, and so fond also of Shakspeare, that whenever he heard of his arrival, he would fly from school to see him. One day an old townsman observing the boy running homeward almost out of breath, asked him whither he was posting in that heat and hurry. He answered to see his god-father Shakspeare. `There’s a good boy,‘ said the other, ’but have a care that you don‘t take God’s name in vain.’ This story Mr. Pope told me at the earl of Oxford’s table, upon occasion of some discourse which arose about Shakspeare’s monument then newly erected in Westminster abbey.”

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker (who received 300l. for it), after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performers at Drury-Iane theatre amounted to above 200l. but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100l. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers* and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can hereafter be discovered, it must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch. we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities

His admirers, however, if he had admirers in that age, possessed no portion of such enthusiasm. That curiosity which in our days has raised biography to the rank of an independent study, was scarcely known, and where known, confined principally to the public transactions of eminent characters. And if, in addition to the circumstances already stated, we consider how little is known of the personal history of Shakspeare’s contemporaries, we may easily resolve the question why, of all men who have ever claimed admiration by genius, wisdom, or valour, who have eminently contributed to enlarge the taste, or increase the reputation of their country, we know the least of Shakspeare; and why, of the few particulars which seem entitled to credit, when simply related, and in which there is no manifest violation of probability, or promise of importance, there is scarcely one which has not swelled into a controversy. After a careful examination of all that modern research has discovered, we know not how to trust our curiosity beyond the limits of those barren dates which afford no personal history. The nature of Shakspeare’s writings prevents that appeal to internal evidence which in other cases has been found to throw light on character. The purity of his morals, for example, if sought in his plays, must be measured against the licentiousness of his language, and the question will then be, how much did he write from conviction, and how much to gratify the taste of his hearers How much did he add to the age, and how much did he borrow from it Pope says, “he was obliged to please the lowest of the people, and to keep the worst of company;” and Pope might have said more, for although we hope' it was not true, we have no means of proving that it was false.

The elegant preface of Dr. Johnson gives an account of the attempts made in the early part of the last century, to revive the memory and reputation of our poet, by Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, and Warburton, whose respective merits he has characterized with candour, and with singular felicity of expression. Shakspeare’s works may be overloaded with criticism, for what writer has excited so much curiosity, and so many opinions but Johnson’s preface is an accompaniment worthy of the genius it celebrates. His own edition followed in 1765, and a second, in conjunction with Mr. Steevens, in 1773. The third edition of the joint editors appeared in 1785, the fourth in 1793, the fifth in 1803, in 21 volumes octavo, which has since been reprinted. Mr. Malone’s edition was published in 1790 in 10 volumes, crown octavo, and is now become exceedingly scarce. His original notes and improvements, however, are incorporated in the editions of 1793 and 1803 by Mr. Steevens. Mr. Malone says, that from 1716 to the date of his edition in 1790, that is, in seventy-four years, “above 3-0,000 copies of Shakspeare have been dispersed through England.” To this we may add with confidence, that since 1790 that number has been more than doubled. During 1803 no fewer than nine editions were in the press, belonging to the booksellers of London; and if we add the editions printed by others, and those published in Scotland, Ireland, and America, we may surely fix the present as the highest aera of Shakspeare’s popularity. Nor among the honours paid to his genius, ought we to forget the very magnificent edition undertaken by Messrs. Boydell. Still less ought it to be forgotten how much the reputation of Shakspeare was revived by the unrivalled excellence of Garrick’s performance. His share in directing the public taste towards the study of Shakspeare was perhaps greater than that of any individual in his time; and such was his zeal, and such hrs success in this laudable attempt, that he may readily be forgiven the foolish mummery of the Stratford Jubilee.

In the “Essay on Satire” he was always supposed to have had the help of Dryden, but, according to Mr. Malone’s account, that did not amount to much. His “Essay on Poetry” is the great work for which he was praised by Roscommon, Dryden, and Pope; and doubtless by many more, whose eulogies have perished.

, a celebrated traveller, second son of Thomas Shirley of Weston, in Sussex, was born in 1565. He studied at Hart-hall, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s decree in 1581, and in the same year was elected probationer fellow of All Souls College. Leaving the university, he spent some time in one of tru 1 inns of court, after which he travelled on the continent, and joined the English troops, which, at that time, were serving in Holland. In 1596 he was one of the adventurers who went against the Spaniards in their settlements in the West Indies; and on his return, the earl of Essex, with whom he was a great favourite, employed him in the wars in Ireland, for his services in which he was knighted. After this he was sent by the queen into Italy, in order to assist the people of Ferrara in their contest with the pope: but finding that before he arrived, peace had been, signed, he proceeded to Venice, and travelled from thence to Persia, where he became a favourite with Shah Abbas, who sent him as his ambassador to England in 1612. By the 'emperor of Germany he was raised to the dignity of count, and by the king of Spain he was appointed admiral of the Levant seas. Such honours excited the jealousy of James I. who ordered him to return, but this he thought proper to disobey, and is supposed to have died in Spain about the year 1630. There is an account of his West Indian expedition in the third volume of Hakluyt’s collection, under the following title: “A true Relation of the Voyage undertaken by Sir Anthony Shirley, Knight, in 1596, intended for the island San Tome, but performed to St. Jago, Dominica, Margarita, along the Coast of Tien a Firma to the Isle of Jamaica, the Bay of Honduras, thirty leagues up Rio Dolce, and homewards by Newfoundland, with the memorable Exploits achieved in all this Voyage.” His travels into Persia are printed separately, and were published in London in 1613, 4to; and his travels over the Caspian sea, and through Russia, were inserted in Purchas’s Pilgrimages.

, a learned divine of the last century, was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1716, and that of M. A. in 1720. He afterwards became curate of Shelthon in Norfolk, prebendary of Canterbury, and lastly had the city living of All-hallows, Lombard-street. He died July 14, 1754. He published a few occasional sermons, but is principally known for his “History of the World, sacred and profane,” 3 vols. 8vo, intended to serve as an introduction to Prideaux’s “Connection,” but he did not live to carry it down to the year 747 B. C. where Prideaux begins. He wrote also a treatise on “The Creation and Fall of Man,” intended as a supplement to the preface to his history. His works are heavily written, but display a great deal of erudition, although not well applied, in the opinion of the late bishop Home, and his biographer Mr. Jones. They blame Shuckford for rendering the subject almost ridiculous, by illustrating the sacred history of the creation from Ovid, and Cicero, and even Pope’s “Essay on Man.”

In 1581 we find Mr. Sidney one of the knights in parliament for the county of Kent, and one of the committee for enacting “such laws as would secure the kingdom against the pope and his adherents.” Still, however, addicted to a studious life, he produced his “Defence of Poesy,” which has been pronounced the first piece of criticism in the English language worthy of our attention. It shews at once the erudition, judgment, and taste of the author, and describes the laws of the drama with singular precision and exactness.

, a French writer, whose taste for English literature entitles him to a place here, was born at Limoges in 1709, and appears to have been brought up to civil or political life, although he always cultivated a taste for literature. He purchased the office of master of requests, and after having managed the affairs of the duke of Orleans, became comptroller-general and minister of state in 1759. This was a critical time for France, which was carrying on a ruinous war, and the finances were in a very low condition. Silhouette wished to remedy this last evil by retrenchment and ceconomy, but finding that such a plan was only a topic for ridicule, he quitted his post in about nine months, and retired to his estate of Brie-sur-Marne,and devoted his time to study, and his wealth to benevolence. He died in 1767. His works were: 1. “Idee generate du Government Chinois,” 1729, 4to, 1731, 12mo. 2. “Reflexion politique,” from the Spanish of Balthazar Gracian, 1730, 4to. 3. A translation of Pope’s “Essay on Man,” which the French speak of as faithful, but not elegant. 4. A translation of Bolingbroke’s “Dissertation on Parties.” This is said to have been printed at London in 1739, where, perhaps about this time Silhouette was on a visit. 5 “Lettre sur les transactions pubiiques du Regrie d'Elizabeth,” with some remarks on Rapin’s account of that reign, Amst. 1736, 12mo. 6. A translation of Pope’s “Miscellanies,” 1741, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Traite* mathematique sur le bonheur,” 1741, 12mo. 8. A translation of Warburton’s “Alliance,” 1742, 2 vols. 1.2 mo. With Warburton he appears to have corresponded, for in one of Warburton’s letters, printed by Mr. Nichols, we find that celebrated author desiring that a copy of his “Divine Legation” may be sent to M. Silhouette in Franoe. In the “History of the Works of the Learned” also, we find “Observations on the Abbe* Pluche’s History of the Heavens,” translated from the French of Silhouette, who professes that he was chiefly indebted for them to the second volume of the “Divine Legation,” and to some particular remarks communicated to him hy Mr. Warburton. 9. “Epitres morales, Lettres phiiosophiques, et Traits mathematiques,” printed at the Bowyer press, in 1741. 10. “Memoirs des commissaires du roi et de ceux de sa majeste Britamuque stir les possessions et les droits respectifs des deux couronnes en Amerique,” Paris, 1755, 4to. In this he was assisted by M. de la Gahssonniere. 1 1> “Voyage de France, d‘Espagne, de Portugal, et d’ltalie,” a posthumous work, Paris, 1770.

On his rise to the papacy we shall be brief. In 991, Hugh Capet promoted him to the archbishopric of Rheiins; but this elevation was a source of disquiet to him, and after much contention, he was obliged to resign the see to Arnulf, the natural son of Lothaire, king of France, who had been formerly deposed from it. This was in 997, and at the same time Otho III. conferred upon him the archbishopric of Ravenna; and on the death of pope Gregory V, in 999, he was elected to the papal dignity, when he assumed the name of Silvester. The acts of his pontificate were but few, and not at all important. In 1000 he is said to have conferred on Stephen I., king of Hungary, the royal title, with the famous crown, the palladium of that kingdom, and to have constituted him perpetual legate of the holy see, with power to dispose of all ecclesiastical benefices. It was also in this century that the plan of the holy war was formed; and towards the conclusion of it, the signal was given by our learned pontiff, in the first year of his pontificate, in aa epistle, written in the name of the church of Jerusalem, to the church universal throughout the world, in which the European powers are solemnly exhorted to succour and deliver the Christians in Palestine. The pontiff’s exhortations, however, were only regarded by the inhabitants of Pisa.

, originally called Francis Albisola Della Rovera, is said by some writers to have been the son of a fisherman at Celles, a village live leagues from Savona in the territory of Genoa, but others derive him from a branch of a noble family. He was born in 1413, entered the Franciscan order, took a doctor’s degree at Padua, and taught with reputation in the universities of Bologna, Pavia, Sienna, Florence, and Perugia. After this he became general of the Franciscans, then cardinal through the interest of cardinal Bessarion, and at length pope, August 9, 1471, on the death of Paul II. He immediately armed a fleet against the Turks, and displayed great magnificence and liberality during his whole pontificate. He was almost the founder of, and certainly greatly enriched the Vatican library, and entrusted the care of it to the learned Platina. He published a bull, March 1, 1746, granting indulgences to those who should celebrate the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin; the first decree of the Roman church concerning that festival. The establishment of the feast of St. Joseph, for which Gerson had taken great pains, is also ascribed to this pope. Historians have reproached him with conniving at the vices of his nephews, being too violent against the Medici family and the Venetians, and having joined in the conspiracy of the Pazzi at Florence. There seems upon the whole to have been little in his character to command the respect of posterity, except his patronage of literature. He died August 13, 1484, aged 71. Before his election to the pontificate, he wrote the following treatises “De Sanguine Christi,” Rome, 1473, fol. scarce “De futuris contigentibus” “De potentia Dei;” “De Conceptione beatse V.irginis,” &c.; a very scarce work is also attributed to him, entitled “Regulne Cuncellariae,” 1471, 4to, translated into French by Dupinet, 1564, 8vo, and reprinted under the title of “La Banque Romaine,” 1700, 12mo.

After his retreat from Venice, we find him acting in many public affairs at Rome, and as often engaged in disputes with the conventuals of his order; till he was appointed, as chaplain and consultor of the inquisition, to attend cardinal Buon Compagnon, afterwards Gregory XIII. who was then legate a latere to Spain. Here Montalto had great honours paid him: he was offered to be made one of the royal chaplains, with a table and an apartment in the palace, and a very large stipend, if he would stay there; but having centered his views at Rome, he declined accepting these favours, and only asked the honour of bearing the title of his majesty’s chaplain wherever he went." While things were thus circumstanced at Madrid, news was brought of the death of Pius IV. and the elevation of cardinal Alexandrine to the holy see, with the title of Pius V. MontaUo was greatly transported at this news, the new pontiff having ever been his steadyfriend and patron; for this new pope was father Ghisilieri, who had been promoted to the purple by Paul IV. Montalto’s joy at the promotion of his friend was not ill-founded, nor were his expectations disappointed; for Pius V. even in the first week of his pontificate, appointed him general of his order, an office that he executed with his accustomed severity. In 1568 he was made bishop of St. Agatha; and, in 1570, was honoured with a cardinal’s hat and a pension. During this reign he had likewise the chief direction of the papal councils, and particularly was employed to draw up the bull of excommunication against queen Elizabeth.

Being now in possession of the purple, he began to aspire to the papacy. With this view “he became humble, patient, and affable; so artfully concealing the natural impetuosity of his temper, that one would have sworn this gentleness and moderation was born with him. There was such a change in his dress, his air, his words, and all his actions, that his nearest friends and acquaintance said, he was not the same man. A greater alteration, or a more absolute victory over his passions, was never seen in any one; nor is there an instance, perhaps, in all history, of a person supporting a fictitious character in so uniform and consistent a manner, or so artfully disguising his foibles and imperfections for such a number of years.” To which may be added, that, while he endeavoured to court the friendship of the ambassadors of every foreign power, he very carefully avoided attaching himself to the interest of any one; nor would he accept favours, that might be presumed to lay him under peculiar obligations. He was not less singular in his conduct to his relations, to whom he had heretofore expressed himself with the utmost tenderness; but now he behaved very differently, “knowing that disinterestedness in that point was one of the keys to the papacy. So that when his brother Antony came to see him at Rome, he lodged him in an inn, and sent him back again the next day with only a present of sixty crowns; strictly charging him to return immediately to his family, and tell them, ‘That his spiritual cares increased upon’him, and he was now dead to his relations and the world; but as he found old age and infirmities begin to approach, he might, perhaps, in a while, send for one of his nephews to wait on him',” Upon the death of Pius V. which happened in 1572, Montalto entered the conclave with the rest of the cardinals; but, appearing to give himself no trouble about the election, kept altogether in his apartment, without ever stirring from it, except to his devotions. He affected a total ignorance of the intrigues of the several factions; and, if he was asked to engage in any party, would reply, with seeming indifference, “that for his part he was of no manner of consequence; that, as he had never been in the conclave before, he was afraid of making some false step, and should leave the affair to be conducted wholly by people of greater knowledge and experience.” The election being determined in favour of cardinal Buon Compagnon, who assumed the name of Gregory XIII. Montalto did not neglect to assure him, “that he had never wished for any thing so much in his life, and that be should always remember his goodness, and the favours he received from him in Spain.” The new pope, however, not only shewed very little regard to his compliment, but during his pontificate, treated him with the utmost contempt, and deprived him of the pension which had been granted to him by Pins V. Nor was he held in greater esteem by the generality of the cardinals, who considered him as a poor, old, doting fellow, incapable of doing either good or harm; and who, by way of ridicule, they were used frequently to style, “the ass of La Marca.” He seldom interfered in> or was present at any public transactions; the chief part of his time was employed in works of piety and devotion; and his benevolence to the indigent was so remarkable, that, when a terrible famine prevailed at Pome, the poor said openly of him, “that cardinal Montalto, who lived upon charity himself, gave with one hand what he received with the other; while the rest of the cardinals, who wallowed in abundance, contented themselves with shewing them the way to the hospital.”

Notwithstanding this affected indifference to what passed in the world, he was never without able spies, who informed him from time to time of every the most minute particular. He had assumed great appearance of imbecility and all the infirmities of old age, for some years before the death of Gregory XIII. in 1585; when it was not without much seeming reluctance, that Montalto accompanied the rest of the cardinals into the conclave, where he maintained the same uniformity of behaviour in which he had so long persisted. “He kept himself close shut up in his chamber, and was no more thought or spoken of, than if he had not been there. He very seldom stirred out, and when he went to mass, or any of the scrutinies, appeared so little concerned, that one would have thought he had no manner of interest in any thing that happened within those walls;” and, without promising any thing, he flattered everybody. This method of proceeding was judiciously calculated to serve his ambition. He was early apprised, that there would be great contests or divisions in the conclave; and he knew it was no uncommon case, that when the chiefs of the respective parties met with opposition to the person they were desirous of electing, they would all willingly concur in the choice of some very old and infirm cardinal, whose life would last only long enough to prepare themselves with more strength against another vacancy. These views directed his conduct, nor was he mistaken in his expectations of success. Three cardinals, who were the heads of potent factions, finding themselves unable to choose the persons they respectively favoured, all concurred to elect Montalto. As it was not yet necessary for him to discover himself, when they came to acquaint him with their intention, “he fell into such a violent fit of coughing, that they thought he would have expired upon the spot.” When he recovered himself, he told them, “that his reign would be but for a few days that, besides the continual difficulty of breathing, he had not strength enough to support such a weight; and that his small experience in affairs made him altogether unfit for a charge of so important a nature.” Nor would he be prevailed on to accept it on any other terms, than that “they should all three promise not to abandon him, but take the greatest part of the weight off his shoulders, as he was neither able, nor could in conscience pretend, to take the whole upon himself.” The cardinals giving a ready assent to his proposal, he added, “If you are resolved to make me pope, it will be only placing yourselves on the throne; we must share the pontificate. For my part, I shall be content with the bare title; let them call me pope, and you are heartily welcome to the power and authority.” This artifice succeeded; and, in confidence of engrossing the administration, they exerted their joint interests so effectually, that Montalto was elected. He now immediately pulled off the mask which be had worn for fourteen years, with an amazing steadiness and uniformity. As soon as ever he found a sufficient number of votes to secure his election, he threw the staff with which he used to support himself into the middle of the chapel; and appeared taller by almost a foot than he had done for several years. Being asked according to custom, “Whether he would please to accept of the papacy,” he replied somewhat sharply, “It is trifling and impertinent to ask whether I will accept what I have already accepted: however, to satisfy any scruple that may arise, I tell you, that I accept it with great pleasure; and would accept another, if I could get it; for I find myself strong enough, by the divine assistance, to manage two papacies.” Nor was the change in his manners less remarkable than in his person: he immediately divested himself of the humility he had so long professed; and, laying aside his accustomed civility and complaisance, treated every body with reserve and haughtiness.

The lenity of Gregory’s government had introduced a general licentiousness among all ranks of people; which, though somewhat restrained while he lived, broke out into open violence the very day after his death. Riots, rapes, robberies, and murders, were, during the vacancy of the see, claily committed in every part of the ecclesiastical state; so that the reformation of abuses, in the church as well as the state, was the first and principal care of Sixtus V. for such was the title Montalto assumed. The first days of his pontificate were employed in receiving the congratulations of the Roman nobility, and in giving audience to foreign ministers; and though he received them with seeming cheerfulness and complaisance, yet he soon dismissed them, desiring to be excused, “for he had something else to do than to attend to compliments.” It having been customary with preceding popes to release prisoners on the day of their coronation, delinquents used to surrender themselves after the pope was chosen; and several offenders, judging of Montalto’s disposition by his behaviour while a cardinal, came voluntarily to the prisons, not making the least doubt of a pardon: but they were fatally disappointed; for when the governor of Rome and the keeper of St. Angelo’s castle waited on his holiness to know his intention upon this matter, Sixtus replied, “You certainly do not either know your proper distance, or are very impertinent. What have you to do with pardons and acts of grace, and releasing of prisoners? Don't you think it sufficient, that our predecessor has suffered the judges to lie idle and unemployed these thirteen years? Would you have us likewise stain our pontificate with the same neglect of justice? We have too long seen, with inexpressible concern, the prodigious degree of wickedness that reigns in the ecclesiastical state, to think of granting any pardon. God forbid we should entertain such a design! So far from releasing any prisoners, it is our express command, that they be more closely confined. Let them be brought to a speedy trial, and punished as they deserve, that the prisons may be emptied, and room made for others; and that the world may see, that Divine Providence has called us to the chair of St. Peter to reward the good, and to chastise the wicked; that we bear not the sword in vain, but are the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.”

In the place of such judges as were inclined to lenity, he substituted others of a more austere disposition, and appointed commissaries to examine not only their conduct, but also that of other governors and judges for many years past; promising rewards to those who could convict them of corruption, or of having denied justice to any one at the instance or request of men in power. All the nobility, and persons of the highest quality, were strictly forbidden, on pain of displeasure, to ask the judges any thing in behalf of their nearest friends or dependants; at the same time the judges were to be fined in case they listened to any solicitation. He further commanded every body, “on pain of death, not to terrify witnesses by threats, or tempt them by hopes or promises. He ordered the syndics and mayors of every town and signiory, as well those that were actually in office, as those who had been for the last ten years, to send him a list of all the vagrants, common debauchees, loose and disorderly people in their districts, threatening them with the strappado and imprisonment, if they omitted or concealed any one.” In consequence of this ordinance, the syndic of Albano, leaving his nephew, who was an incorrigible libertine, out of the list, underwent the strappado in the public market-place, though the Spanish ambassador interceded strongly for him. He par ticularly directed the legates and governors of the ecclesiastical state to be expeditious in carrying on all criminal processes; declaring, “he had rather have the gibbets and gallies full, than the prisons.” He aUo intended to have shortened all other proceedings in law. It had been usual, and was pleasing to the people, as often as his holiness passed by, to cry out, “Long live the pope:” but Sixtus, having a mind to go often unexpectedly to the tribunals of justice, convents, and other public places, forbade this custom in regard to himself; and punished two persons who were ignorant of this edict, with imprisonment, for crying out, “Long live pope Sixtus.” Adultery he punished with death: nor was he less severe to those who voluntarily permitted a prostitution of their wives; a custom at that time very common in Rome. The female sex, especially the younger part, attracted, in a very particular manner, the attention of Sixtus; not only the debauching of any of them, whether by force or artifice, but even the attempting of it, or offering the least offence against modesty, was very severely punished. For the more effectual prevention, as well of private assassinations, as public quarrels, he forbade all persons, on pain of death, to draw a sword, or to carry arms specified in the edict; nor would he be prevailed on to spare any who transgressed this order: even to threaten another with an intended injury was sufficient to entitle the menacer to a whipping and the gallies; especially if the nature of their profession furnished the means of carrying their threats into execution. The banditti, who were numerous when Sixtus was advanced to the papacy, were rendered still more so by the junction of many loose and disorderly people; who, conscious of their demerits, and terrified at the severities they daily saw practised, had fled from justice. Their insolence increased with their numbers; insomuch, that no one could live in the ecclesiastical state with saiety to his person or fortune, nor could strangers travel without imminent danger of being robbed or murdered. The public security more especially required the extirpation of these plunderers, which, by the prudence, vigilance, and resolution of this pope, was effectually performed in less than six months. He obliged the nobility of Rome, and the country round it, to an exact payment of their debts. He abolished all protections and other immunities, in the houses of ambassadors, cardinals, nobles, or prelates. To this purpose, he sent for all the ambassadors, and ordered them to acquaint their respective masters, “that he was determined nobody should reign in Rome but himself; that there should be no privilege or immunity of any kind there, but what belonged to the pope; nor any sanctuary or asylum but the churches, anil that only at such times, and upon such occasions, as he should think proper.”

Thus far we have heheld Sixtus acting in his civil capacity; and if we take a view of his conduct as a politician, in his transactions with foreign powers, we find him maintaining the same degree of firmness as in his treatment of his own subjects. Before he had been pope two months he quarrelled with Philip II. of Spain, Henry III. of France, and Henry king of Navarre. His intrigues in some measure may be said to have influenced, in his day, all the councils of Europe. Sixtus had caused the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible to be published, which occasioned a good deal of clamour; but far less than his printing an Italian version of it, which excited the in lignation of all the Roman Catholic part of Christendom. Count Olivares, and some of the cardinals, ventured to expostulate with him freely upon it; and said, “It was a scandalous as well as a dangerous thing, and bordered very nearly upon heresy,” But he treated them with contempt, and only said, “We do it for the benefit of you that do not understand Latin.” Though this pope’s behaviour may not command universal applause, yet it is certain the Roman see was under very great obligations to him. His impartial, though rigorous, administration of justice, had a very happy effect; he strenuously defended the rights of the poor, the widow, and the orphan; he refused audience to nobody, ordering his masters of the ceremonies to introduce the poorest to him first; but was more particularly ready to hear any accusation against the magistrates: the same conduct he observed between the clergy and their superiors, always applying quick and effectual, though mostly severe, remedies. In short, he had wrought such a reformation, that the governor told him one day, the place of a judge was now become a perfect sinecure. At his accession to the papacy, he found the apostolic clia.-nber, or treasury, not only exhausted, but in debt: he lei't it, not only clear, but enriched itwith five millions of gold; he also augmented the revenue to double its former amount. To him the city of Rome was obliged for several of its greatest embellishments, particularly the Vatican library, began by Sixtus IV.; and to him its citizens were indebted for the introduction of trade into the ecclesiastical state. Though he was naturally an enemy to profusion, he was never sparing in expence to relieve such as were really necessitous; and, among many other noble charities, his appropriation of three thousand crowns a year, for the redemption of Christian slaves out of the hands of the infidels, will hardly be reckoned the least meritorious.

In respect to his private character, it appears, from several instances, that he was, as well in his habit as diet, generally temperate and frugal; that he remembered, and greatly rewarded, every service that was conferred upon him when he was in an inferior station. Nor did his elevation make him unmindful of his former poverty: his sister once intimating, that it was unbecoming his dignity to wear patched linen, he said to her, “Though we are exalted, through the Divine Providence, to this high station, we ought not to forget, that shreds and patches are the only coat of arms our family has any title to.” The behaviour of Sixtus to his relations, previous to his exaltation, has been already noted: soon after his accession to the pontificate, he sent for his family to Rome, with express orders, that they should appear in a decent and modest manner. Accordingly, his sister Camilla, accompanied by her daughter and two grandsons, and a niece, came thither. The pope’s reception of them was as singular as any other part of his conduct; for some of the cardinals, to ingratiate themselves with his holiness, went out to meet her, dressed them all in a very superb manner, and introduced them with great ceremony to the Vatican. When Sixtus saw Camilla, he pretended not to know her, and asked two or three times who she was; upon which one of the cardinals, who handed her in, said, “It is your sister, holy father.” “My sister!” replied Sixtus, with a frown, “I have but one sister, and she is a poor woman at Le Grotte: if you have introduced her in this disguise, I declare 1 do not know her; and yet I think I should know her again, if I was to see her in such clothes as she used to wear.” Their conductors then thought it expedient to send them to a common inn, where they were disrobed of their finery. When this was done, Sixtus sent two of his ordinary coaches for them; and being introduced a second time, the pope embraced them tenderly, and said to Camilla, “Now we see it is our sister indeed: nobody shall make a princess of you but ourselves.” The terms Sixtus stipulated with his sister, as the conditions of her advancement, were, “not to ask any favour in matters of government, or make the least intercession for criminals, or otherwise interfere in the administration of justice;” assuring her that every suit of that kind would meet with a refusal not less mortifying to her than painful to himself. This being settled, he made, indeed, a princely provision, not only for his sister, who took care punctually to obey his orders, but also for all the family.

The pope’s severity could not exempt him from several poignant satires, though we have only one instance wherein he thought them worth his resentment; and that related to his sister. Pasquin was dressed one morning in a very dirty shirt; and being askedby Marforio, why he wore such dirty linen answered, “He could get no other, for the pope had made his washer-woman a princess;” meaning Camilla, who had formerly been a laundress. The pope ordered strict search to be made for the author, and promised to give him a thousand pistoles, and his life, provided he would discover himself; but threatened to hang him, if he was found out by any body else. The author, though he had trusted no person with the secret, was so tempted with the offer, that he was simple enough to make a full confession of it to the pope; demanding the money, and to have his life spared. Sixtus was so astonished at his folly and impudence, that he could not speak for some time; and at last said, “It is true we did make such a promise, and we shall not be worse than our word; we give you your life, and you shall have the money immediately; but we reserved to ourselves the power of cutting off your hands, and boring your tongue through to prevent your being so witty for the future:” which was directly executed, Sixtus declaring, that he did not deserve the punishment so much for the pasquinade, as for being so audacious to avow it.

During the early part of his residence at Cambridge he wrote the Tripos poems, among his works, a species of composition of which it is not often that much notice is taken, but the merit of Smart’s verses was immediately and generally acknowledged. When afterwards, by the advice of his friends, he offered himself as a candidate for an university scholarship, he is said to have translated Pope’s Ode on St. Cecilia’s day into Latin. But this is doubted by his biographer, on account of the length and labour of the composition. He must, however, have executed that translation about this time, as the applause it received induced him to turn his mind to other translations from the same author, and to write to him for his advice or approbation, which produced a correspondence very flattering on both sides. Smart, as a young man, aiming at poetical honours, was gratified with the letters of Pope; and Pope, who was ever alive to extent of fame, was not sorry to find his works introduced on the continent in a classical form. Smart proceeded, accordingly, to translate the “Essay on Criticism,” of all Pope’s writings, perhaps the most unfit for the purpose; but it brought him into some reputation with scholars.

In 1551, sir Thomas was appointed one of the ambassadors to the court of France, to treat concerning a match for the king with the eldest daughter of the king of France; but the king’s life was now at a close, and on the accession of Mary, sir Thomas was deprived of all his places, and was charged not to depart the kingdom; yet enjoyed uncommon privileges. He was allowed a pension of 100l. per annum; he was highly favoured by Gardiner and Bonner on account of the opinion they had of his learning; and enjoyed a particular indulgence from the pope, which was occasioned by the following circumstance. In 1.555, William Smythwick of the diocese of Bath, esq. obtained an indulgence from Pius IV. by which he and any five of his friends, whom he should nominate, were to enjoy extraordinary dispensations. The indulgence exempted them from all ecclesiastical censures upon whatever occasion or cause inflicted; and “from all and singular their sins whereof they are contrite and confessed, although they were such for which the apostolic see were to be consulted.” Smythwick chose Smith, for one of his five friends specified in the bull, to be partaker of those privileges; and this undoubtedly was a great security to him in those perilous times. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, sir Thomas Smith was again received at court, and employed in affairs both of church and state. He was also sent on various embassies. In 1562 he was sent ambassador to France, where, in conjunction with sir Nicholas Throgmorton, he concluded a peace between England and France in the beginning of 156*, but was still continued ambassador in France. In March 1565 he finished his treatise of “the Commonwealth of England,” and in the beginning of the year following returned to England. In 1567 he was again sent ambassador to France to demand the restitution of Calais; and upon his return from thence in 1568, he solicited for the place of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, but without success, it being given to sir Ralph Sadleir. In 1570 he was admitted into the privy council, and in 1572, he was again appointed secretary of state, and chancellor of the order of the garter.

, called L‘Abate Ciccio, from his mode of dressing like an abbot, an illustrious Italian painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Nocera de’ Pagani near Naples in 1657. His father Angelo, who had been a scholar of Massimo, and was a good painter and a man of learning, discerned an uncommon genius in his son; who is said to have spent whole nights in the studies of poetry and philosophy. He designed also so judiciously in chiaro obscure, tiiat his performances surprised all who saw them. Angelo intended him for the Jaw, and did not alter his purpose, though he was informed of his other extraordinary talents, till cardinal Orsini advised him. This cardinal, afterwards Benedict Xiji. at a visit happened to examine the youth in philosophy, and, although satisfied with his answers, observed, that he would do better, if he did not waste so much of his time in drawing; but when these drawings were produced, he was so surprised, that he told the father how unjust he would be both to his son and to the art, if he attempted to check a genius so manifestly displayed. Ou this, Solimene had full liberty given him to follow his inclination. Two years passed on, while he studied under his lather, after which, in 1674, he went to Naples, and put himself under the direction of Francesco di Maria. Thinking, however, that this artist laid too great a stress on design, he soon left him, and guided himself by the works of Lanfranc and Calabrese in composition and chiaro obscuro, while those of Pietro Cortona and Luca Jordano were his standards for colouring, and Guido and Carlo Maratti for drapery. By an accurate and well-managed study of these masters, he formed to himself an excellent style, and soon distinguished himself as a painter. Hearing that the Jesuits intended to paint the chapel of St. Anne in the church Jesu Nuovo, he sent them a sketch by an architecture painter; not daring to carry it himself, lest a prejudice against his youth might exclude him. His design was nevertheless accepted, and, while he was employed on this chapel, the best painters of Naples visited him, astonished to h'nd themselves surpassed by a mere boy. This was his first moment of distinction, and his reputation increased so fast, that great works were offered him from every quarter. His fame extending to other countries, the kings of France and Spain made him very advantageous proposals to engage him in their service, all which he declined. Philip V. arriving at Naples, commanded him to paint his portrait, and allowed him to sit in his presence: and the emperor Charles VI. knighted him on account of a picture he sent him. In 1701, he resided at Rome during the holy year: when the pope and cardinals took great notice of him. This painter is also known by his sonnets, which have been often printed in collections of poetry; and, at eighty years of age, he could repeat from memory the most beautiful passages of the poets, in the application of which he was very happy. He died in 1747, at almost ninety. He painted entirely after nature; being fearful, as he said, that too servile an attachment to the antique might damp the fire of his imagination. He was a man of a good temper, who neither criticised the works of others out of envy, nor was blind to his own defects. He told the Italian author of his life, that he had advanced many falsities in extolling the character of his works: which had procured him a great deal of money, but yet were very far short of perfection. The grand duke of Tuscany with difficulty prevailed on Solimene’s modesty to send him his picture, which he wanted to place in his gallery among other painters.

The other works attributed to lord Somers, with more or less authority, are, 1. “Dryden’s Satire to his Muse;” but this has been disputed. Mr. Malone says, the author of this severe attack on Dryden has never been discovered. Pope assures us that lord Somers “was wholly ignorant of it;” but, says Mr. Maione, “if Somers had written any part of this libel (we cannot suppose him to have written the scandalous part of it) thirty years before he was acquainted with Pope, is it probable that he would have made a young author of four-and-twenty the depositary of his secret? Two years before this satire was published, he had appeared as a poet; and near two hundred lines of it, that is, nearly two parts out of three, are a political encomium and vindication of the whigs, without any offensive personality, couched in such moderate poetry as is found in Somers’s acknowledged poetical productions.” Lord Somers’s other and acknowledged poems were, 2. “Translation of the Epistle of Dido to Æneas.” 3. “Translation of Ariadne to Theseus.” Of the prose kind were, 4. “Translation of Plutarch’s life of Alcibiades.” 5. “A just and modest Vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments,” 1681, 4to, first written by Algernon Sidney, but ncic-draivn by Somers, published in Baldwin’s collection of pamphlets in the reign of Charles II. The two following are doubtful: 6. “The Security of Englishmen’s Lives, or the trust, power, and duty of the Grand Juries of England explained according to the fundamentals of the English government, &c.”1682, and 1700. 7. “Lord Somers’s Judgment of whole kingdoms in the power, &c. of Kings,” 1710, 8vo, but bearing no resemblance to his style or manner. With more certainty we may add, 8. “A Speech at the conference on the word Abdicated,'” in the General Dictionary, and probably published separately. 9. “Another on the same occasion.” 10. “Speeches at the trial of lord Preston.” 11. “His letter to king William on the Partition-treaty.” 12. “His answer to his Impeachment.” 13. “Extracts from two of his Letters to lord Wharton.” 14. “Addresses of the Lords in answer to Addresses of the Commons.” 15. “The Argument of the lord keeper Somers on his giving judgment in the Banker’s Case, delivered in the exchequer chamber, July 23, 1696.” He is supposed likewise to have written “The preface to Dr. Tindal’s Rights of the Christian Church,” a “Brief History of the Succession, collected out of the records, written for the satisfaction of the E. of H.” This was in favour of the attempt to exclude the duke of York, and was re-printed in 1714. The Mss. of this able statesman and lawyer filled above sixty folio volumes, which were destroyed by fire in Lincoln’s Inn, in 1752. Some remains, which the fire had spared, were published by lord Hardwicke in 1778, 4to, entitled “State Papers, from 1501 to 1726.” This noble editor informs us that the treatise on Grand Jurors, the Vindication of the last Parliament of Charles II. above-mentioned, and the famous last Speech of king William, were all found in the hand-writing of lord Somers. The “Somers Tracts,” so frequently referred to, are a collection of scarce pieces in four sets of four volumes each, 4to, published by Cogan from pamphlets chiefly collected by lord Somers. His lordship left a large and well-chosen library of books, and many curious Mss. Of this collection Whiston, the bookseller, gives the following account " Sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, married one of his sisters the other was married to

In 1653 he embraced the Popish religion; and, going to Paris in 1654, published, according to custom, a discourse upon the motives of his conversion, which he dedicated to cardinal Mazarine. He went afterwards to Rome, where he made himself known to Alexander VII, by a Latin letter addressed to that pope, in which he inveighed against the envious Protestants, as he called them. Upon his return from Rome, he came over to England; and afterwards published, in 1664, a relation of his voyage hither, which brought him into trouble and disgrace; for, having taken some unwarrantable liberties with the character of a nation with which France at that time thought it policy to be on good terms, he was stripped of his title of “Historiographer of France,” which had been given him by the king, and sent for some time into banishment. His book also was discountenanced and discredited, by a tract published against it in the city of Paris; while Sprat, afterwards bishop of Rochester, refuted its absurdities in “Observations on M. de Sorbiere’s Voyage into England,” 1665, 12mo. This work was reprinted with an English edition of Sorbiere’s voyage, and a life of him in 1709, 8vo. Voltaire has also been very severe upon this work: “I would not,” says he, “imitate the late Mr. Sorbiere, who, having stayed three months in England, without knowing any thing either of its manners or of its language, thought fit to print a relation, which proved but a dull scurrilous satire upon a nation he knew nothing of.”

Cardinal Rospigliosi being likely to succeed Alexander VII. in the papal chair, Sorbiere made a second journey to Rome. He was known to the cardinal when he was at Rome before, and having published a collection of poems in his praise, fancied that promotion must follow. Rospigliosi was made pope, and took the name of Clement IX.; but Sorbiere was disappointed; for, though the pope gave him good words, yet he gave him nothing more, except a small sum to defray the charges of his journey. Sorbiere is said to have been one of those who could not be content, and was therefore never happy. He was continually complaining of the injustice and cruelty of fortune; and yet his finances were always decent, and he lived in tolerable plenty. Louis XIV,. cardinal Mazarine, and pope Alexander VII. had been benefactors to him; and many were of opinion, that he had as much as he deserved. He could not help bemoaning himself even to Clement IX. who contenting himself, as we have observed, with doing him some little honours, without paying any regard to his fortune, is said to have received this complaint from him, “Most holy father, you give ruffles to a man who is without a shirt.”

Though his name is so well known in the literary world, yet it is not owing to any productions of his own, but rather to the connections he sought, and the correspondences he held with men of learning. He was not the author of any considerable work, although there are more than twenty publications of his of the smaller kind. Some have been mentioned in the course of this memoir, and there are others as, “Lettres & Discours sur diverses matieres curieuses,” Paris, 1660, 4to; “Discours sur la Comete,” written upon Gassendi’s principles against comets being portents, 1665; “Discours sur la transfusion de sang d‘un animal clans le corps d’un homme,” written at Rome; “Discours sceptiqne sur le passage dn chyle, & sur le mouvement du cceur,” a production of Gassendi, but published by Sorbiere in his own name. He published in 1669 at Paris, “Epistolueillustrintn & eruditorum virorum;” among which are some of Clement IXth’s letters to him, while that pope was vet cardinal. This publication was thought improper, and imputed to vanity. He translated some of our English authors into French: as More’s Utopia, some of Hobbes’s works, and part of Camden’s Britannia. He corresponded with Hobbes; and a story has been circulated of his management in this correspondence, which is not much to his credit. Hobbes used to write to Sorbiere on philosophical subjects; and, those letters being sent by him to Gassendi, seemed so worthy of notice to that great man, that he set himself to write proper answers to them. Gassendi’s answers were sent by Sorbiere as his own to Hobbes, who thought himself happy in the correspondence of so profound a philosopher: but at length the artifice being discovered, Sorbiere was disgraced. Other minute performances of Sorbiere are omitted as being of no consequence at all. There is a “Sorberiana,” which is as good as many other of the “Ana;”' that is, good for very little.

As to the fellowships, they were granted to those only among the Socii who had not forty livres, of Paris money, per annum, either from benefices or paternal inheritance; and when they became possessed of that income, they ceased to be fellows. A fellowship was worth about five sous and a half per week, and was held ten years. At the end of seven years all who held them were strictly examined, and if any one appeared incapable of teaching, preaching, or being useful to the public in some oilier way, he was deprived of his t<-!! /wship. Yet, as the founder was far from wishing to exclude the rich from his college, but, on the contrary, sought to inspire them with a taste for learning, and to revive a knowledge of the sciences among the clergy, he admitted associates, who were not fellows, “Socii uon Bursales.” These were subject to the same examinations and exercises as the Socii, with this only difference, that they paid fn - e sols and a half weekly to the honse, a sum eqnal to that which the fellows received. All the Socii bore and still bear the title of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House and Society of Sorbonne,” whereas the Hospites have only the appellation of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House of Sorbonne.” Their founder ordered that every thing should be managed and regulated by the Socii, and that there should be neither superior nor principal among them. Accord'ngly he forbade the doctors to treat the bachelors as pupils, or the bachelors to treat the doctors as masters, whence the ancient Sorbonists used to say, “We do not live together as doctors and bachelors, nor as masters and pupils; but we live as associates and equals.” In consequence of this equality, no monk of whatever order, has at any time been admitted “Socius of Sorbonne;” and from the beginning of the seventeenth century, whoever is received into the society takes an oath on the gospels, ' That he has no intention of entering any society or secular congregation, the members of which live in common under the direction of one superior, and that if after being admitted into the society of Sorbonne, he should change his mind, and enter any such other community, he will acknowledge himself from that time, and by this single art, to have forfeited all privileges of the society, as well active as passive, and that he will neither do nor undertake any thing contrary to the present regulation.“Robert de Sorbonne permitted the doctors and bachelors to take poor scholars, whom he wished to receive benefit from his house; and great numbers of these poor scholars proved very eminent men. The first professors in the Sorbonne were William de Saint Amour, Odon de Douai, Gerard de Rheims, Laurence the Englishman, Gerard ^'Abbeville, &c. They taught theology gratis, according to the founder’s intention; and from 1253, to the revolution, there have been always six professors at least, who gave lectures on the different branches of that science gratis, even before the divinity professorships were established. Fellowships were given to the poor professors, that is, to those whose incomes did not amount to forty livres; but it appears from the registers of the Sorbonne, that the first professors above mentioned, were very rich, consequently they were not fellows. Robert de Sorbonne ordered that there should always be some doctors in his college who applied particularly to the study of morality and casuistry; whence the Sorbonne has been consulted on such points ever since his time from all parts of the kingdom. He appointed different offices for the government of his college. The first is that of the Proviseur, who was always chosen from among the most eminent persons. Next to him is the Fn‘ciu’, chosen from the Socii bachelors, who presided in the assemblies of the society, at the Robertine acts, at the reading of the Holy Scriptures, at meals, and at the Sorboniques, or acts of the licentiates, for which he fixed the day; he also made two public speeches, one at the first, the other at the last of these. The keys of the gate were delivered up to him every night, and he was the first person to sign all the acts. The other offices are those of” Senieur, Conscripteur, Procureurs, Professors, Librarian, &c.“There is every reason to believe that the Sorbonne, from its foundation, contained thirty-six apartments, and it was doubtless in conformity to this first plan that no more were added when cardinal Richelieu rebuilt it in the present magnificent style. One, however, was afterwards added, making thirty-seven, constantly occupied by as many doctors and bachelors. After Robert de Sorbonne had founded his divinity college, he obtained a confirmation of it from the pope, and it was authorized by letters patent from St. Louis, uho had before given him, or exchanged with him, some houses necessary for that establishment in 1256, and 1258. He then devoted himself to the promotion of learning and piety in his college, and with success, for it soon produced such excellent scholars as spread its fame throughout Europe. Legacies and donations now flowed in from every quarter, which enabled the Sorbonists to study at their ease. The founder had aLvays a particular partiality for those who were poor, for although his society contained some very rich doctors, as appears from the registers and other monumeiHs remaining in the archives of the Sorbonne, yet his establishment had the poor principally in view, the greatest part of its revenues being appropriated to their studies and maintenance. He would even have his college called” the House of the Poor,“which gave rise to the form used by the Sorbonne bachelors, when they appear as respondents, or maintain theses in quality of Antique; and hence also we read on many Mss. that they belong to the” Pauvrcs Matures de Sorbonne.“The founder, not satisfied with providing sufficient revenues for his college, took great pains to establish a library. From the ancient catalogue of the Sorbonne library drawn up in 1289 and 1290, it appears to have consisted at that time of above a thousand volumes; but the collection increased so fast, that a new catalogue became necessary two years after, i. e. in 1292, and again in 1338, at which time the Sorbonne library was perhaps the finest in France. All the books of whatever value were chained to the shelves, and accurately ranged according to their subjects, beginning with grammar, the belles lettres, &c. The catalogues are made in the same manner, and the price of each book is marked in them. These Mss. are still in the house. Robert de Sorbonne (very different from other founders, who begin by laying down rules, and then make it their whole care to enforce the observance of them,) did not attempt to settle any statutes till he had governed his college above eighteen years, and then prescribed only such customs as he had before established, and of which the utility and wisdom were confirmed to him by long experience. Hence it is that no attempt towards reformation or change has ever been made in the Sorbonne; all proceeds according to the ancient methods and rules, and the experience of five centuries has proved that the constitution of that house is well adapted to its purposes, and none of the French colleges since founded have supported themselves in so much regularity and splendour. Robert de Sorbonne having firmly established his society for theological studies, added to it a college for polite literature and philosophy. For this purpose he. bought of William de Cambrai, canon of S. Jean de Maurienne, a house near the Sorbonne, and there founded the college tie Culvi, in 1271. This college, which was also called” the little Sorbonne,“became very celebrated by the great men xvho were educated there, and subsisted till 1636, when it was demolished by cardinal Richelieu’s order, and the chapel of the Sorbocne huilt upon the same spot. The cardinal had, however, engaged to erect another, which should belong equally to the house, and be contiguous to it; but his death put a stop to this plan: and to fulfil his promise in some degree, the family of Richelieu united the college du Plessis to the Sorbonne in 1648. Robert de Sorbonne had been canon of Paris from 1258, and became so celebrated as to be frequently consulted even by princes, and chosen for their arbiter on some important occasions.' He bequeathed all his property, which was very considerable, to the society of Sorbonne, and died at Paris, August 15, 1274, aged seventy-three, leaving several works in Latin. The principal are, a treatise on” Conscience,“another on” Confession,“and” The Way to Paradise,“all which are printed in the” Bibl. Patrum." He wrote also other things, which remain in ms. in the library. The house and society of Sorbonne is one of the four parts of the faculty of theology at Paris, but has its peculiar revenues, statutes, assemblies, and prerogatives.

, a contemporary of the preceding, but more connected with this country, was born at Cordova, and educated among the Dominicans of Salamanca. Having distinguished himself in the duties of the cloister, and made an eqiujl progress in learning, especially divinity and the sacred languages, he was called to court, and was successively confessor to the king of Spain, and to Charles V. of Germany, who employed him to write against the Lutherans. When Philip of Spain married our queen Mary, Soto was one of those Spanish divines who attended him to England, and settled at Oxford, where he was professor of divinity, and sometimes read a Hebrew lecture, as Wood supposes, for Dr. Bruerne, the Hebrew professor. This occurred in 1556; and, the year before, Soto had been incorpora; ed D. D. in this university. After the death of queen Mary, he was called to the council of Trent, where be died in April 1563. He published “Institutiones Chris, tiana?,” 1548, and some other works of the controversial kind against John Brentius, or Brent. Dodd says he was a zealous assertor of church discipline, as appears by a letter which he wrote to pope Pius IV. in his last sickness, in which he insists that the residence of bishops should be declared dejure divino.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

After remaining at Congham about a year, he was admitted of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to the law as a profession. This, however, he appears to have studied rather in a general way, as far as respected the laws, customs, and constitution of his country, and at the same time cultivated polite literature and antiquities. When almost of age, he returned to Norfolk, and married Eleanor, the daughter of John Le Strange, a gentleman of an ancient family in the same county. He now employed himself in rural and domestic affairs, studying also, at intervals, the constitution and antiquities of his country; and having some property, either paternal or acquired by his marriage, he was enabled to add to it by certain purchases, particularly of the lease of Blackburgh and Wrongey abbies in Norfolk. Besides a family of his own, he had the guardianship of sir Hamon Le Strange, Kis brother-in-law, and during his minority, resided at Hunstanton, the seat of sir Hamon. The first fruit of his studies, said to have been begun when very young, was a Latin treatise on coats of arms, entitled “Aspilogia,” in which he displays a considerable fund of curious information; and he frequently employed himself in making transcripts of several foundation-charters of the monasteries of Norfolk and Suffolk. Having been admitted a member of the original society of antiquaries, he became acquainted with those celebrated lovers of that science, Camden, sir Robert Cotton, and others, whose conversation improved his knowledge, and decided his taste for pursuits similar to what had engaged their attention. In 1594 he is thought to have written “A Discourse concerning the Coin of this kingdom,” chiefly with a view to prove the immense treasures which had been drawn from England, in consequence of the usurpations of the pope.

About the time that he disposed of the unsold copies of his “Glossary,” sir William Dugdale acquainted sir Henry Spelman, that many learned men were desirous to see the second part published, and requested of him to gratify the world with the work entire. Upon this, he shewed sir William the second part, and also the improvements which he had made in the first; but told him, at the same time, the discouragement he had met with in publishing the first part. Upon his death, all his papers came into the hands of sir John Spelman, his eldest son; a gentleman, who had abilities sufficient to complete what his father had begun, if death had not prevented him. After the restoration of Charles II. archbishop Sheldon and chancellor Hyde inquired of sir William Dugdale, what became of the second part, and whether it was ever finished; and, upon his answering in the affirmative, expressed a desire that it might be printed. Accordingly it was published by sir William in 1664; but, as Gibson says, “the latter part in comparison of the other is jejune and scanty; and everyone must see, that it is little more than a collection, out of which he intended to compose such discourses, as he has all along given us in the first part, under the words of the greatest import and usefulness.” It was surmised, for it never was proved, that because sir William Dugdale had the publishing of the second part, he inserted many things of his own, which were not in sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly some passages, which tend to the enlargement of the prerogative, in opposition to the liberties of the subject. This- is noticed by Mr. Atwood, in his “Jus Anglorum ab antique” and the authenticity of it is vindicated, and some curious particulars are related concerning it, by Dr. Brady, in his “Animadversions on Jani Anglorum f'acies nova,” Bishop Gibson also assures us, that the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian library in sir Henry’s own hand, and exactly agrees with the printed book; and particularly under the word “Parlamentum,” and those other passages, upon which the controversy was raised. So far then as the copy goes, for it ends at the word “Riota,” it is a certain testimony, that sir William Dugdale did no more than mark it for the printer, and transcribe here and there a loose paper; and, though the rest of the copy was lost before it carne to the Oxford library, on which account there is not the same authority for the Glossary’s being genuine of the letter R; yet it is not likely, that sir William had any more share in these last letters of the alphabet, than he had in any of the rest. There was a third edition in 1687, illustrated with commentaries, and much enlarged. In 1627, sir Henry compiled a history of the civil affairs of the kingdom, from the conquest to Magna Charta, taken from the best historians, and generally in their own words. This was printed by Wilkins at the end of his edition of the Saxon laws. His next great work was his “Collection of the Councils, Decrees, Laws, and Constitutions of the English church from 1066 to 1531.” In this he was particularly encouraged by the archbishops Abbot, Laud, and especially Usher. The deceased bishop Andrews had suggested this scheme to Dr. Matthew Wren, who had made some progress, but desisted when he heard that sir Henry Spelman was engaged in the same design. Archbishop Abbot lived to see some part of the copy, and greatly approved of it. He branched his undertaking into three parts, assigning an entire volume to each division: I. “From the first plantation of Christianity to the coming in of the Conqueror in 1066.” 2. “From the Norman conquest to the casting off the pope’s supremacy, and the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII.” 3. “The History of the Reformed English Church, from Henry VIII. to his own time.” The volume, which contained the first of these heads, was published in 1639, about two years befoiv death, with his own annotations upon the more difficult places. The second volume of the “Councils,” was put into the hands of sir William Dugdale, by the direction of Sheldon and Hyde. Sir William made considerable additions to it ont of the archbishop’s registers and the Cottonian library; and it was published in 1664, but with abundance of faults, occasioned by the negligence of either the copier, or corrector, or both. His revival of Saxon literature was of great importance to the study of antiquities. He had found the excellent use oi" that language in the whole course of his studies, and much lamented the neglect of it both at home and abroad; which was so very general, that he did not then know one man in the world, who perfectly understood it. This induced him to found a Saxon lecture in the university of Cambridge, allowing lOl. per annum to Mr. Abraham Wheelocke, presenting him to the vicarage of Middleton in the county of Norfolk, and giving him likewise the profits of the impropriate rectory of the same church; both which were intended by him to be settled in perpetuity as an endowment of that lecture: but sir Henry and his eldest son dying in the compass of two years, the civil wars breaking forth, and their estate being sequestered, the family became incapable of accomplishing his design.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

1747. Of this work of acknowledged taste and learning“, Mr. Gray has been thought to speak too contemptuously in his Letters. His chief objection is, that the author has illustrated his subject from the Roman, and not from the Greek poets; that is, that he has not performed what he never undertook; nay, what he expressly did not undertake. A third edition appeared in folio in 1774, and the abridgment of it by N. Tindal has been frequently printed in 8vo. There is a pamphlet with Spence’s name to it in ms. as the author, called” Plain Matter of Fact, or, a short review of the reigns of our Popish Princes since the Reformation; in order to shew what we are to expect if another shouKl happen to reign over us. Part I.“1748, 12mo. He was installed prebendary of the seventh stall at Durham, May 24, 1754; and published in that year” An account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy at Edinburgh,“8vo, which was afterwards prefixed to his poems. The prose pieces which he printed in” The Museum“he collected and published, with some others, in a pamphlet called” Moralities, by sir Harry Beaumont,“1753. Under that name he published,” Crito, or a Dialogue on Beauty,“and” A particular account of the emperor of China’s Gardens, near Pekin, in a letter from F. Attiret, a French missionary now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris;“both in 1752, Hvo, and both reprinted in Dodsley’s” Fugitive Pieces.“He wrote” An Epistle from a Swiss officer to his friend at Rome,“first printed in” The Museum,“and since in the third volume of” Dodsley’s Collection.“The several copies published under his name in the Oxford Verses are preserved by iNichols, in the” Select Collection,“1781. In 175S he published” A Parallel, in the manner of Plutarch, between a most celebrated Man of Florence (Magliabecchi), and one scarce ever heard of in England (Robert Hill, the Hebrew Taylor),“12mo, printed at Strawberry Hill. In the same year he took a tour into Scotland, which is well described in an affectionate letter to Mr. Shenstone, the collection of several letters published by Mr. Hull in 1778. In 17c3 he communicate i to Dr. Wartun several excellent remarks on Virgil, which he had made when he wasbroad, and some few of Mr. Pope’s. West Finchale Priory (the scene of the holy Godric’s miracles and austerities, who, from an itinerant merchant, turned hermit, and wore out three suits of iron cloaths), was now become Mr. Spence’s retreat, being part of his prebendal estate. In 1764 he was well pourtrayed by Mr. James Ridley, in his admirable” Tales of the G nil,“under the name of” Pbesoi Ecnep> (his name rrad backwar l>) iervise of the groves,“and a panegyrical letter from nim to that ingenious moralist, under the same signature, is inserted i-i 4k Lexers of Emi'-eni Persons,” vol. III. p. 139. In 1764 he paid the last kind office to the remains of his friend Mr. Dodsley, who died on a visit to him at Durham. He closed his literary labours with “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil with some other classical observations; by the late Mr. Holdsworth. Published, with several notes and additional remarks, by Mr. Speutv,” 4to. This volume, of which the greater part was printed off in 1767, was published in February 1768; and on the iiOth of August following, Mr. Spence was unfortunately drowned in a caiidl in his garden at Byrieet in Surrey. Being, when the accident inppened, quite alone, it could only be conjectured in what manner it happened but it was generally supposed to have been occasioned by a fit while he was standing near the brink of the water. He was found flat upon his face, at the edge, where the water was too shallow to cover his head, or any part of his body. He was interred at Byfleet church, where is a marble tablet inscribed to his memory. The duke of Newcastle possesses some ms volumes of anecdotes of eminent writers, collected by Mr. Spence, who in his lifetime communicated to Dr. Warton as many of them as related to Pope; and, by permission of the noble owner, Dr. Johnson has made many extracts from them in his “Lives of the English Poets.” These have lately been announced for publication. Mr. Spence’s Explanation of an antique marble at Ciandon place, Surrey, is in “Gent. Mag.” 1772, p. 176 “Mr. Spence’s character,” says a gentleman who bad seen this memoir before it was transplanted into the present work, " is properly delineated and his Polymetis is justl vindicated from the petty criticisms of the; fastidious Gray *. In Dr. Johnson’s masterly preface to Dry den,

vognc, and Mr. ^neiu-e, (if we except well as precept, wherein the true beati­* few Scotch writers) the last who prac- ty of dialogue- writing consists.“Matjsed it. As it has now been laid aside son’s Life of Gray, vol. II. p. 5-0, oi 1 ­somc years, we may hope, for the sake tavo edition. he observes, that ‘we do not always know our own motives.* Shall we then presume to attribute the frigid mention of the truly learned and ingenious Mr. Spenr.e, in the preface to Pope, to a prejudice conceived against him on account of his preference of blank verse to rhyme in his ’ Essay on Mr. Pope’s Odyssey' a work, which for sound criticism, and candid disquisition, is almost without a parallel The judicious Dr. Warton’s seutiiue: > with respect to it may be seen in his admirable” Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope:“and bishop Loath, whose learning and genius are indisputable, expresses himself in the following manner in a note on his twelfth prelection on Hebrew poetry:” Hasc autem vide accurate et scienter explicata a viro doctissimo Josepho Spence in Opere erudito juxta atque eleganti cui titulus Polymetis."

Hume was among the first who endeavoured to depreciate the value of the “Faerie Queene,” by asserting that the perusal of it was rather a task than a pleasure, and challenging any individual to deny this. Pope and lord Somers are two who might have accepted the challenge with hope of success. But in fact Spenser will not lose much if we admit the assertion. That the perusal of the Faerie Queene must be at first a task, and a very irksome one, will be confessed by all who are unacquainted with any English words but what are current. If that difficulty be surmounted, the reader of taste cannot fail to relish the beauties so profusely scattered in this poem. With respect to the objections that have been made to the allegorical plan, it is sufficient to refer to its antiquity; it was one of the earliest vehicles of pleasure blended with instruction, and although modern critics object to a continued allegory, which indeed it is extremely difficult to accomplish without falling into inconsistencies, yet specimens of it, detached personifications, aiming at the sublimity of Spenser, still continue to be among the efforts by which our best writers wish to establish their fame. Perhaps the same remark may be extended to the stanza of Spenser, which critics have censured, and poets, praised by those critics, have imitated. After all it is to the language of Spenser that we must look for the reason why his popularity is less than that of many inferior poets. Spenser, Chaucer, and indeed all the early poets can be relished, not by common readers, but by students, and not separately but as connected with times, characters, and manners, the illustration of which demands the skill and industry of the antiquary.

, an Italian scholar of great eminence in the sixteenth century, was born at Padua April 12, 1500, of noble parents. After finishing his studies at Bologna, under the celebrated Pomponatius, he returned to Padua, and took a doctor’s degree in philosophy and medicine. He also was made professor of logic, and afterwards of philosophy in general; but soon after he had obtained the chair of philosophy, he was so diffident of his acquirements that he returned to Padua for farther improvement under his old master, and did not return to hi% professorship until after the death of Pomponatius. In 1528, however, the death of his father obliged him to resign his office, and employ his time on domestic affairs. Yet these, a marriage which he now contracted, the lawsuits which he had to carry on, and some honourable employments he was engaged in by^the government, did not prevent him from cultivating his literary talents with such success, that there were few men in his time who could be compared with him in point of learning, eloquence, and taste. In 1560 he was deputed to go to Rome by the duke of Urbino, under the pontificate of Pius IV. and there obtained the esteem of the learned of that metropolis, and received marks of high favour from the pope and his nephew Charles Borromeo, who invited him to those literary assemblies in his palace, which were called “Vatican nights.” On his departure, after four years residence, the pope gave him the title and decorations of a knight. When he returned home he was equally honoured by the dukes of Urbino and Ferrara, but certain lawsuits, arising from his family affairs, induced him to remove again to Rome, about the end of 1573, and he did not return until five years after, when he took up his final residence at Padua. He had flattering invitations to quit his native city from various princes, but a private life had now more charms for him. He died June 12, 1588, having completed his eighty- eighth year. His funeral was performed with every circumstance of respect and magnificence. His works form no less than 5 vols. 4to, elegantly printed at Venice in 1740; but there had been editions of individual parts printed and reprinted often in his life-time. His range of study was extensive. He was equally conversant in Greek and Latin, sacred and profane literature, and displayed on every subject which employed his pen, great learning and judgment. Among his works, are dialogues on morals, the belles lettres, rhetoric, poetry and history. He wrote also both serious and burlesque poetry. His prose style is among the best of his age, and has fewer faults than arc to be found among the Italian writers o! the sixteenth century. He wrote a tragedy, “Canace et Macareus,” which had its admirers and its critics, and occasioned a controversy on its merits.

Beam, tie was made by him master of the requests at Navarre. In the mean time, he read with much eagerness the controversial works of Beiiarmine and Perron; and these made such an impression on him, that, after the example of his brother John, he embraced the popish religion, at Paris in 1505. In 1600, he went to Rome, where he took priest’s orders in 1606, and tiiat year returned to Paris; but some time after went again to Rome, and was employed in an official capacity by pope Paul V. who had a great esteem for him. The general respect indeed which he met with in Italy would have determined him to spend the remainder of his days there; but, in 1626, he was recalled into France, and made bishop of Pamiers by Louis XIII. He hesitated at first about accepting this bishopric; but pope Urban Viu. commanding him, he went and entered upon it in 1626. Soon after his installation, the duke of Rohan, who was commander of the protestants, took Pamiers, when Spondanus escaped by a breach in the walls; and the year after, when the town was retaken by the prince of Conde, received letters of congratulation upon his safety from Urban VIII. He quitted Pamiers in 1642, and went toToulonse; where he died May 16, 1643.

, a German painter, was the son of a merchant, and born at Antwerp in 1546. He was brought up under variety of masters, and then went to Rome, where cardinal Farnese took him into his service, and afterwards recommended him to pope Pius V. He was employed at Belvidere, and spent thirty-eight months in drawing the picture of “The Day of Judgment;” which picture is said to be still ovtr that pope’s tomb. While he was working upon it, Vasari told his holiness that “whatever Sprangher did was so much time lost;” yet the pope commanded him to go on. After a great number of pictures done in several parts of Rome, he returned to Germany, and became chief painter to the emperor Maximilian II. and was so much respected by his successor Rodolphus, that he presented him with a gold chain and medal, allowed him a pension, honoured him and his posterity with the title of nobility, lodged him in his own palace, and would not suffer him to paint for any body but himself. After many years continuance in his court, he obtained leave to visit his own country; and accordingly went to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Haerlem, and several other places; and having had the satisfaction of seeing his own works highly admired, and his manner almost universally followed in all those parts, as well as in Germany, he returned to Prague, and died at a good old age, in 1623. Fuseli says that Sprangher may be considered as the head of that series of artists who, disgusted by the exility and minuteness of method then reigning in Germany, imported from the schools of Florence, Venice, and Lombardy, that mixed style which marks all the performances executed for the courts of Prague, Vienna, and Munich, bv himself, John ab Ach, Joseph Heinz, Christopher Schwartz, &c. Colour and breadth excepted, it was a style more conspicuous for Italian blemishes than beauties, and in design, expression, and composition, soon deviated to the most outrageous manner.

royal society, and an apology against More relating unto Henry Sttibbe, physome of their cavils. With- a post- sician at Warwick.“script concerning the quarrel dependtenuate and excuse. The same year, being clerk of the closet to the king, he was made dean of the chapel-royal; and the year afterwards received the last proof of his master’s confidence, by being appointed one of the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs. On the critical day, when the Declaration distinguished the true sons of the church of England, he stood neuter, and permitted it to be read at Westminster, but pressed none to violate his conscience; and, when the bishop of London was brought before them, gave his voice in his favour. Thus far he suffered interest or obedience to carry him; but farther he refused to go. When he found that the powers of the ecclesiastical commission were to be exercised against those who had refused the Declaration, he wrote to the lords, and other commissioners, a formal profession of his unwillingness to exercise that authority any longer, and withdrew himself from them. After they had read his letter, they adjourned for six months, and scarcely ever met afterwards. When king James was frighted away, and a new government was to be settled, Sprat was otxe of those who considered, in a conference, the great question, whether the crown was vacant, and manfully spoke in favour of his old master. He complied, however, with the new establishment, and was left unmolested; but, in 1692, a strange attack was made upon him by one Robert Young and Stephen Blackhead, both men convicted of infamous crimes, and both, when the scheme was laul, prisoners in Newgate. These men drew up an Association, in which they whose names were subscribed, declared their resolution to restore king James; to seize the princess of Orange, dead or alive; and to be ready with thirty thousand men to meet kingJam.es when he should land. To this they put the name of Sancroft, Sprat, Marlborough, Salisbury, and others. The copy of Dr. Sprat’s name was obtained by a fictitious request, to which an answer” in his own hand“was desired. His hand was copied so well, that he confessed it might have deceived himself. Blackhead, who had carried the letter, being sent again with a plausible message, was very curious to see the house, and particularly importunate to be let into the study; where, as is supposed, he designed to leave the Association. This, however, was denied him, and he dropt it in a flower-pot in the parlour. Young now laid an information before the privy-council; an.d May 7, 16.92, the bishop was arrested, and kept at a 01 essenger’s, under a strict guard, eleven days. His house was searched, and directions were given that the flower-pots should he inspected. The messengers, however, missed the room in which the paper was left. Blackhead went therefore a third time; and, rinding his paper where he had left it, brought it away. The bishop, having been enlarged, was, on June the 10th and I 3th, examined again before the privy-council, and confronted with his accusers. Young persisted with the most obdurate impudence, against the strongest evidence; but the resolution of Blackhead bydegrees gave way. There remained at last no doubt of the bishop’s innocence, who, with great prudence and diligence, traced the progress, and detected the characters of the two informers, and published an account of his own examination and deliverance; which made such an impression upon him, that he commemorated it through lii'e by a yearly day or thanksgiving. With what hope, or what interest, the villains had contrived an accusation which they must know themselves utterly unable to prove, was never discovered. After this, the bishop passed his days in the quiet exercise of his function. When the cause of Sacheverell put the public in commotion, he honestly appeared among the friends of the church. He lived to his seventyninth year, and died May 20, 1713. Burnet is not very favourable to his memory; but he and Burnet were old rivals. On some public occasion they both preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days an indecent custom: when the preacher touched any favourite topic in a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the like animating hum but he stretched out his hand to the congregation, and cried,” Peacf, peace, I pray you, pet;ci -.“” This,“says Dr. Johnson,” I was told in my youth by an old man, who had been no careless observer of the passages of those times.“”Burnet’s sermon,“says Salmon,” was remarkable for sedition, and Sprat’s for loyalty. Burnet had the thanks of the house; Sprat had no thanks, but a good living from the King; which,“he said,” was of as much value as the thanks of the Commons.“Sprat was much admired in his day for the elegance of his prose style, but that is not to be measured by the standard of modern times. In his political sentiments he changed so often, and so easily accommodated himself to the varied circumstances of the times in which he lived, that the praise of consistency cannot be given. Yet we have seen that on some occasions he stood almost alone in vindication of conduct which did him honour. The works of Sprat, besides his few poems, are, 2.” The History of the Royal Society.“3.” The Life of Cowley.“4.” The Answer to Sorbiere.“5.” The History of the Rye-house Plot.“6.” The relation of his own Examination.“And, 7. a volume of” Sermons.“Dr. Johnson says,” I have heard it observed, with great justness, that every book is of a different kind, and that each has its distinct and characteristical excellence.“In his poems he considered Cowley as a model; and supposed that as he was imitated, perfection was approached. Nothing therefore but Pindaric liberty was to be expected. There is in his few productions no want of such conceits as he thought excellent; and of those our judgment may be settled by the first that appears in his praise of Cromwell, where he says that Cromwell’s” fame, like man, will grow white as it grows old.“According to Spence, in his Anecdotes, Pope used to call Sprat” a worse Cowley."

Among his elementary treatises are, 1. “Embryon relimatum, sive Vocabularium Metricum,” printed first in 1500, and often reprinted as far as 1636. 2. “Parvulorum institutiones,” which appears to have been a collection of grammatical precepts from other publications of Stanbridge, 1521, 4to, &c. 3. “De ordine constructionum.” 4. “Vulgaria Stanbridgiana,” 4to, without date, but reprinted in 1536. 5. “The accidence of mayster Stanbrydge’s owne makynge.” 6. “Accidentia Stanbridge,” 4to, without date, reprinted in 1534. 7. “Gradus comparationum, &c.” 4to, without date, reprinted in 1526, 1527, 1530. 8. “Sum, es, fui, of Stanbridge,” 4to. 9. “Hexasticon,” addressed to Whittington, who had been one of his scholars, and printed in the “Syntaxis” of the latter, 1521. This John Stanbridge had a kinsman (Warton says, a brother), Thomas Stanbridge, a noted schoolmaster of Banbury in Oxfordshire, and the tutor of sir Thomas Pope. He died in 1522.

* The dean, however, thought it upon Pope’s Works, " that so orthodox

He was soon distinguished in this house, as he had been in the lower, by his talent for speaking, which indeed he exerted with more success as a peer than as a commoner. “Lord Chesterfield’s eloquence,” says Dr. Maty, “though the fruit of study and imitation, was in great measure his own. Equal to most of his contemporaries in elegance and perspicuity, perhaps surpassed by some in extensiveness and strength, he could have no competitors in choice of imagery, taste, urbanity, and graceful irony. This turn might originally have arisen from the delicacy of his frame, which, as on one hand it deprived him of the power of working forcibly upon the passions of his hearers, enabled him, on the other, to affect their finer sensations, by nice touches of raillery and humour. His strokes, however poignant, were always nnd r the controui of decency and good sense. He reasoned best when he appeared most witty; and while he gained the affections of his hearers, he turned the laugh on his opposers, and often forced them to join in it. It might, in some degree, be owing to this particular turn that he was not heard with so much applause in the lower, as in the upper house.” Besides being eminent as a speaker in parliament, lord Chesterfield had the credit of being intimate with all the wits of his time. The friendship of Pope in particular, with whom he passed much time at Twickenham, led to the very best society which could then be enjoyed. He was known also to Algarotti, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, when they visited England, and with the latter he formed a friendship, and established a correspondence.

These letters appeared in two vols. 4to. in 1774. His “Miscellaneous works,” also in two vols. 4to. were published in 1777. They consist of papers supplied to Fog’s Journal, to a periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “The World;” all evincing considerable vivacity and skill in writing. Some of his speeches, and other state papers, conclude the first volume. The second contains an ample collection of his Letters, digested into three books. Many of these are written in French, of which language he was, for a foreigner, a very complete master. In 1778 a third volume of “Miscellaneous works” was published, but, as the former had not been eminently successful, this, which appeared in a dubious shape, attracted very little attention, and few copies are supposed to have got abroad. Lord Chesterfield’s entrance into the world, says lord Orford, was announced by his bon-mots, and his closing lips dropped repartees that sparkled with his juvenile fire. Of these witticisms, several are currently repeated in conversation, though on what authority is now uncertain. He appears, by a few specimens, to have possessed considerable talents for the lighter kinds of poetry; some proofs of which appear in the first volume of Dodsley’s collection; but it has been said that he often assumed to himself the credit of verses not his own. As a patron he was distinguished by his steady protection of the elegant, but unfortunate, Hammond; whose poems he published after the author’s death, in 1743, with a preface, but without an avowal of himself as the editor. Encomiums upon him, as the friend of merit and letters, may be found in the writings of this poet, of Pope, and many others; but some of the most elegant compliments to him appear in the third volume of Dodsley’s collection, and proceeded from the pen of Philip Fletcher, dean of Kildare. Applause was his favourite object, and few men have enjoyed it in a greater abundance.

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

Statins, by the general verdict of modern critics, is ranked among those authors, who, by their forced conceits, violent metaphors, swelling epithets, and want of just decorum, have a strong tendency to dazzle, and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity, and nature. Dr. Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” who trarislatec part of the “Thebaid,” has many just remarks on authors of this cast, but allows that Statius has passages of true sublimity, and had undoubtedly invention, ability, and spirit. We must not confound Publius Papinius Statius, as some have done, with another Statius, whose surname was Surculus; or, as Suetonius calls him, Ursulus. This latter was, indeed, a poet, as '.veil as the other; but he lived at Tolosa in Gaul, and taught rhetoric in the reign of Nero.

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

Soon after the accession of George I. he was appointed surveyor of the royal stables at Hampton-court, and governor of the royal company of comedians; and was put into the commission of the peace for Middlesex; and, April 1715, was knighted upon the presenting of an address to Ins majesty by the lieutenancy*. In the first parliament, he was chosen member for Boroughbrigg in Yorkshire; and, after the suppression of the rebellion in the North, was appointed one of the commissioners of the forfeited estates in Scotland. The same year, 1715, he published in 8vo, “An Account of the state of the Roman Catholic Religion throughout the world. Written for the use of pope Innocent XI. and now translated from the Italian. To which is added, a Discourse concerning the state of Religion in England: written in French in the time of king Charles I. and now first translated. With a large dedication to the present pope, giving him a very particular account of the state of religion among protestants, and of several other matters of importance relating to Great Britain,” 12mo. The dedication is supposed to have been written by Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. The same year still, he published “A Letter from the earl of Mar to the king before his majesty’s arrival in England;” and the year following, a second volume of “The Englishman.” In 1718, came out “An Account of his Fish pool:” he had obtained a patent for bringing fish to market alive; for, Steele was a projector, and that was one circumstance, among many, xvhich kept him always poor. In 1719, he published “The Spinster,” a pamphlet; and “A Letter to the earl of Oxford, concerning the bill of peerage,” which bill he opposed in the House of Commons. In 1720, he wrote two pieces against the South Sea scheme; one called “The Crisis of Property,” the other “A Nation a Family.”

, a Danish anatomist, was born at Copenhagen, Jan. 10, 1C38. His father was a Lutheran, and goldsmith to Christian IV. He himself studied under Bartholin, who considered him as one of the best of his pupils. To complete his knowledge he travelled in Germany, Holland, France, and Italy, and in the latter place obtained a pension from Ferdinand II. grand duke of Tuscany. In 1669 he abjured the protestant persuasion, having been nearly converted before by Bossuet at Paris. Christian V. who wished to fix him at Copenhagen, made him professor of anatomy, and gave him permission to exercise the religion he had adopted. But his change produced disagreeable effects in his own conntry, and he returned to Italy: where, after a time, he became an ecclesiastic, and was named by the pope his apostolical vicar for the North, with the title of bishop of Titiopolis in Greece. He became now a missionary in Germany, and died at Swerin in 1686. He made several discoveries in anatomy, and his works that are extant are chiefly on medical subjects, as 1. “EJementorum Myologist; Specimen,” Leyden, 1667, 12mo. 2. “A Treatise on the Anatomy of the Brain,” in Latin, Paris, 1669; and Leyden, 1671. He also wrote a part of the Anatomical Exposition of Winslow, to whom he was great uncle.

In his way to Berwick, where he meant to pay his duty to his mother, and determine on some future plan of life, he visited Dr. Thomas Sharp, archdeacon of Northumberland, then at Durham, who invited him to a residence in his house, and encouraged him to enter into holy orders. Accordingly he was ordained deacon, at Michaelmas 1759, by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, and went immediately to London, where he was to be one of Dr. Sharp’s assistants in the curacy of Duke’s-place, Aldgate. After this, he seems to have fallen into a rambling life, and in 1767, being without any church-employment, went to Italy, and resided for two years in the town of Villa Franca, where he says he read and wrote assiduously. In 1769, after his return to London, he published a translation of Tasso’s Aminta; had afterwards some concern in the “Critical Review,” and wrote a life of Waller the poet, which was prefixed to a new edition of his works. He also translated Bos’s “Antiquities of Greece” in 1771 was editor of the “Universal Magazine” and in 1775 published three sermons, two against luxury and dissipation, and one on universal benevolence. In the same year, appeared his poem entitled “The Poet,” which had some temporary reputation; and soon after the publication of it, he obtained the office of chaplain to his majesty’s ship the Resolution of 74 guns. This he retained for three years, and published “Six Sermons to Seamen;” translated Sabbatier’s “Institutions of the Ancient Nations,” and wrote an “Essay on the writings and genius of Pope,” in answer to Dr. Warton’s work on the same subject.

must be indulged to his education so of his endeavours." Fuller’s Worthies. hard is it for a citizen to write an hisIn 1618, after his decease, a third edition, still in quarto, was published by A. M. or Anthony Muuday (See Munday), a citizen also, and a man of some fame. He had been the pope’s scholar in the seminary at Rome; afterward, returning home, and renouncing the pope and popery, he wrote two books relative to the English priests and papists abroad. This editor made several additions, as he pretended, to the Survey; much of which, he hinted, he had formerly from Stow himself, who, in his lite-time, delivered into his han.ls some of his best collections, and importunately persuaded him to correct what he found amiss, and to proceed in perfecting so worthy a design. He talks of being employed about twelve years revising and enlarging it; and that he had the encouragement of the court of aldermen in the council-chamber, being brought before them by sir Henry Montague, the recorder, afterward lord chief justice of the King’s-bench. But after all, the additions he made were chiefly some inscriptions and epitaphs from the monuments in the parish churches; a continuation of the names of the mayors and sheriffs; and little more, except some transcripts out of Stow’s Summary and Annals, and here and there venturing to correct some errors, as he calls them, in the original, in place of which he has rather substituted his own; for Mr. Stow was too exact and precise to be corrected by one so much inferior to him in literature, and in antiquities, as Munday appears to be.

, a pious and learned bishop of Chester, was born at Hemel-Hempstead in Hertfordshire, in 1633, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, in June 1652, where in 1656 he became fellow and master of arts. After taking orders, he married a relation of Dr. Dolben, bishop of Rochester, and by his interest was made warden of Manchester college in Lancashire. He was aiso in 1670 made prebendary of Leicester St. Margaret in the church of Lincoln; in 1673, dean of St. Asaph, at which time he took his degree of D. D. and was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. In 1683 y ­he was presented to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermanbury, London, and the following year resigned the wardenship of Manchester college. In 1689, he was consecrated bishop of Chester, over which he presided, in constant residence, and with the most anxious cave for its interests, both spiritual and temporal, for eighteen years. He died Feb. 12, 1707, and was interred in his cathedral, where a long Latin inscription records his character, without exaggeration. Besides some occasional sermons, and a charge to his clergy, his works were chiefly levelled at the doctrines of popery, in which controversy, he published, 1. “Discourse concerning the necessity of Reformation, \ respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome,” Lond. 1685, parti. 4to; a second part followed. 2. “Discourse on the Pope’s Supremacy,” in answer to Dr. Godden, ibid. 1.688, 4to. 3. “The people’s right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted,” ibid. 1688, 4to. 4. “The lay-Christian’s obligation to read the Holy Scriptures,” ibid. 1688, 1689, 4to. 5. “Examination” of Bellarmin’s fourteenth note concerning the unhappy end of the church’s enemies," &c. &c.

, a Spanish Jesuit, born at Grenada, Jan. 5, 1548, was a professor of reputation at Alcala, at Salamanca, and at Rome. He was afterwards invited to Coimbra in Portugal, where he became the principal professor of divinity. He is an author of the most voluminous kind: his works extended to twenty -three volumes, in folio; and so extraordinary was his memory, that if any passage was cited from them, he could' immediately go on to the end of the chapter or book. Yet, with all his talents, his examiners had such an indifferent opinion of him, that it was with some difficulty he gained admission into the order of Jesuits. He died at Lisbon, Sept. 25, 1617. By order of pope Paul V. he wrote a book “against the errors of the English sect,” which James I. caused to be publicly burnt at St. Paul’s. “Happy should I be,” said he, “could I seal with my blood the truths I have defended with my pen.” Yet unpopular as this work must have rendered his name in this country, his treatise on law, “Tractatus de Legibus,” was printed in London in 1679, in folio. His works are chiefly on the subjects of metaphysics, morality, and theology; and what seems to recommend them is, that he almost every where relates and explains, with great fidelity and precision, the different sentiments of divines concerning the subjects on which he treats. The Jesuits consider Suarez as the greatest and best scholastic divine their order has produced, and lavish the highest encomiums upon him. He was the principal author of the system of Congruism, which is at bottom only that of Molina, although, perhaps, better adapted to the method and language of the theolorians, and disguised under a less offensive form. Father Noel, a French Jesuit, made an abridgment of the works of this commentator, which was published at Geneva in 173;2, in folio. There is a prolix life of him by AntonyIgnatius Deschamps, printed at Perpignan in 1671, a 4to of 800 pages.

This unhappy affair is said by Lloyd to have contributed 10 shorten his days; but Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, attributes his death to another cause. Lord Oxford informed Oldys, on the authority of dean Chetwood, who said he had it from lord Roscommon, that sir John Suckling, in his way to France, was robbed of a casket of gold and jewels, by his valet, who gave him poison, and besides stuck the blade of a pen-knife into his boot in such a manner, that sir John was disabled from pursuing the villain, and was wounded incurably in the heel. Dr. Warton, in a note to his Essay on Pope, relates the story somewhat differently: “Sir John Suckling was robbed by his valetde-chambre; the moment he discovered it, he clapped on his boots in a passionate hurry, and perceived not a large rusty nail that was concealed at the bottom, which pierced his heel, and brought on a mortification.” He died May 7, 1641, in the thirty-second year of his age. That he was on his way to France, when he met with the occasion of his death, seems to be confirmed by a ludicrous poem, lately re-printed in the “Censura Literaria,” entitled “A Letter sent by sir John Suckling from France, deploring his sad estate and flight: with a discoverie of the plot and conspiracie, intended by him and his adherents against England. Imprinted at London, 1641.” This poem is dated Paris, June 16, 1641, at which time the author probably had not learned that the object of his satire was beyond his reach.

In the mean time the court sent orders to the governors in all the provinces, that the same destruction should be made of the Protestants there as had been at Paris; but many of them nobly refused to execute these orders; and the viscount d'Orthe had the courage to write from Bayonne to Charles IX. that, “he found many good soldiers in his garrison, but not one executioner: and begged him to command their lives in any service that was possible.” Yet the abettors and prime actors in this tragedy at Paris were wonderfully satisfied with themselves, and found much comfort in having been able to do so much for the cause of God and his church. Tavanes, mentioned above, who ran about the streets crying “Let blood! let blood!” being upon his death-bed, made a general confession of the sins of his life; after which his confessor saying to him with an air of astonishment, “Why! you speak not a word of St. Bartholomew;” he replied, “I look upon that as a meritorious action, which ought to atone for all the sins I have ever committed.” This is related by his son, who has written memoirs of him. The king himself must have supposed real merit to have been in it; for, not content with setting his seal and sanction to these detestable butcheries, he is credibly affirmed to have taken the carbine into his own hands, and to have shot at the poor Huguenots as they attempted to escape. The court of Rome did all they could to confirm the Parisians in this horrid notion: for though Pope Pius V. is said to have been so much afflicted at the massacre as to shed tears, yet Gregory XIII. who succeeded him, ordered a public thanksgiving to God for it to be offered at Rome, and sent a legate to congratulate Charles IX. and to exhort him to continue it. Father Daniel contents himself with saying, that the king’s zeal in his terrible punishment of the heretics was commended at Rome; and Baronius affirms the action to have been absolutely necessary. The French writers, however, have spoken of it in the manner it deserves; have represented it as the most wicked and inhuman devastation that ever was committed “an execrable action,” says one of them, Prefixe, “that never had, and I trust God will never have, its like.” Seventy thousand, according to Sully’s Memoirs, was the numberof Protestants massacred, during eight days, throughout the kingdom.

This change of religion in Henry IV. though it seemed to create a present satisfaction, did not secure him from continual plots and troubles and being made upon political motives, it was natural to suppose it not sincere. Thus, Dec. 26, 1594, a scholar, named John Chastel, attempted to assassinate the king, but only wounded him in the mouth; and when he was interrogated concerning the crime, readily answered, “That he came from the college of the Jesuits,” and then accused those fathers of having instigated him to it. The king, who was present at his examination, said with much gaiety, that “he had heard, from the mouths of many persons, that the society never loved him, and he was now convinced of it by his own.” Some writers have related, that this assassination was at* tempted when he was with the fair Gabrieile, his mistress, at the hotel d'Estrees; but Sully, who was with him, says that it was at Paris, in his apartments in the Louvre. This Gabriel le was the favourite mistress of Henry IV. and it is said that the king intended to marry her; but she died in 1599, the year that his marriage with Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX. was declared null and void by the pope’s commissioners, with consent of both parties. He married Mary of Medicis, at Lyons, the year after, and appointed madame de Guercheville, to whom he had made love without success, to be one of her ladies of honour; saying, that “since she was a lady of real honour, she should be in that post with the queen his wife.” Henry, though he was a great monarch, was not always successful in his addresses to the fair; and a noble saying is recorded by many writers of Catharine, sister to the viscount de Rohan, who replied to a declaration of gallantry from this prince, that “she was too poor to be his wife, and of too good a fau.ily to be his mistress.”

He was several times in England on a visit to Pope, after his settlement at the deanery, particularly in 1726 and 1727. On Jan. 28, 1727, died his beloved Stella, in her forty-fourth year, regretted by the dean with such excess of affection as the liveliest sensibility alone could feel, and the most excellent character excite: she had been declining from 1724. Stella was a most amiable woman both in person and mind. Her stature was tall, her hair and eyes black, her complexion fair and delicate, her features regular, soft, and animated, her shape easy and elegant, and her manner feminine, polite, and graceful: there was natural music in her voice, and complacency in her aspect; she abounded with wit, which was always accompanied with good-nature her virtue was founded upon humanity, and her religion upon reason her morals were uniform, but not rigid, and her devotion was habitual, but not ostentatious. “Why the dean did not sooner marry this most excellent person; why he married her at all; why his marriage was so cautiously concealed; and why he was never known to meet her but in the presence of a third person; are enquiries which no man can answer,” says the writer of his life, “without absurdity.”

From the death of Stella his life became much retired^ and the austerity of his temper increased; he could not enjoy his public days; these entertainments were therefore discontinued, and he sometimes avoided the company of his most intimate friends; but in time he grew more desirous of company. In 1732 he complains, in a letter to Mr. Gay, “that he had a large house, and should hardly find one visitor, if he was not able to hire him with a bottle of wine;” and, in another to Mr. Pope, that “he was in danger of dying poor and friendless, even his female friends having forsaken him; which,” as he says, “vexed him most.” These complaints were afterwards repeated in a strain of yet greater sensibility and self-pity: “All my friends have forsaken me:”

, a near relation to the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s, being grandson to Godwin Swift, the dean’s uncle, was in 1739 recommended by Swift to the notice of Pope, as “the most valuable of any in his family.” “He was first,” says the dean, “a student in this university [Dublin], and finished his studies in Oxford, where Dr. King, principal of St. Mary Hall, assured me, that Mr. Swift behaved with reputation and credit: he hath a very good taste for wit, writes agreeable and entertaining verses, and is a perfect master, equally skilled in the best Greek and Roman authors. He hath a true spirit for liberty, and with all these advantages is extremely decent and modest. Mr. Swift is heir to a little paternal estate of our family at Goodrich, in Herefordshire. He is named Deane Swift, because his great grandfather, by the mother’s side, was admiral Deane, who, having been one of the regicides, had the good fortune to save his neck by dying a year or two before the Restoration.” He published, in 1755, “An Essay upon the Life,' Writings, and Character of Dr. Jonathan Swift;” in 1765, the eighth quarto volume of the dean’s works; and, in 1763, two volumes of his “Letters.” Mr. Swift died at Worcester, July 12, 1783: he had long meditated a complete edition of his relation’s works, and had by him many new materials for that purpose.

, a Roman catholic writer, of considerable celebrity in his day, was the son of sir William Talbot, and was born in 1620, of an ancient family in the county of Dublin. He was brother to colonel Richard Talbot, commonly called, about the court of England, “Lying Dick Talbot,” whom James II. created duke of Tyrconnell, and advanced to the lieutenancy of IrelandPeter was received into the society of the Jesuits in Portugal in 1635, and after studying philosophy and divinity, went into holy orders at Rome, whence he returned to Portugal, and afterwards to Antwerp, where he read lectures on moral theology. He was supposed to be the person who, in 1656, reconciled Charles II. then at Cologn, to the popish religion, and Charles is reported to have sent him secretly to Madrid to intimate to the court of Spain his conversion. He was also sent by his superiors to England to promote the interests of the Romish church, which he appears to have attempted in a very singular way, by paying his c ourt to Cromwell, at whose funeral he attended as one of the mourners, and even joined Lambert in opposing general Monk’s declaration for the king. He fled therefore at the restoration, but was enabled to return the year following, when the king married the infanta of Portugal, and he became one of the priests who officiated in her family. His intriguing disposition, however, created feome confusion at court, and he was ordered to depart the kingdom. The Jesuits, too, among whom he had been educated, thought him too busy and factious to be retained in their society, and it is supposed that by their interest pope Clement IX. was prevailed upon to dispense with his vows, and to advance him to the titular archbishopric of Dublin, in 1669. On his return to Ireland he recommenced his services in behalf of the church of Rome, by excommunicating those regulars and seculars of his own persuasion who had signed a testimony of their loyalty to the king. His ambition and turbulence led him also to quarrel with Plunket, the titular primate, a quiet man^ over whom he claimed authority, pretending that the king had appointed him overseer of all the clergy of Ireland; but when this authority was demanded, he never could produce it. In 1670, when lord Berkeley landed as lord lieutenant, Talbot waited upon him, and being courteously received, had afterwards the presumption to appear before the council in his archiepiscopal character, a thing without a precedent since the reformation. He was, however, disniissed without punishment; but when the popish plot was discovered in England in 1678, he was imprisoned in the castle of Dublin, on suspicion of being concerned in it, and died there in 1680. He was a man of talents and learning, but vain, ambitious, and turbulent. Sotwell, Harris, and Dodd have enumerated several of his publications, which, says Dodd, are plausible, and generally in defence of the Jesuits, but some of them are virulent against the English church.

, an Italian poet, whose works were once proscribed by the inquisition, and having become scarce, are therefore accounted valuable, was born at Nola about 1520. He passed a great part of his life attached to the service of don Pedro de Toledo, viceroy of Naples, and don Garcias de Toledo, commander of the gallies in the same kingdom. The period of his death is not precisely known, but he is said to have been judge of Gaieta in 1569; and, as he was then in a very bad state of health, is supposed to have died soon after. He had the reputation of a very good poet, and his productions, as far as they are now known, are these 1. “II Vendeminiatore,” the Vintager, a poem in which he described in too free a manner, the licence of the inhabitants in the vicinity of Nola, at the time of the vintages; Naples, 1534; Venice, 1549, 4to. On this account all his poems were put into the Index expurgatorius. Mortified at this rigour, he addressed an ode to the pope, asserting, that, though his poem was licentious, his life had not been so; remonstrating against the inclusion of his innocent productions in the sentence with the culpable piece; and declaring that he was employed in a poem upon the tears of St. Peter, whose merits, he trusted, would atone for his offence, and procure him deserved honour. In consequence of this ode, when the next edition of the Index expurgatorius appeared, not only the innoxious poems, but the Vendemmiatore also, were omitted, as if the repentance of the poet had purified his poem! 2. “II Cavallarizzo,” Vicenza, 8vo. 4. Sonnets, Songs, Stanzas, and some Comedies, Lastly, in 1767, professor Ranza published an inedited poem of Tansillo’s, entitled “Balia,” which has been elegantly translated into English by Mr. Roscoe, under the title “The Nurse,” 1798, 4to.

Though writers have left us very much in the dark with regard to the real motives that induced the duke to keep Tasso in confinement, yet, every thing being weighed, it seems highly probable that the affair of a delicate nature, said to have been divulged by his friend, must have related to the princess Leonora, the duke’s sister : and indeed it will be extremely difficult, from any other consideration, to account for the harsh treatment he received from a prince, who had before shown him such peculiar marks of esteem and friendship. However, Tasso himself had undoubtedly secret apprehensions that increased upon him every day, while the continual attacks which were made upon his credit as an author, not a little contributed to heighten his melancholy. At length he resolved to take the first opportunity to fly from his prison, for so he esteemed it, which after about a year’s detention he effected, and retired to Turin, where he endeavoured to remain concealed; but notwithstanding all his precautions, he was soon known, and recommended to the duke of Savoy, who received him into his palace, and showed him every mark of esteem and affection. But Tasso’s apprehensions still continued; he thought that the duke of Savoy would not refuse to give him up to the duke of B'errara, or sacrifice the friendship of that prince to the safety of a private person. Full of these imaginations he set out for Rome, alone and unprovided with necessaries for such a journey. At his arrival there he went directly to his old friend Mauritio Cataneo, who received him in such a manner as entirely to obliterate for some time the remembrance of the fatigue and uneasiness he had undergone. He was not only welcomed by Cataneo, but the whole city of Rome seemed to rejoice at the presence of so extraordinary a person. He was visited by princes, cardinals, prelates, and by all the learned in general. But the desire of revisiting his native country, and seeing his sister Cornelia, soon made him uneasy in this situation. He left his friend Mauritio Cataneo one evening, without giving him notice; and, beginning his journey on foot, arrived by night at the mountains of Veletri, where he took up his lodging with some shepherds: the next morning, disguising himself in the habit of one of these people, he continued his way, and in four days time reached Gaieta, almost spent with fatigue: here he embarked on board a vessel bound for Sorrento, at which place he arrived in safety the next day. He entered the city and went directly to his sister’s house: she was a widow, and the two sons she had by her husband being at that time absent, Tasso found her with only some of hr i <-n:ale attendants. He advanced towards her, without discovering himself, and pretending he came with news from her brother, gave her a letter which he had prepared for that purpose. This letter informed her that her brother’s life was in great danger, and that he begged her to make use of all the interest her tenderness might suggest to her, in order to procure letters of recommendation from some powerful person, to avert the threatened misfortune. For further particulars of the affair, she was referred to the messenger who brought her this intelligence.The lady, terrified at the news, earnestly entreated him to give her a detail of her brother’s misfortune. The feigned messenger then gave her so interesting an account of the pretended story, that, unable to contain her affliction, she fainted away. Tasso was sensibly touched at this convincing proof of his sister’s affection, and repented that he had gone so far: he began to comfort her, and, removing her fears by little and little, at last discovered himself to her. Her joy at seeing a brother whom she tenderly loved, was inexpressible after- the first salutations were over, she was very desirous to know the occasion of his disguising himself in that manner. Tasso acquainted her with his reasons, and, at the same time, giving her to understand, that he would willingly remain with her unknown to the world, Cornelia, who desired nothing further than to acquiesce in his pleasure, sent for her children and some of her nearest relations, whom she thought might be entrusted with the secret. They agreed that Tasso should pass for a relation of theirs, who came from Bergamo to Naples upon his private business, and from thence had come to Sorrento to pay them a visit. After this precaution, Tasso took up his residence at his sister’s house, where he lived for some time in tranquillity, entertaining himself with his two nephews Antonio and Alessandro Sersale, children of great hopes. The princess Leonora of Este, however, who was acquainted with the place of his retreat, invited him to return to Ferrara, which he did in company with Gualingo, ambassador from the duke to the pope. Concerning the motive of Tasso’s return to Ferrara, some authors think that, weary of living in obscurity, he had resolved to throw himself upon the duke’s generosity. This opinion seems indeed drawn from Tasso’s own words in a letter written by him to the duke of Urbino, in which he declares, “that he had endeavoured to make his peace with the duke, and had for that purpose written severally to him, f the duchess of Ferrara, the duchess of Urbino, and the princess Leonora; yet never received any answer but from the last, who assured him it was not in her power to render him any service.” We see here that Tasso acknowledges himself the receipt of a letter from the princess; and in regard to what he says to be the purport of it, it is highly reasonable to suppose, that he would be very cautious of divulging the real contents to the duke of Urbino, when his affairs with that lady were so delicately circumstanced. This apparent care to conceal the nature of his correspondence with her, seems to corroborate the former suppositions of his uncommon attachment to her; and when all circumstances are considered, it seems more than probable that he returned to Ferrara at the particular injunction of Leonora.

At the approach of winter they returned to Naples, when the prince of Palena again pressed Tasso to reside with him; but Tasso, who judged it highly unadvisable to comply with his request, resolved to retire to Rome, and wait there the issue of his law-suit. He lived in that city about a year in high esteem with pope Sixtus V; when, being invited to Florence by Ferdinando, grand duke of Tuscany, who had been cardinal at Rome when Tasso first resided there, and who now employed the pope’s interest to procure a visit from him, he could not withstand such solicitations, but went to Florence, where he met with a most gracious reception. Yet not all the caresses he received at the duke’s court, nor all the promises of that prince, could overcome his love for his native country, or lessen the ardent desire he had to lead a retired and independent life. He therefore took his leave of the grand duke, wbo would have loaded him with presents; but Tasso, as usual, could be prevailed upon to accept of no more than was necessary for his present occasions. He returned to Naples by the way of Rome, and the old prince of Conca dying about this time, the young count of Palena prevailed upon Tasso, by the mediation of Manso, to accept of an apartment in his palace. Here he applied himself to a correction of his Jerusalem, or rather to compose a new work entitled “Jerusalem Conquered,” which he had begun during his first residence at Naples. The prince of Conca, being jealous lest any one should deprive him of the poet and poem, caused him to he so narrowly watched that Tasso observed it, and being displeased at such a proceeding, left the prince’s palace, and retired to his friend Manso’s, where he lived master of himself and his actions; yet he still continued upon good terms with the prince of Conca.

Manso’s garden commanded a full prospefct of the sea. Tasso and his friend being one day in a summer-house with Scipio Belprato, Manso’s brother-in-law, observing the waves agitated with a furious storm, Beiprato said, “that he was astonished at the rashness and folly of men who would expose themselves to the rage of so merciless an element, where such numbers had suffered shipwreck.” “And yet,” said Tasso, “we every night go without fear to bed, where so many die every hour. Beheve me, death will rind us in all parts, and those places that appear the least exposed are not always the most secure from his attacks.” While Tasso lived with his friend Manso, cardinal Hippolito Aldobrandirii succeeded to the papacy by the name of Clement VIII. His two nephews, Cynthio and Pietro Aldobrandini, were created cardinals: the first, afterwards called the cardinal of St. George, was the eldest, a great patron of science, and a favourer of learned men: he had known Tasso when he resided last at Rome, and had the greatest esteem for him; and now so earnestly invited him to Rome, that he could not peluse, but once more abandoned his peaceful retreat;it Naples. As in consequence of the confines of the ecclesiastical state being infested with banditti, travellers, for security, used to go together in large companies, Tasso joined himself to one of these; but when they came within sight of Mola, a little town near Gaietu, they received intelligence that Sciarru, a famous captain of robbers, was near at hand with a great body of men. Tasso was of opinion, that they should continue their journey, and endeavour to defend themselves, if attacked: however, this advice was overruled, and they threw themselves for safety into Mola, in which place they remained for some time in a manner blocked up by Sciarra. But this outlaw, hearing that Tasso was one of the company, sent a message to assure him that he might pass in safety, and offere.i himself to conduct him wherever he pleased. Tasso returned him thanks, but declined accepting the offer, not choosing, perhaps, to rely on the word of a person of such character. Sciarra upon this sent a second message, by which he informed Tasso, that, upon his account, he would withdraw his men, and leave the ways open. He accordingly did so, and Tasso, continuing his journey, arrived without any accident at Rome, where he was most graciously welcomed by the two cardinals and the pope himself. Tasso applied himself in a particular manner to cardinal Cynthio, who had been the means of his coming to Rome; yet he neglected not to make his court to cardinal Aldobrandini, and he very frequently conversed with both of them. One day the two cardinals held an assembly of several prelates, to consult, among other things, of some method to put a stop to the license of the pasquinades. One proposed that Pasquin’s statue should be broken to pieces and cast into the river. But Tasso' s opinion being asked, he said, “it would be much more prudent to let it remain where it was; for otherwise from the fragments of the statue would be bred an infinite number of frogs on the banks of the Tyber, that would never cease to croak day and night.” The pope, to whom cardinal Aldobrandini related what had passed, interrogated Tasso upon the subject. “It is true, holy father,” said he, “such was my opinion; and I shall add moreover, that if your holiness would silence Pasquin, the only way is to put such people into employments as may give no occasion to any libels or disaffected discourse.”

At last, being again disgusted with the life of a courtier, he obtained permission to retire to Naples to prosecute his law-suit. At his arrival there, he took up his lodging in the convent of St. Severin, with the fathers of St. Benedict. Thus was Tasso once more in a state of tranquillity and retirement, so highly agreeable to his disposition; when cardinal Cynthio again found means to recall him, by prevailing on the pope to give him the honour of being solemnly crowned with laurel in the capitol. Though Tasso himself was not in the least desirous of such pomp, yet he yielded to the persuasion of others, particularly of his dear friend Manso, to whom he protested that he went merely at his earnest desire, not with any expectation of the promised triumph, which he had a secret presage would never be. He was greatly affected at parting from Manso, and took his leave of him as of one he should never see again. In his way he passed by Mount Cassino, to pay his devotion to the relics of St, Benedict, for whom he had a particular veneration. He spent the festival of Christmas in that monastery, and thence repaired to Rome, where he arrived in the beginning of 1595. He was met at the entrance of that city by many prelates and persons of distinction, and was afterward introduced, by the two cardinals, Cynthio and Pietro, to the presence of the pope, who was pleased to tell him, “that his merit would add as much honour to the laurel he was going to receive, as that crown had formerly given to those on whom it had hitherto been bestowed.”

Nothing was now thought of but the approaching solemnity: orders were given to decorate not only the pope’s palace and the capitol, but all the principal streets through which the procession was to pass. Yet Tasso appeared little moved with these preparations, which he said would be in vain: and being shewn a sonnet composed upon tha occasion by his relation, Hercole Tasso, he answered by the following verse of Seneca:

Though he had only completed his fifty- first year, his studies and misfortunes had brought on a premature old age. Being persuaded that his end was approaching, he resolved to spend the few days he had yet to live in the monastery of St. Onuphrius. He was carried thither in cardinal Cynthio’s coach, and received with the utmost tenderness by the prior and brethren of that order. His distemper was now so far increased, and his strength so exhausted, that all kind of medicine proved ineffectual. On the 10th of April he was taken with a violent fever, occasioned perhaps by having eat some milk, a kind of aliment he was particularly fond of. His life now seemed in imminent danger: the most famous physicians in Rome tried all their art, but in vain, to relieve him: he grew worse and worse every day. Rinaldini, the pope’s physician, and Tasso’s intimate friend, having informed him that his last hour was near at hand, Tasso embraced him tenderly, and with a composed countenance returned him thanks for his tidings; then looking up to Heaven, he “acknowledged the goodness of God, who was at last pleased to bring him safe into port after so long a storm.” From that time his mind seemed entirely disentangled from earthly affairs: he received the sacrament in the chapel of the monastery, being conducted thither by the brethren. When he was brought back to his chamber, he was asked where he wished to be interred; he answered, in the church of St. Onuphrius: and being desired to leave some memorial of his will in writing, and to dictate himself the epitaph that should be engraven on his tomb, he smiled and said, “that in regard to the first, he had little worldly goods to leave, and as to the second, a plain stone would suffice to cover him.” He left cardinal Cynthio his heir, and desired that his own picture might be given to Giovanni Baptista Manso, which had been drawn by his direction. At length having attained the fourteenth day of his illness, he received the extreme unction. Cardinal Cynthio hearing that he was at the last extremity, came- to visit him, and brought him the pope’s benediction, a grace never conferred in this manner but on cardinals and persons of the first distinction. Tasso acknowledged this honour with great devotion and humility, and said, “that this was the crown he came to receive at Rome.” The cardinal having asked him “if he had any thing further to desire,” he replied, “the only favour he had now to beg of him, was, that he would collect together the copies of all his works (particularly his” Jerusalem Delivered,“which he esteemed most imperfect) and commit them to the flames: this task, he confessed, might be found something difficult, as those pieces were dispersed abroad in so many different places, but yet he trusted it would not be found altogether impracticable.” He was so earnest in his request, that the cardinal, unwilling to discompose him by a refusal, gave him such a doubtful answer as led him to believe that his desire would be complied with. Tasso then requesting to be left alone, the cardinal took his farewel of him with tears in his eyes, leaving with him his confessor and some of the brethren of the monastery. In this condition he continued all night, and till the middle of the next day, the 25th of April, being the festival of St. Mark; when, finding himself fainting, he embraced his crucifix, uttering these words: In manus tuas, Domine but expired before he could finish the sentence. Tasso was tall and well-shaped, his complexion fair, fyut rather pale through sickness and study; the hair of his head was of a chesnut colour, but that of his beard somewhat lighter, thick and bushy; his forehead square and high, his head large, and the tore part of it, towards the end of his life, altogether bald; his eye-brows were dark; his eyes full, piercing, and of a clear blue; his nose large, his lips thin, his teeth well set and white; his neck well proportioned; his breast full; his shoulders broad, and all his limbs more sinewy than fleshy. His voice was strong, clear, and solemn; he spoke with deliberation, and generally reiterated his last words: he seldom laughed, and never to excess. He was very expert in the exercises of the body. In his oratory, he used little action, and rather pleased by the beauty and force of his expressions, than by the graces of gesture and utterance, that compose so great a part of elocution. Such was the exterior of Tasso: as to his mental qualities, he appears to have been a great genius, and a soul elevated above the common rank of mankind. It is said of him, that there never was a scholar more humble, a wit more devout, or a man more amiable in society. Never satisfied with, his works, even when they rendered his name famous throughout the world; always satisfied with his condition, even when he wanted every thing; entirely relying on Providence and his friends; without malevolence towards his greatest enemies; only wishing for riches that he might be serviceable to others, and making a scruple to receive or keep auy thing himself that was not absolutely necessary. So blameless and regular a life was ended by a peaceable death, which carried him off in 1595, in the fifty-second year of his age.

, a lady of considerable talents, took the habit of a religious at the monastery of Montfleuri, near Grenoble. Becoming tired of that mode of life, she went to Paris, where she lived in the world, and solicited a bull from the pope to authorize this unusual proceeding. With cardinal Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. she was on good terms, and he gave her no molestation. Her house at Paris was the general meeting of all who had wit, or wished to have the credit of it. The gaiety of her society was, however, disturbed by some unfortunate adventures particularly by the death of La Fresnaye, a counsellor of state, who was killed in her apartment. Mademoiselle Tencin was prosecuted as concerned in the murder, and was confined first in the Chatelet, and afterwards in the Bastille; but was at length discharged as innocent. She died at Paris in 1749, being then a good deal advanced in years. She appeared as an author in several instances, and produced, 1. “Le Siege de Calais,” a romance of considerable delicacy and genius, though not without faults. 2. “Memoires de Comminges,” 12mo, another novel which has had its admirers. A nephew of M. de Tencin, M. Pont-de-veste, had some share in both these productions. 3. “Les Malheurs de l'Amour,” a novel, in which some have supposed that she describes a part of her own history. 4. “Anecdotes of Edward II.” a posthumous work, published in 1776. All her works were published at Paris in 1786, in seven small volumes, 12 mo.

, a miscellaneous writer and critic, was born at Sittingbourn in Kent, in which place his father was an eminent attorney. His grammatical learning he received at Isleworth in Middlesex, and afterwards applied himself to the law; but, finding that pursuit tedious and irksome, he quitted it for the profession of poetry. According to the editors of the “Biog. Dramatica,” his first appearance in this profession was not much to his credit. One Henry Mestayer, a watchmaker, had written a play, which he submitted to the correction of Theobald, who formed it into a tragedy, and procured it to be acted and printed as his own. This compelled the watchmaker to publish his own performance in 1716, with a dedication to Theobald. The editors of the Biog. Dram, who appear to have examined both pieces, observe that Theobald, although unmercifully ridiculed by Pope, never appeared so despicable as throughout this transaction. “We had seen him before only in the light of a puny critic:” But here the fell attorney prowls for prey.“Theobald engaged in a paper called” The Censor,“published in Mist’s” Weekly Journal;“and, by delivering his opinion with too little reserve concerning some eminent wits, exposed himself to their resentment. Upon the publication of Pope’s Homer, he praised it in the most extravagant terms; but afterwards thought proper to retract his opinion, and abused the very performance he had before affected to admire. Pope at first made \ lie*, a.d tin* Jhto of his” Dunciad;“but afterwards thought proper to disrobe him of that dignity, and bestow it upon another. In 1726, Theobald published apiece in 8vo, called” Shakespear Restored:“of this, it is said, he was so vain as to aver, in one of Mist’s” Journals,“ct that to expose any errors in it was impracticable;” and, in another, *; that whatever care might for the future be taken, either by Mr. Pope, or any other assistants, he would give above five hundred emendations, that would escape them all.“During two whole years, while Pope was preparing his edition, he published advertisements, requesting assistance, and promising satisfaction to any who would contribute to its greater perfection. But this restorer, who was at that time soliciting favours of him by letters, wholly concealed that he had any such design till after its publication; which he owned in the” Daily Journal of Nov. 26, 1728.“Theobald was not only thus obnoxious to the resentment of Pope, but we find him waging war with Mr. Dennis, who treated him with more roughness, though with less satire. Theobald, in” The Censor,“N 33, calls Dennis by the name of Furius. Dennis, to resent this, in his remarks on Pope’s Homer, thus mentions him:” There is a notorious idiot, one Hight Whacum; who, from an under-spur-leather to the law, is become an understrapper to the playhouse, who has lately burlesqued the Metamorphoses of Ovid, by a vile translation, &c. This fellow is concerned in an impertinent paper called the Censor." Such was the language of Dennis, when inflamed by contradiction.

In 1720, Theobild introduced upon the stage a tragedy called “The Double Falshood;” the greatest part of which he asserted was Shakspeare’s. Pope insinuated to the town, that it was all, or certainly the greatest part, written, not by Shakspeare, but Theobald himself; and quotes this line,

which he calls a marvellous line of Theobald, “unless,” says he, “the play, called * The Double Falshood,' be (as he would have it thought) Shakspeare’s; but, whether this is his or not, he proves Shakspeare to have written as bad.” The argument* which Theobald uses to prove the play to be Shakspeare’s, are indeed, far from satisfactory, and it was afterwards Dr. Farmer’s opinion that it was Shirley’s. It was, however, vindicated by Theobald, who was attacked again in “The Art of Sinking in Poetry.” Theobald endeavoured to prove false criticisms, want of understanding Shakspeare’s manner, and perverse cavilling in Pope: he justified himself and the great dramatic poet, and attempted to prove the tragedy in question to be in reality Shakspeare’s, and not unworthy of him. Theobald, besides his edition of Shakspeare’s plays, in which he collated the ancient copies, and corrected with great pains and ingenuity many faults, was the author of several dramatic pieces. Not less than twenty, printed or acted, are enumerated in the “Biographia Dramatica.” He was also concerned in various translations, and at his death in Sept. 1744, had made some progress in an edition of Beaumont and Fletcher.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was a monk of Tarsus. He was ordained bishop by pope Vitalianus, and sent into England in the year 668, to govern the church of Canterbury. Being kindly received by king Egbert, he restored the faith, and promoted, or rather founded, a form of ecclesiastical discipline, which he is said to have exercised with great rigour, placing and displacing several bishops in an arbitrary manner, particularly those belonging to the diocese of York. He died Sept. 19, 690, aged eighty -eight. He is said to have imported into England a great many valuable Mss. Godwin mentions a Homer, extant in his time, of exquisite beauty. He is also the supposed founder of the school called Greeklade, whence arose the university of Oxford, but this is somewhat fabulous. What remains of his form of discipline, called the “Penitential,” and of his other works, has been collected by James Petit, and printed at Paris, 1677, 2 vols. 4to, with learned notes.

, librarian to the king of France, and a celebrated writer of travels, was born at Paris in 1621, and had scarcely gone through his academical studies, when he discovered a strong passion for visiting foreign countries. At first he saw only part of Europe; but accumulated very particular informations and memoirs from those who had travelled over other parts of the globe, and out of those composed his “Voyages and Travels.” He laid down, among other things, some rules, together with the invention of an instrument, for the better finding out of the longitude, and the declination of the needle; which, some have thought, constitute the most valuable part of his works. Thevenot was likewise a great collector of scarce books in all sciences, especially in philosophy, mathematics, and history; and in this he may be said to have spent his whole life. When he iiad the care of the king’s library, though it is one of the best furnished in Europe, he found two thousand volumes wanting in it, which he had in his own. Besides printed books, he brought a great many manuscripts in French, English, Spanish, Italian, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Turkish, and Persic. The marbles presented to him by Mr. Nointel, at his return from his embassy to Constantinople, upon which there are bas-reliefs and inscriptions of almost two thousand years old, may be reckoned among the curiosities of his library. He spent most of his time among his books, without aiming at any post of figure or profit; he had, however, two honourable employments; for he assisted at a conclave held after the death of pope Innocent X. and was the French king’s envoy at Genoa. He was attacked with a slow fever in 1692, and died October the same year at the age of seventy-one. According to the account given, he managed himself very improperly in this illness: for he diminished his v strength by abstinence, while he should have increased it with hearty food and strong wines, which was yet the more necessary Oh account of his great age. “7'hevenot’s Travels into the Levant, &c.” were published in English, in 1687, folio; they had been published in French, at Paris, 1663, folio. He wrote also “L'Art de nager,” the Art of Swimming, 12 mo, 1696.

“The History of Perukes” is one of his most known and curious books. He designed it againat those ecclesiastics who were not contented to wear their own hair. The year 1621) (says he) is the epoch of perukes in France. He maintains, that no clergyman wore a peruke before 1660, and pretends that there is no instance of it in antiquity. He observes, that cardinal de Richelieu was the first who wore a calot and that the bishop of Evreux having prefixed to the life of St. Francis de Sales (which he presented to pope Alexander VIII.) a print wherein that saint appeared with a leather cap on, the pope had much ado to accept that book, attended with such an irregularity. M. Thiers exclaims against those ecclesiastics, who powder their perukes, and wear them of a different colour from their own hair. He answers the arguments that may be alledged in favour of the clergy. As for what concerns their beard and their bands, he says, no ecclesiastic wore a band before the middle of last century. There have been many variations about their beard. Sometimes shaving was looked upon as a kind of effeminacy, and a long beard appeared very suitable with the sacerdotal gravity; and sometimes a venerable beard was accounted a piece of pride and stateliness. When cardinal d'Angennes was about to take possession of his bishopric of Mans in 1556, he wanted an express order from the king to be admitted with his long beard, which he could not resolve to cut. M. Thiers acknowledges those variations about the beard; but he maintains that the discipline has been constant and uniform as to perukes; and therefore, he says, they ought to be laid aside, and beseeches the pope and the king to suppress such a novelty. Among his other works are, 2. “Traité des Superstitions qui regardent les Sacremena,” 4 vols. 12mo, a book esteemed agreeable and useful by those of his own communion. 3. “Traité de I'exposiiioii. du Saint Sacrement de PAutel,” 1663, 12mo. Some have esteemed this his best production. Many other articles are enumerated by his biographers, but few of them interesting in this country.

Tbirlby then studied the civil law, in which he lectured while the late sir Edward Walpole was his pupil; but he was a careless tutor, scarcely ever reading lectures. The late learned Dr. Jortin, who was one of his pupils, was very early in life recommended by him to translate some of Eustathius’s notes for the use of “Pope’s Homer,” and complained “that Pope having accepted and approved his. performance, never testitied any curiosity or desire to see him.” The civil law displeasing him, he applied to common law, and had chambers taken for him in the Temple by his friend Andrew Reid, with a view of being entered of that society, and being called to the bar; but of this scheme he likewise grew weary. He came, however, to London, to the bouse of his friend sir Edward Walpole, who procured for him the office of a king’s waiter in the port of London, in May 1741, a sinecure place worth about \00l. per annum. While he was in sir Edward’s house he kept a miscellaneous book of memorables, containing whatever was said or done amiss by sir Edward or any part of his family. The remainder of his days were passed in private lodgings, where he lived in a very retired manner, seeing only a few friends, and indulging occasionally in excessive drinking, being sometimes in a state of intoxication for five or six weeks together; and, as is uual with such men, appeared to be so even when sober; and in his cups he was jealous and quarrelsome* An acquaintance who found him one day in the streets haranguing the crowd, and took him home by gentle violence, was afterwards highly esteemed by Thirlby for not relating the story. He contributed some notes to Theobald’s Shakspeare; and afterwards talked of an edition of his own. Dr. Jortin undertook. to read over that poet, with a view to mark the passages where he had either imitated Greek and Latin writers, or at least had fallen into the same thoughts and expressions. Thirlby, however, dropped his design; but left a Shakspeare, with some abusive remarks on Warburton in the margin of the first volume, and a very few attempts at emendations, and those perhaps all in the first volume. In the other volumes he had only, with great diligence, counted the lines in every page. When this was told to Dr. Jortin, “I have known him,” said he, “amuse himself with still slighter employment: he would write down all the proper names that he could call into his memory.” His mind seems to have been tumultuous and desultory, and he was glad to catch any employment that might produce attention without aqxiety. The copy, such as it was, became the property of sir Edward Walpole, to whom he bequeathed all his books and papers, and who lent it to Dr. Johnson when he was preparing his valuable edition of “Shakspeare” for the press; accordingly the name of Thin by appears in it as a commentator. He died Dec. 19, 1753. One of Dr. Thirlby’s colloquial topics may be quoted, as in it he seems to have drawn his own character, with one of those excuses for which self-conceit is never at a loss. “Sometimes,” said he, “Nature sends into the world a man of powers superior to the rest, of quicker intuition, and wider comprehension; this man has all other men for his enemies, and would not be suffered to live his natural time, but that his excellencies are balanced by his failings. He that, by intellectual exaltation, thus towers above his contemporaries, is drunken, or lazy, or capricious; or, by some defect or other, is hindered from exerting his sovereignty of mind; he is thus kept upon the level, and thus preserved from the destruction which would be the natural consequence of universal hatred.”

, known to the world by the name of Corinna, with which Dryden flattered her, was born in 1675; and, after a life of ill health and various disappointments, died Feb. 3, 17 3O, in her fifty-sixth year, and was buried in the church of St. Bride. Among her other misfortunes, she laboured under the displeasure of Pope, whom she had offended, and who took care to place her in his “Dunciad.” He once paid her a visit, in company with Henry Cromwell, esq. whose letters, by some' accident, fell into her hands, with some of Pope’s answers. As soon as that gentleman died, Curl I found means to wheedle them from her, and immediately committed them to the press; which so enraged Pope, that he never forgave her. Corinna, considered as an author, has very few; claims to notice: she had not so much wit as Mrs. Behn or J Mrs. Manley, nor so happy a gift at intellectual painting; but her poetry was once thought soft and delicate, and her letters sprightly and entertaining. Her poems were published after her death, by Curll; and two volumes of letters (under the title of “Pylades and Corinua,”) which passed between her and a Mr. Gwynnet, who was to have been her husband, but died before matters could be accomplished. In this last publication she gives an account of her own life, which has been abridged in Gibber’s “Lives,” and other collections but which Mr. Malone has proved such a tissue of improbabilities and falsehoods, that a mere reference to it may be thought sufficient

, a learned French divine, was born Aug. 28, 1619, at Aix in Provence, of a good and ancient family, and admitted at the age of fourteen into the congregation of the oratory, where he had been educated. After teaching ethics in his congregation, and philosophy, he was appointed professor of divinity at Saumur, and introduced in his school the method of treating theological subjects according to the scriptures, the fatheri, and councils. Being invited to Paris in 1654, he began to bold conferences of positive theology in the seminary of St. Magloire, according to the method he had adopted it Saumur, and continued them till 166S, at which time his superiors and several eminent prelates persuaded him to give the fruits of his labours to the public. He complied, and afterwards became so celebrated by his works, that pope Innocent XI. endeavoured to draw him to Koine, with an intention of giving him a cardinal’s hat, and making use of his talents; but the king of France replied that so learned a man was necessary in his dominions. The French clergy gave him a pension of Jooo livres, which the poor always shared with him. He was mild, modest, active, agreeable in his manners, and very assiduous in all his pursuits. He died December 25, 1695, aged seventyseven. His principal works are: 1. A large treatise on “Ecclesiastical Discipline,” reprinted 1725, 3 vols. fol. in French; of which he, made a Latin translation, reprinted also in 1706, 3 vols. fol. This work is highly praised by persons in the catholic community. 2. “Theological Dogmas,” 1680, 3 torn. fol. in Latin. 3. “Tracts on the Divine office, 8 vo; on the Feasts, 8vo; on the Fasts, 8 vo; on Truth and Falsehood, 8vo; on Alms, 8vo on Trade and on Usury, 8vo; 4.” Tr. dogmatique des Moyens dont on s’est servi dans tous les terns pour maintenir Tunite de i'Eglise,“1703, 3 vols. 4to. To these may be added,” Directions for studying and teaching philosophy in a Christian manner,“8vo the same” for the profane historians,“8vo; apian of the same kind for grammar or the languages with relation to the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols. 8vo;” A Universal Hebrew Glossary,“printed at the Louvre, 1697, fol.” Dissertations on the Councils,“in Latin, 1667, 1 vol. 4to;” Memoires sur la Grace," 1682, 4to, &c. His Life, written by father Bordes, is prefixed to his Hebrew Glossary.

It was on the banks of the Eden, which runs near Brough, that “his prattling muse was first provoked to numbers,” and where, we may suppose, he wrote most of those smaller pieces which he thought worthy of preservation. In these he frequently addresses an lanthe, who was probably a real mistress. At the usual age he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, and on February 26, 1738, took the degree of master of arts. He afterwards became a fellow of his college, and succeeded to the livings of South Weston and Hampton Poyle, in Oxfordshire. It was probably during his residence on his living that he published “Sickness,” in 1746. The origin of this poem may be found in a note subjoined to the fifth book, but much of it must have been written just before publication, as he pays tribute to the memory of Pope and Swift, who died about that time.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, was educated in Trinity-college, in the university of Cambridge, of which he was fellow. In 1638 he was proctor of that university. In July 1642 he was admitted to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire and, upon the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, in September 1643, he was elected master of Sidney-college in Cambridge, from which, Dr. Walker says, he was kept out “by the oppressions of the times;” but there was also somewhat of court-intrigue in this affair, as related in Walter Pope’s life of bishop Ward. He tells us, that upon the death of the latter, the fellows of the college assembled to choose a new master. “Mr. Seth Ward, with nine of them, gave their suffrages for Mr. Thorndike of Trinity-college; for Mr. Minshull there were eight votes including his own. But while they were at the election, a band of soldiers rushed in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr. Parsons, one of those fellows who voted for Mr. Thorndike, so that the number of suffrages for Mr. Minshull, his own being accounted for one, was equal to those Mr. Thorndike had. Upon which Mr. Minshull was admitted master, the other eight only protesting against it, being ill-advised, for they should have adhered to their votes. Two of them, whereof Mr. Ward was one, went to Oxford, and brought thence a mandamus from the king, commanding Mr. Minshull, and the fellows of Sidney-college, to repair thither, and give an account of their proceedings as to that election. This mandamus, or peremptory summons, was fixed upon the chapel-door by Mr. Linnet, who was afterwards a fellow of Trinity-college, but at that time attended on Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who voted for Mr. Minshull, was also sent to Oxford on his behalf. This gentleman, by the assistance and mediation of my lord of Lindsey, procured an order from the king to confirm Mr. Minshull’s election; but he, not thinking this title sufficient, did corroborate it with the broad seal, to which Mr. Thorndike consented, Mr. Minshull paying him and the rest of the fellows the charges they had been at in the management of that affair,amounting to about an hundred pounds.” This was therefore evidently a matter in which “the oppressions of the times” (which are usually understood to mean those which arose from the usurpation) were not concerned. He was, however, afterwards, to experience the latter also, and was ejected from his living of Barley, which was given to the rev. Nath. Ball of King’s college, Cambridge, who, Calamy informs us, punctually paid a fifth part of the income to Mr. Thorndike. At the restoration he was replaced in this living, but resigned it on being made a prebendary of Westminster. He very much assisted Dr. Walton in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, particularly in marking the variations in the Syriac version of the Old Testament; and wrote several treatises: “A Discourse concerning the primitive Forme of the Government of Churches,” Cambridge, 1641, 8vo; “A Discourse of Religious Assemblies and the Publike Service of God,” Cambridge, 1642, 8vo; “A Discourse of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, with a Review by way of Appendix,” London, 1649, 8vo; “Just Weights and Measures; that is, the present State of Religion weighed in the Balance, and measured by the Standard of the Sanctuary,” London, 1662, 4to; “A Discourse of the Forbearance of the Penalties, which a due Reformation requires,” London, 1670, 8vo; “Origines Ecclesiae, seu de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesise,” Lond. 1670. To these we may add, what is called his famous book, published in 1659, under the title of “An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, in three books, viz. 1. Of the Principles of Christian Truth. 2. Of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the Laws of the Church.” By a letter from chancellor Hyde, in the appendix to Dr. Barwick’s Life, it would appear that this work had given offence, as being unseasonable and injudicious. Hyde says, “Pray tell me, what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor church; and though it might not be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I do not know what impulsion of conscience there could be to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them.” This seems to allude to some opinions he held that were unfavourable to the measures of the court: and we find that there was some difficulty in admitting him into the convocation in 1661, “on account of his speaking much of the Bohemian churches, called Unitas Fratrum.” He was a member of the Savoy conference, and in the little he said completely undeceived the non-conformists, who, from his early publications, had supposed he was of their side. There was also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to the church of Rome, so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency; but that he was a man of great learning, and an able oriental scholar, seems indisputable.

Mr. Thorpe married the daughter of Lawrence Holker, M. D. a physician at Milton near Gravesend; and after her death, 1789, to whom he had been united forty-two years, be married in 1790 Mrs. Holland, a lady who lived with him as housekeeper, and was the widow of an old college acquaintance. Soon after his first marriage, he purchased High-street-house, in Bexley, which after his first wife’s death he quitted fora house on Richmond-green, Surrey, and at last removed to Chippenham in Wiltshire, where he died Aug. 2, 1792, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. He was buried, according to his own desire, in the churchyard of Harden Huish, Wiltshire. Mr. Thorpe, by the report of one who knew him well, “was happy in a retentive memory, and could quote whole pages of hi*; favourite Pope, with the utmost facility. He was courteous,” but not courtly, in his manners hospitable, but not extravagant at his table skilful and curious in his garden intelligent and communicative in his library; social, elegant, and informing in his general conversation, and on antiquarian topics almost an enthusiast."

, son of the rev. Richard Tickell, was born in 1686 at Bridekirk in Cumberland; and in April 1701 became a member of Queen’s college, in Oxford; in 1708 he was made M. A. and two years afterwards was chosen fellow; for which, as he did not comply with the statutes by taking orders, he obtained a dispensation from, the crown. He held his fellowship till 1726, and then vacated it by marrying in that year, at Dublin. Tickell was not one of those scholars who wear away their lives in closets; he entered early into the world, and was long busy in public affairs, in which he was initiated under the patronage of Addison, whose notice he is said to have gained by his verses in praise of “Rosamond.” He produced another piece of the same kind at the appearance of “Cato,” with equal skill, but not equal happiness. When the ministers of queen Anne were negociating with France, Tickell published “The Prospect of Peace,” a poem, of which the tendency was to reclaim the nation from the pride of conquest to the pleasures of tranquillity. Mr. Addison, however he hated the men then in power, suffered his friendship to prevail over the public spirit, and gave in the “Spectator” such praises of Tickell’s poem, that when, after having long wished to peruse it, Dr. Johnson laid hold on it at last, he thought it unequal to the honours which it had received, and found it a piece to be approved rather than admired. But the hope excited by a work of genius, being general and indefinite, is rarely gratified. It was read at that time with so much favour that six editions were sold. At the arrival of king George he sung “The Royal Progress;” which, being inserted in the *' Spectator,“is well known. The poetical incident of most importance in Tickell’s life was his publication of the first book of the” Iliad,“as translated by himself, in apparent opposition to Pope’s” Homer,“of which the first part made its entrance into the world at the same time. Addison declared that the rival versions were both good; but that Tickell’s was the best that ever was made; and with Addison those wits who were his adherents and followers, were certain to concur. Pope does not appear to have been much dismayed;” for,“says he,” I have the town, that is, the mob, on my side.“But he remarks, that it is common for the smaller party to make up in diligence what they want in numbers;” he “appeals to the people as his proper judges; and if they are not inclined to condemn him, he is in little care about the high-flyers at Button’s.” Pope did not long think Addison an impartial judge; for he considered him as the writer of TickelPs version. The reasons for his suspicion we shall literally transcribe from Mr. Spence’s collection. “There had been a coldness between Mr. Addison and me for some time; and we had not been in company together for a good while, any where but at Button’s coffee-house, where I used to see him almost every day. On his meeting me there, one day in particular, he took me aside, and said he should be glad to dine with me at such a tavern, if 1 stayed till those people were gone (Budgell and Philips). We went accordingly; and after dinner Mr. Addison said * that he had wanted for some time to talk with me; that his friend Tickell had formerly, whilst at Oxford, translated the first book of the Iliad; that he designed to print it, and had desired him to look it over; that he must therefore beg that I would not desire him to look over my first book, because, if he did, it would have the air of doubledealing.‘ I assured him that < I did not at all take it ill of Mr. Tickell that he was going to publish his translation; that he certainly had as much right to translate any author as myself; and that publishing both was entering on a fair stage. I then added, that I would not desire him to look over my first book of the ’ Iliad,' because he had looked over Mr. Tickeli’s; but could wish to have the benefit of his observations on my second, which I had then finished, and which Mr. Tickell had not touched upon.‘ Accordingly I sent him the second book the next morning; and Mr. Addison a few days after returned it, with very high commendations. Soon after it was generally known that Mr. Tickell was publishing the first book of the ’ Iliad,‘ I met Dr. Young in the street; and, upon our falling into that subject, the doctor expressed a great deal of surprise at Tickell’ s having had such a translation so long by him. He said, that c it was inconceivable to him, and that there must be some mistake in the matter; that each used to communicate to the other whatever verses they wrote, even to the least things; that Tickell could not have been busied in so long a work there without his knowing something of the matter; and that he had never heard a single word of it till on this occasion.' This surprise of Dr. Young, together with what Steele had said against Tickell in relation to this affair, makes it highly probable that there was some underhand dealing in that business; and indeed Tickelt himself, who is a very fair worthy man, has since in a manner as good as owned it to me. [When it was introduced into a conversation between Mr. Tickell and Mr. Pope by a third person, Tickell did not deny it; which, considering his honour and zeal for his departed friend, was the same as owning it.]” Upon these suspicions, with which Dr. Warburton hints that other circumstances concurred, Pope always, in his “Art of Sinking,” quotes this book as the work of Addison. (See Pope, vol. XXV. p. 168.) When the Hanover succession was disputed, Tickeli gave what assistance his pen would supply. His “Letter to Avignon” stands high among party-poems; it expresses contempt without coarseness, and superiority without insolence. It had the success which it deserved, being five times printed. He was now intimately united to Mr. Addison, who, when he went into Ireland as secretary to the lord Sunderland, took him thither, and employed him in public business; and, when (1717) afterwards he rose to be secretary of state, made him under-secretary. ' Their friendship seems to have continued without abatement; for when Addison died, he left him the charge of publishing his works, with a solemn recommendation to the patronage of Craggs. To these works he prefixed an elegy on the author, which could owe none of its beauties to the assistance which might be suspected to have strengthened or embellished his earlier compositions; but neither he not Addison ever produced nobler lines than are contained in the third and fourth paragraphs, nor is a more sublime or more elegant funeral poem to be found in the whole compass of English literature. He was afterwards (in June 1724) made secretary to the lords justices of Ireland, a place of great honour; in which he continued till 1740, when he died April 23, at Bath. To Tickell cannot be refused a high place among the minor poets; nor should it be forgotten that he was one of the contributors to the “Spectator.” With respect to his personal character, he is said to have been a man of gay conversation, at least a temperate lover of wine and company, and in his domestic relations without censure.

The same year, 1666, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and in 1668 preached the sermon at the consecration of Wilkins to the bishopric of Chester. He was related to Wiikins, by having, Feb. 23, 1664, married his daughterin-law, Elizabeth French, who was niece to Oliver Cromwell; for she was the daughter of Dr. Peter French, canon of Christ church in Oxford, by Robina, sister to Cromwell, which Robina was re- married, about 1656, to Dr. Wilkins, then warden of Wad bam college. In 1670, he was made a prebendary of Canterbury; and, in 1672, advanced to the deanery of that church: he had some ti ue before been preferred to a prebend in the church of St. Paul. He had now been some years chaplain to the king, who is yet supposed, by Burnet and others, to have had no kindness for him; his zeal against popery was too great for him to be much of a favourite at court. When a declaration for liberty of conscience was published in 1672, with a view to indulge the papists, the bishops were alarmed, and directed Uieir clergy to preach against popery; the king complained to archbishop Sheldon of this, as done on purpose to inflame the people, and alienate them from himstU and hit government; on which that prelate called together some of the clergy, to consider what he should say to his majesty, if he pressed him any farther on that head. Dr. Tillotson suggested this answer, that, “since his majesty professed the protestant religion, it would be a thing without precedent, that he should forbid his clergy to preach in clefence of it.' 1 In the mean time, he observed great moderation towards the protestant dissenters, and, early in 1668, had joined in a treaty for a comprehension of such as could be brought into the communion of the church; but this attempt proved abortive, as did another made in 1674. In 1675, he published” The Principles of Natural Religion, by bishop Wilkins,“who had died at his house in 1672, and committed all his papers to him, to dispose of as he pleased. The first twelve chapters only having been transcribed by Wilkins for the press, he finished the remainder out of the bishop’s papers, and wrote a preface. In 1630, he published” The Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy, by Dr. Barrow," who dying in 1677, left all his manuscripts to the care of Dr. Tillotson. He had the year before converted Charles earl of Shrewsbury, afterwards created a duke by king William, to whom he was secretary of state, from popery to the protestant religion.

In 1724, he published in monthly numbers, “Antiquities sacred and profane, being a Dissertation on the excellency of the history of the Hebrews above that of any other nation,” &c. a translation from Calmet. He also began a history of Essex, of which he published a small part, in two quarto numbers, proposing to complete it in three quarto volumes, at one guinea each; but left this undertaking, in 1726, for the translation of Rapin’s “History of England,” which has served to perpetuate his name, and was indeed a work of great utility, and success. This translation, originally published in 1726, 8vo, and dedicated to Thomas lord Howard baron of Effingham, was reprinted in weekly numbers, in 1732 and 1733, 2 vols. folio; the first of which was inscribed, in a manly dedication, to Frederick prince of Wales, who rewarded Mr. Tindal with a gold medal worth forty guineas. The second volume of the 8vo edition had been inscribed to sir Charles Wager, when the translator was chaplain on board the Torbay in the Bay of Revel in the Gulph of Finland. Vol. IV. is dedicated to the same, from the same place, 1727. Vol. VI. from Great Waltham, 1728, to the English factors at Lisbon, where the translator officiated as chaplain five months in the absence of Mr. Sims. The “Continuation” was likewise published in weekly numbers, which began in 1744, and was completed March 25, 1747, which is the date of the dedication to the late duke of Cumberland. When the “History” was published, Mr. Tindal was “Vicar of Great Waltham.” In the “Continuation” he is called “Rector of Alverstoke, and chaplain to the royal hospital at Greenwich.” This last was printed in two volumes, but is accompanied with a recommendation to bind it in three; vol. III. to contain the reign and medals of king William; vol. IV. the reign of queen Anne; and vol. V the i\ ign of king George I. with the medals of queen Anne and king George; a summary of the History of England, and the index. A second edition of the “Continuation” appeared in 1751; and anew edition of the whole, in 1757, 21 vols. 8vo. Both in the Translation and Continuation he was materially assisted by Mr. Morant; and the sale of both so far exceeded the expectations of Messrs. Knapton, the booksellers, that they complimented Tindal with a present of 200l. In 1727, he translated the text printed uith Mr. Morant’s translation of the notes of Mess, de Beausobre and L'Enftmt on St. Matthew’s Gospel. On the discovery of the imposition practised on his uncle, he entered into a controversy with Budgell who had cheated him; and published, among other things, a pamphlet entitled “A Copy of the Will of Dr. Matthew Tindal, with an account of what passed concerning the same between Mrs. Lucy Price, Eustace Budgell, esq. and Mr. Nicholas Tindal,” 1733, 8vo. By this will 2000 guineas, and the ms. of a second volume of “Christianity as old as the Creation,” were bequeathed to Mr. Budgell; and only a small residue to his nephew, whom, by a regular will, he had riot long before appointed his sole heir. The transaction is alluded to in the well-known lines of Pope:

, Earl of Worcester, a patron of learning, and one of the few literary ornaments of England in the fifteenth century, was born at Everton, or Eversten, in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Baliol college, Oxford. He was son of the lord Tibetot, or Tiptoft, and Powys, and was created a viscount and earl of Worcester by king Henry VI. and appointed lord deputy of Ireland. By Edward IV. he was made knight of the garter, and constituted justice of North Wales for life. Dugdale says, he was soon after made constable of the Tower for life, and twice treasurer of the king’s exchequer, but other historians say he was twice lord high constable, and twice lord treasurer: the first time, according to Lud. Carbo, at twenty-five years old; and again deputy of Ireland for the duke of Clarence. But whatever dispute there may be about his titles in the state, there is no doubt that he was eminently at the head of literature, and so masterly an orator, that he drew tears from the eyes of pope Pius II. otherwise Æneas Sylvius, a munificent patron of letters. This was on pronouncing an oration before the pontiff when he visited Rome, through a curiosity of seeing the Vatican library, after he had resided at Padua and Venice, and made great purchases of books. He is said to have given Mss. tonne value of 500 marks to duke Humphrey’s library at Oxford. He was about this time on his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which expedition is partly attributed to the suspence of his lordship’s mind between gratitude to king Henry and loyalty to king Edward; but he seems not to have been much influenced by the former, in the opinion of lord Orford. It is certain that Richard Nevil, earl of Warwick, did not ascribe much gratitude to him, nor did Worcester confide much in any merit of that sort; for, absconding during the short restoration of Henry, and being taken concealed in a tree in Wey bridge-forest in Huntingdonshire, he was brought to London, accused of cruelty in his administration of Ireland, particularly towards two infant sons of the earl of D^mon.il, and condemned and beheaded at the Tower in 1470. For his imputed offences, some authors are inclined to allow a foundation, but in these turbulent times malice and political intrigue are supposed to have frequently had a share in fallen greatness. Pennant, however, is of opinion that all his love for the sciences did not protect him from imbibing the temper of the unhappy times he lived in.

He seems now to have quitted politics, and to have betaken himself, in a great measure, to learned and theological inquiries; for, in 1718, he published a work of about one hundred and fifty pages in 8vo, with this long title, “Nazarenus or Jewish, Gentile, or Mahometan Christianity containing the history of the ancient Gospel of Barnabas, and the modern Gospel of the Mahometans, attributed to the same apostle, this last Gospel being now first made known among Christians. Also, the original plan of Christianity occasionally explained in the Nazarenes, whereby divers controversies about this divine (but highly perverted) institution may be happily terminated. With the relation of an Irish manuscript of the four Gospels, as likewise a summary of the ancient Irish Christianity, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester.” We make no observation upon this work: the reader knows enough of Toland to conclude that it was not written with any friendly view to revelation. He published the same year “The Destiny of Rome; or, the speedy and final destruction of the Pope,” &c.

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1532, at Cordova, and appointed professor of philosophy in the university of Salamanca at the early age of fifteen, which is not remarkable if, according to Dominic Soto, who was his master, he was a “monster of genius.” Having afterwards entered the Jesuits’ order, he was sent to Rome, where he taught theology and philosophy with reputation, and philosophised after the genuine manner of the Peripatetic school. Paul V. chose father Tolet for his preacher, and he held the same office under the succeeding pontiffs, with that of theologian in ordinary, besides being entrusted with several important commissions. Pope Gregory XIII. appointed him judge and censor of his own works, and Clement VIIL raised him to the cardinalate in 1594, being the first Jesuit who held that dignity. He is said to have been a lover of justice and equity, and laboured with great zeal and success to reconcile Henry IV. with the court of Rome. He died in that city in 1596, aged sixty-four. Henry IV. out of gratitude, ordered a solemn service to be performed for him at Paris and at Rouen. This learned cardinal left several works, the principal are “Commentaries on St. John,” Lyons, 1614, fol.; “On St. Luke,” Rome, 1600, folio “On St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Rome, 1602, 4to “A Summary of cases of conscience, or instruction for priests,” Paris, 1619, 4to, translated into French, 4to, and a great number of other treatises.

, an Italian prelate and biographer, was born at Padua, Nov. 17, 1597, of a noble family, originally of Lucca. He was instructed in Greek, Latin, and logic, by the learned divine and lawyer, Benedetti, of Legnano, and afterwards entered the congregation of the regular canons of St. George, in Alga, where he studied philosophy and theology, and received the degree of doctor in the latter faculty at Padua, in 1619. He would then have made profession, but the rules of the congregation not permitting it, he employed himself in the composition of his various works. At length his merit advanced him to the first situations in his order; and when he went to Rome, as visitor, he was very favourably received by many persons of eminence, and especially by pope Urban VIII. who would have appointed him to a bishopric in the island of Candy, but at his own request this was exchanged for the see of Citta Nuova, in Istria, to which he was consecrated in 1642. Study and the care of his diocese occupied the whole of his time until his death in 1654, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.

, a learned cardinal, son of Julius Tommasio, or Tomrnasi, duke of Palma, was born at Alicata in Sicily, Sept. 14, 1649. Having from his infancy placed himself under the protection of the holy virgin, he assumed in the greater part of his works the name of Joseph Mariacarus . The same veneration led him to imitate the virtues of his protectress by taking the vow of chastity, and although the eldest son of an illustrious house, he chose to follow the example of an uncle and four sisters, who had renounced the world and all its honours. He entered the society of the Theatins, and became distinguished by his austere piety and mortifications. He did not neglect human learning however, but applied with great diligence to the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages, as well as to philosophy and ancient literature, but his favourite study was theology, church history, and especially the history of the offices and liturgies, valuable editions and collections of which he published from time to time. Cardinal Albani, who had a great regard for him, when he became pope appointed him first, qualificator of the holy office, then consultor of the congregation of the rites, and lastly cardinal in May 18, 1712; but this last honour he did not long enjoy, dying Jan. 1, 17 13, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

, a celebrated Dominican, better known by the name of Turrecremata, was born in 1388, of an illustrious family at Valladolid. He attended the council of Constance in 1417, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1429, held some important offices in his order, and became master of the sacred palace. Pope EugeniusIV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he strenuously supported the court of Rome. He was created cardinal in 1439, did oreat services to his order, and died at Rome, September 26, 14-68, aged eighty. His works are, “Commentaries on Gratian’s Decretal,” Venice, 157S, 5 torn. a treatise “On the Church and the Papal Authority,” Venice, 1562, fol. “Expositio super toto Psalterio,” Rome, 1470, 4to, reprinted in 1472, and at Mentz in 1474 “Medltatione*,” Rome, 1467, often reprinted in the same century, and all now of great rarity. He wrote also various others in Latin, in which, says L'Avocat, he servilely defends the Ultramontane opinions, like a slave to the court of Rome, rather than like an impartial divine, and a bishop. He was unquestionably an excessive bigot, and of a most persecuting spirit. Father Touron has written his life.

, a learned antiquary, was born in 1657, of a noble family at Ciudad in the Frioul. His connexions with Octavio Ferrari, one of the most learned antiquaries of Italy, increased his natural taste for that study. Haying settled at Rome, he gained the esteem and friendship of the cardinals Imperial! and Noris, pope Innocent XII. and Clement XI. which latter gav<- him the bishopric of Adria, in 1702, where he died in 1717. His works are, “Monumenta veteris Antii,” 1700, 4to, much valued; “Taurobolium antiquum,” Lugduni, 1704, reprinted in Sallengre’s “Thesaurus Antiquitatum;” “De annis imperil M. Antonii Aurelii Heliogabali,” &c. 1714, 4to; Dissertations on worms in the human body, and on an eclipse of the Sun, with several other learned pieces in the Italian journals.

an illustrious mathematician and philosopher of Italy, was born at Faenza, in 1608, and was trained in Greek and Latin literature by an uncle who was a monk, Natural inclination led him to cultivate mathematical knowledge, which he pursued some time without a master; but, at about twenty years of age, he went to Rome, where he continued the pursuit of it under father Benedict Castelli. Castelli had been a scholar of the great Galilei, and had been called by pope Urban VIII. to be a professor of mathematics at Rome. Torricelli made so extraordinary a progress under this master, that, having read Galilei’s “Dialogues,” he composed a “Treatise concerning Motion” upon his principles. Castelli, astonished at the performance, carried it and read it to Galilei, who heard it with much pleasure, and conceived a high esteem and friendship for the author. Upon this Castelli proposed to Galilei, that Torricelli should come and live with him; recommending him as the most proper person he could have, since he was the most capable of comprehending those sublime speculations which his own great age, infirmities, and, above all, want of sight, prevented him from giving to the world. Galilei accepted the proposal, and Torricelli the employment, as things of all others the most advantageous to each. Galilei was at Florence, whither Torricelli arrived in 1641, and began to take down what Galilei dictated, to regulate his papers, and to act in every respect according to his directions. But he did not enjoy the advantages of this situation long, for at the end of three months Galilei died. Torricelli was then about returning to Rome. But the grand duke Ferdinand II. engaged him to continue at Florence, making him his own mathematician for the present, and promising him the chair as soon as it should be vacant. Here he applied himself intensely to the study of mathematics, physics, and astronomy, making many improvements and some discoveries. Among others, he greatly improved the art of making microscopes and telescopes; and it is generally acknowledged that he first found out the method of ascertaining the weight of the atmosphere by a proportionate column of quicksilver, the barometer being called from him the Torricellian tube, and Torricellian experiment. In short, great things were expected from him, and great things would probably have been farther performed by him if he had lived; but he died, after a few days illness, in 1647, when he was but just entered the fortieth year of his age.

, an eminent physician, was born in 1640, at Aversa, in the kingdom of Naples, and after studying medicine at Naples, took his doctor’s degree in 1661. Although at this time only in his twenty-first year, he was thought capable of instructing others, and first gave lectures on physiology; he afterwards for several years taught for Thomas Cornelio of Cosenza, whose advanced age prevented him from lecturing as professor of medicine and mathematics. He was also employed to supply the place of Andrew Lamez, another of the professors, and often gave four lectures in a day. At length be succeeded to Cornelio’s professorship of the theory of medicine, which he tilled with increasing reputation. In 1679 he had attained such high fame, that the university of Padua solicited him to accept, a chair there; hut this and many otuer most liberal offers he declined from his attachment to Naples, where he was deservedly appointed p!u >?cian to ti t hospital or' the Annunciata, and first physician to the state. On the death, however, of Malpighi, in 1694, he was induced to change his resolution. Pope Innocent XII. appointed him, in the year following, to succeed Malpighi as his first physician, and having accepted this honourable situation, the pope gave him the principal professorship in the college of Sapienza. After the death of this pontiff in 1700, Tozzi was chosen physician to the conclave, but could not accept it, as he was invited to Spain to attend the king, Charles II. then in a bad state of health. But hearing, when on the road to Madrid, of this king’s death, he returned to Rome to pay his respects to the new pope Clement XI. by whom he was highly esteemed, and who made him great offers if he would remain at Rome. His former attachment however to his native country returning, he proceeded again to Naples, whence the duke of Medina Celi, the viceroy, would not allow him any more to depart, a constraint which was perfectly agreeable to his inclination. He died at Naples, March 11, 1717, in his seventy-seventh year. He published several professional works separately, which, with many additions, were republished in 5 vols. 4to, under the title of “Opera omnia Medica,” Venice, 1711 1728. Tozzi, in his practice, as well as theory, held some singular opinions. He rejected blisters and bloodletting, and did not admit of the existence of plethora. With Van Helmont and Sylvius de Le Boe, he considered acidity as the cause of most diseases, which he endeavoured to obviate by absorbents. His specific in continued fevers, was a precipitate of mercury and in consumptions distilled water of vipers.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was descended of an ancient family that had been in possession of the estate of Blebo, in the county of Fife, from the time of Walter Traill, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, 1385, who, as some say, purchased it; but Keith calls him “a son of the laird of Blebo,” by which it would appear that the estate had been in the family before the archbishop’s time. This prelate had been a canon of St. Andrew’s, and pursued his studies on the continent, where he was honoured with the degree of doctor both of civil and canon law, and when at Rome became referendary to pope Clement VIL This pontiff had a very high opinion of him, and when the see of St. Andrew’s became vacant, preferred him to it by his authority, without any election. So excellent indeed was his character in that comparatively dark age, that even Buchanan speaks in his praise. He built the castle of St. Andrew’s, the scene afterwards of many remarkable transactions in the history of the church of Scotland, and died in 14-01. He was buried in the cathedral, near to the high altar, with an inscription characteristic of the encomiastic genius of the times:

, a learned modern Greek, was born in 1395, in the island of Crete, but took the name of Trapezuntius, or “of Trebisond,” because his family were originally of that city. In his youth he wenj; to Venice, where Francis Barbaro, who had invited him, became his patron. Having been instructed in the Latin language he went to Padua, and afterwards to Vicenza, where in 1420 his patron obtained for him the professorship of the Greek, but he did not remain long in this situation. Finding himself harassed by the intrigues of Guarino, of Verona, who regarded him with sentiments of determined hostility, he gave up his professorship, on which Barbaro recalled him to Venice, where by the interest of this steady friend he was appointed to teach rhetoric, and was enrolled among the citizens of Venice. Barbaro afterwards recommended him to the court of Rome, where we find Trapezuntius in 1442, in the pontificate of Eugenius, teaching the belles lettres and the Aristotelian philosophy. During the same time he was employed in translating several Greek authors into Latin, which induced Nicholas V. the successor of Eugenius, to make him apostolic secretary. These translations he was thought to have executed well, but his reputation declined so far on one occasion as to end in his disgrace. He had received orders from the pope to translate the Almagest of Ptolemy, and to add a commentary, or notes. This he performed in 1451, and the following year was banished from Rome on account of this work. What there was so offensive as to bring upon him this punishment is not known, or at least not clearly expressed by his biographers; but it seems not improbable, that his general temper, which was irritable, had disgusted some of his contemporaries, and that the pope had listened to the insinuations of his enemies. Many errors had been detected in his translations by some of those able scholars whom Nicholas V. had assembled at his court, and this probably rendered Trapezuntius more apt to take offence. It was probably while in this temper, that a disgraceful quarrel took place between him and the celebrated Poggio, in Pompey’s theatre, where the pontifical secretaries were assembled, for the purpose of correcting certain official papers. It was occasioned by some satiric remarks of Poggio, which provoked Trapezuntius to give him a blow on the face. Poggio returned it, and continued the battle until, as we may suppose, the combatants were parted.

Trapezuntius now retired to Naples with his family, and wrote to his old protector Barbara, but found he had been dead about a month. The good offices of Philelphus, however, made his peace with the pope, and Philelphus wrote to him, that he might not only return to Rome by permission, but that the pope even wished it; and he was accordingly reinstated in his former office. He had always defended the peripatetic philosophy against the Platonists with great vehemence and acrimony, and now wrote his “Comparison of Aristotle and Plato,” full of bitter invective. This involved him in a controversy with Gaza, and particularly with Bessarion; the particulars of which we have already given in our account of the latter. His first quarrel with Gaza was owing to their having jointly undertaken the translation of Aristotle, “On Animals,” each claiming to himself the exclusive merit of having overcome the difficulties which arose from the great number of names of animals which are found in that work.

Trapezuntius appears to have met with some reverse after this controversy, for in 1549 he was again at Venice, supplicating the aid of the State, and was in consequence appointed professor of the belles-lettres. While in this office he wrote his Art of Rhetoric, dedicated to the Venetians, which appeared under the title of “Rhetorica Trapezuntina,” but was not printed until 1470, at Venice, in folio, and then only the first book. In 1464 and 1465, he took a voyage to Crete, and another to Constantinople. On his return, being informed that one of his scholars was now pope, under the name of Paul II. he went to Rome, in hopes of being well received; but all he received was an order to be imprisoned in the castle of St. Angelo, where he remained for four months, and was afterwards under confinement in his house. The most probable cause of this treatment was his having returned to Rome without leave; but this is merely conjecture; the pope, however, at length condescended to forgive him, and he remained at Rome much respected. In his latter years his faculties began to decay, and before his death, which took place in 1484, in the ninetieth year of his age, all traces of memory and understanding were gone.

In 1697, he resigned all his employments, and retired to East Hampsted, where he died December 14, 1716, and was buried in East Hampsted church. It was in this retirement that, in 1705, he became acquainted with Pope , who then lived at Binfield. Pope informed Mr. Spence, that he “loved very much to read and talk of the classics in his retirement. We used to take a ride out together three or four days in the week, and at last almost every day.” His letters to Pope breathe'an air of uncommon good temper, good sense, candour, and tranquillity of mind. They evince the scholar, the man of taste, and the gentleman, mixed with the clearest sense of propriety. It appears that sir William was the very first person that urged Pope to undertake a translation of the Iliad. Besides these letters in Pope’s Works, several written by him while he was ambassador in France, are preserved in the paperoffice, and extracts from others have been printed by sir John Dalrymple. His well-written character of air William Dolben, archbishop of York, we have already given in our account of that prelate. We ought not to omit, that he had been a friend and patron to Dryden, who, in the postscript to his Virgil, pays him a very elegant compliment: "If the last Æneid shine among its fellows, it is. owing to the commands of sir William Trumbull, one of the principal secretaries of state, who recommended it as his favourite to my care; and for his sake particularly I have made it mine. For who would confess weariness when he. enjoined a fresh labour? I could not but invoke the assistance of a muse for this last office:

, an eminent canonist, was a native of Sicily, and commonly called Panormitanus, from his being at the head of a Benedictine abbey in Palermo, and afterwards archbishop of that city. He was born probably towards the close of the fourteenth century, some say in 1336, and became one of the most celebrated canonists of his time. He was present at the council of Basil, and had a considerable hand in the proceedings there against pope Eugenius; in recompense for which service he was made a 1 cardinal by Felix V. in 1440. He was afterwards obliged, by the orders of the king of Arragon his master, to return to his archbishopric, where he died of the plague in 1445. There is a complete edition of his works, Venice, 1617, in 9 vols. fol. Dupin mentions as his principal work a treatise on the council of Basil, which was translated into French about the end of the seventeenth century by Dr. Gerbais, of the Sorbonne, and printed at Paris.

When the great question of Henry VIII. 's divorce was agitated, Tti install at first favoured the divorce, and even wrote on that side of the question; but, having reason afterwards to change his sentiments, he espoused the queen’s cause, which many of the Roman catholics then and now consider as the conscientious side. When Henry took the title of Supreme head of the church of England, Tunstall recommended it both in his injunctions, and in a sermon preached at Durham, although he had, in 1531, solemnly protested against that title. He also vindicated the king’s supremacy, in 1538, in a sermon preached before his majesty, upon Palm-sunday, in which he zealously condemned the usurpations of the bishop of Rome. In 1535, he was one of the commissioners for taking the valuation of ecclesiastical benefices, in order to settle the first fruits and tenths. And in 1537, the king commanded him, on account of his learning and judgment, to peruse cardinal Pole’s book of “Ecclesiastical Union,” which occasioned some letters between the cardinal and Tunstall, particularly, a severe one written jointly by him and by Stokesley, bishop of London, against the pope’s supremacy. The year following, he was appointed to confer concerning the reformation, with the ambassadors of the German protestant princes; but matters were not yet ripe for an alteration in this kingdom. In 1541 a new edition of the English Bible was revised by him and Nicholas Heath, bishop of Rochester. Attached as he was to popery, he appears to have taken in many cases a calm and judicious view of the questions agitated in Henry VIII.'s reign, and this led him to concur in some of the measures which were favourable to the reformation; and in that of Edward VI. he yielded obedience to every law which was enacted, and to all the injunctions, at the same time that he protested, in his place in parliament, against the changes in religion, which, Burnet says, he thought he might with a good conscience submit to and obey, though he could not consent to them. In the question of the corporal presence, he adhered to the popish opinion, and wrote on the subject.

From such a man it was naturally expected that, on the accession of queen Elizabeth, there would have been little difficulty in reconciling him to the reformation, and in fact the queen had nominated him as the first in a list of prelates to officiate at the consecration of several new bishops; but notwithstanding this, he refused to take the oath of supremacy, and was consequently deprived of his bishopric in July 1559. At the same time he was committed to the custody of Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and then in possession of Lambeth palace, by whom he was entertained in a very kind, friendly, and respectful manner; and Parker is said to have produced a change in some of his sentiments. It appears that Tunstall told Bernard Gilpin, that in the matter of transubstantiation, pope Innocent III. had done unadvisedly, in making it an article of faith; and he further confessed, that the pope committe<l a great error in the affair of indulgences, and in other things. Tunstall also held the doctrine of justification by faith only.

He began early to write, and when at college, or very soon after, published two pastorals, “Lucy,” inscribed to lord Chesterfield, and “Rosalind,” to earl Grenville. He was also the author of a great deal of vocal poetry, or what he called “sing song,” principally for Vauxhall-gardens; and the satisfactory description ofVauxhall, published in Mr. Nichols’s “History of Lambeth,” was drawriup by him. Having inherited from his father an easy fortune, and from nature an inclination to indulge in learned leisure, he was happily enabled “to see what friends and read what books he pleased.” He was, if any man could be said to be so, most perfectly master of his own time, which he divided at his pleasure between his villa at Ashted, near Epsom, and his apartments in Southampton-street. Indefatigable in reading the newest publications, either of belles lettres or politics, and blest with a retentive memory, he was every where a welcome guest; and, having the agreeable faculty of always repeating the good-natured side of a story, the anecdotes he retailed pretty copiously were rarely found either tedious or disagreeable. In the country he was considered by all the surrounding gentry as a man of profound learning, who had some little peculiarities in his manners, which were amply atoned for by a thousand good qualities both of the head and heart. In London he was in habits of intimacy with many whom the world have agreed to call both great and good. Dr. Johnson loved him, lord Hardwicke esteemed him, and even the mitred Lowth respected him. The literati in general had more regard for him than authors usually have for each other; as Mr. Tyers, though known for many years to have been a writer, was rather considered by them as an amateur than a professor of the art. He was certainly among the number of “gentlemen who wrote with ease;” witness hi* “Rhapsodies” on Pope and Addison; and particularly his Biographical sketches of Johnson, warm from the heart when his friend was scarcely buried, and which have not been exceeded by any one of our great moralist’s biographers. The “Political Conferences” of Mr. Tyers, however, will place him in a higher point of view; in that production, much ingenuity and sound political knowledge are displayed; and the work has received the plaudits it so well deserved, and passed through two editions. One part of Mr. Tyers’s knowledge he would have been happier had he not possessed. He had a turn for the study of medicine, and its operations on the human frame, which gave him somewhat of a propensity to hypochondriasm, and often led from imaginary to real ailments. Hence the least variation of the atmosphere had not unfrequently an effect both on his mind and body. The last year or two of his life were also embittered by the death of several near and dear friends, whose loss made a deep impression on his sensibility, particularly that of a very amiable lady, to whom he was once attached, and that of his only sister, Mrs. Rogers, of Southampton, who died but a few months before him. He died at his house at Ashted, after a lingering illness, Feb. 1, 1787, in his sixty-first year.

The publications of this excellent scholar were, I. “An Epistle to Florio (Mr. Ellis, of Christ-church) at Oxford,” Lond. 1749,4to. 2. “Translations in Verse; Pope’s Messiah; Philips’s Splendid Shilling, in Latin,” and “the eighth Isthmian of Pindar, in English,” 1752, 4to. 3. “Observations and Conjectures on some passages in Sbakspeare,” 1766, 8vo. Mr. Tyrwhitt afterwards communicated many judicious remarks on our national bard to Mr. Steevens and Mr. Reed for the editions of 1778 and 1785. 4 “Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621, from the original ms. in the library of Queen’s college, Oxford, with an appendix, printed at the Clarendon press, 1766, 2 vols. 8vo. 5.” The manner of holding parliaments in England; by Henry Elsynge, Cler. Par. corrected and enlarged from the author’s original ms.“Lond. 1768, 8vo. With a view to raise a spirit of research into ancient classical Mss. his first critical publication in literature was, 6.” Fragmenta duo Plutarchi, 1773, from an Harleian ms. 5612.“He observes himself of this, that it had no great merit, and was only published to stimulate similar inquiries. 7.” The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer,“in 4 vols. 8vo, to which he afterwards added a 5th volume in 1778. There has since been a splendid edition printed at Oxford in 2 vols. 4to. This is certainly the best edited English classic that has ever appeared. 8.” Dissertatio de Babrio, Fabularum jsopicarum scriptore. Inseruntur fabnlse quaedam Æsopese nunquam antehac editae ex cod.ms. Bodl. AcceduntBabriifragmenta. 1776.“The object of this publication, which, though small in sjze, evinced the greatest critical acumen, was to shew, that many of the fables which pass under the name of Æsop, were from another antient writer of the name of Babrius, whose fragments are preserved in Suidas in verse. 9.” Notes on Euripides,“which, in Dr. Harwood’s opinion, form the most valuable part of Musgrave’s edition, 1778. 10.” Poems, supposed to have been written at Bristol in the 15th century, by Rowley and others; with a preface, an account of the Poems, and a Glossary.“This was twice re-published in 1778, with an appendix tending to prove that they were written, not by any antient author, but by Chatterton. This became the subject of warm controversy, which, however, was settled, by 11” A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems called Rowley’s, in reply to the dean of Exeter, Jacob Bryant, esq. and others, by Thomas Tyrwhitt.“Mr. Tyrwhitt’s next work was of a different kind, namely, 12.” Περι Λιθων; de Lapidibus, Poema Orpheo a quibusdam adscriptum, Græce et Latine, ex edit. Jo. Matthæi Gesneri. Recensuit, notasque adjecit, Thomas Tyrwhitt. Simul prodit auctarium dissertationis de Babrio.“Mr. Tyrwhitt in this critical work, refers the poem” on Stones“to the age of Constant! us. He next printed for his private friends, 13.” Conjecturas in Strabonem;“and be also superintended, 14.” Two Dissertations on the Grecian Mythology, and an examination of sir Isaac Newton’s objection to the Chronology of the Olympiads,“by Dr. Musgrave. For this work a very liberal subscription was raised for the doctor’s family, entirely by the exertions of Mr. Tyrwhitt, who had before given up to the widow a bond for several hundred pounds which the Doctor had borrowed of him. His last literary labour was, 15.” A newly discovered Oration of Isaeus against Menecles," which Mr. Tyrwhitt revised in 1785, and enriched with valuable notes, at the request of lord Sandys. These few specimens are from the Medicean Library, and are sufficient to shew Mr. Tyrwhitt’s powers, and to make us regret that his modesty declined the proposal made to him of directing the publication of the second volume of Inscriptions collected by Mr. Chishull, and first laid open to the public by the sale of Dr. Askew’s Mss. How he succeeded in the illustration of such subjects will best appear by that most happy explanation of the Greek inscription on the Corbridge altar, which had baffled the skill of all preceding critics, and will be a lasting proof how critical acumen transcends elaborate conjecture. (See Archseologia, vol. III. p. 324, compared with vol. II. pp. 92, 98.) Nor raust his observations on some other Greek inscriptions in Archseologia, vol. III. p. 230, be forgotten.

, one of those pontiffs who deserve some notice on account of his learning, and attention to the interests of literature, was born at Florence in 1568. His family name was Maffei Barbarini, and his family was of the most ancient and honourable. His father dying while Maffei was an infant, he was entrusted to the care of his uncle Francis, a prothonotary of the Roman court, who sent for him to Rome, and placed him for education in the Jesuits’ college. Here he made great proficiency in classical studies under Tursellino and Benci, and was particularly distinguished for his taste for poetry. But as his uncle intended him for active life, he took him from his beloved studies, and sent him to Pisa, where he might acquire a knowledge of the law, so neoessary then to those who would rise to preferment; and here he applied with such diligence, that in his twentieth year the degree of doctor was deservedly conferred upon him. He then returned to Rome, where his uncle received him with the greatest kindness, and having always treated him as his son, bequeathed him, on his death, which happened soon after, a handsome fortune, as his sole heir. His first patron was cardinal Farnese, and by his interest and his own talents he soon passed through the various gradations of preferment which led, in 1606, to the rank of cardinal, bestowed on him by Paul V. In 1623, while cardinal legate of Bologna, he was elected pope, and took the name of Urban VIII. It is not our intention to detail the historical events in which he was concerned. The errors in his government, which were fewer than might have been expected in one so zealous for the church, arose from two circumstances, his early attachment to the Jesuits, and his nepotism, or family partiality. The latter was so powerful, that he bestowed on his relations red hats and temporal employments with a very liberal hand, and often entrusted the management of affairs to them; and the chief errors of his pontificate were imputed to them by the candid, although he only was blamed by the people at large. As a mjjn of learning, and a patron of learned merr, he has generally been praised; but he was no antiquary, and was justly censured for having destroyed some Roman antiquities, which the barbarous nations had spared when masters of Rome; and this gave occasion to the famous pasquinade, “Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecerunt Barherini.” He wrote many Latin poems in an elegant style, of which an edition was published at Paris in 1642, fol. and a very beautiful one at Oxford, in 1726, 8vo, edited by Joseph Brown, M. A. of Queen’s college, and afterwards provost of that college, with a life and learned notes. Urban’s patronage of learned men was very liberal, and he received those of all nations with equal respect. Among others he extended his patronage to Ciampolo, Cesarini, Herman Hugo, and to Dempster and Barclay, two learned Scotchmen. The latter has celebrated him in his “Argenis” under the name of Ibburranis, the transposition of Barberini. Urban published a remarkable edition of the Romish breviary, aud several bulls and decrees which are in “Cherubini bullarium.” Among the most noticeable is that which abolishes the order of female Jesuits, and certain festivals; and others which relate to image worship; those by which, in compliance with the Jesuits, he condemns Jansenius; and that by which the title of eminence was conferred upon the cardinal-legates, the three ecclesiastical electors, and the grand master of Malta. Among his foundations was the college “De propaganda fide.” In the article of cardinals he was profuse, for he created no less than seventy-four. He died July 29, 1644, and was buried in St. Peter’s, in the stately tomb erected by his own orders by the celebrated Bernini.

Upon his arrival at Paris, he received fresh instructions, and made another and a more successful voyage. He penetrated into the very heart of Egypt and Persia, and there found new treasures, which made ample amends for all his fatigues and perils. He was greatly caressed and rewarded at his return. When Lewis XIV. gave a new form to the academy of inscriptions in 1701, Vaillant was at first made associate; and the year after pensionary, upon the death of M. Charpentier. He died of an apoplexy, October 23, 1706, in his 76th year. He had two wives, and by virtue of a dispensation from the pope had married two sisters, by whom he had several children, and one son. The first of 1m works was published at Paris in 1674, 1. “Numisroata imperatorum RomanoYum praestantiora a Julio Ceesare ad Posthninuni & tyrannos,” 4to. A second edition, with great additions, was printed 1694, in two volumes 4to; and afterwards a tnird. In this last he omitted a great number of medals which he had discovered to be spurious; but neglected to mention what cabinets each medal was to he found in, as he had done in the second edition, which has made the second generally preferred to it. 2. “Seleucidarnm imperium, seu historia regum Syriæ, ad fidem numismatutum accommodata,” Paris, 1681, 4to. This work throws much light upon an obscure part of ancient history, that of the kings of Syria, usually called Seleucides, from Seleucus, one of Alexander’s lieutenants, who founded that kingdom about 300 years before Christ. 3. “Numismata aerea imperatorum. Augustorirm, & Caesarum, in coloniis, rnunicipiis, & urbibus jure Latio donatis, ex omni mo.dula percussa,” Paris, 1688, 2 torn', folio. 4. “Numismata imperatdram & Csesarum, a populis Romanae ditionis GriEce loquentibus ex omni modulo percussa,” Paris, 1698, 4to. A second edition, enlarged with 700 medals, was printed at Amsterdam, 1700, in folio. 5. “Historia JPtolemasorum yEgypti regum ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Amst. 1701, folio. 6. “Nummi antiqui familiarum Romanarum perpetuis interpretationibus illustrati,” Aaist. 1703, 12 tom, foilo. 7. “Arsacidarum impetium, sive regum Parthorum histoiia ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725. 4to. 8. “Achaemenidarum imperium, sive” regum Ponti, Bosphori, Thracioe, & Bithynite historia, ad“fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725, 4to. Besides these works, he was the author of some pieces wftich are printed in. the “Memoirs of the academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.”

He composed several learned and curious works, some of which were published in his life-time, some not till after his death. Among the former are, “De Fulminum significationibus,” Romae, 1517, printed also in the 5th volume of Grsevius’s Roman Antiquities. “Pro Sacerdotum barbis defensio,” Romae, 1531, occasioned by an intention to renew a decree, pretended to be made by an ancient council, and confirmed by pope Alexander III. by which priests were forbidden to wear long beards. “Castigationes Virgilianae iectionis,” printed in Robert Stepbens’s Virgil at Paris, 1532, and since reprinted with the best editions of this poet. “Hieroglyphica, sive de sacris Egyptiorum aliarumque gentium literis Commentariorum libri LVIII.” Basil, 1566. In this he attempts to illustrate, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman symbols, almost every branch of science and art, but is supposed to display more imagination than judgment. Among the works published after his death are, “Diaiogo della volgar lingua, non prima uscito in luce,” 4to; “Antiquitatum Belluuensium libri quatuor,” 8vo; and “Contarenus, sive de literatorum infelicitate libri duo,” 8vo; all printed at Venice in 1620, by the direction and under the care of Alorsio Lollini, bishop of Belluno. The last piece contains a great number of curious anecdotes; and is entitled “Contarenus,” because the first book of it is a dialogue between Caspar Contareno, a Venetian ambassador, and some learned persons at Rome. It has been often printed at Amsterdam, 1647, in 12mo, “cum Cornelii Tollii Appendice,” at Helmstadt, 1695, in 12mo; and at Leipsic, 1707, in 8vo, with two other pieces upon similar subjects, namely, “Alcionius de Exilio,” and “Barberius de miseria Poetarum Grascorum,” and a preface by Joannes Burchardus Menkenius, the editor. Mr. D'Israeli, who has written so well on this interesting subject, considers Valerianus’s as “a meagre performance, iti which the author shews sometimes a predilection for the marvellous, which happens so rarely in human affairs; and he is so unphilosophical, that he places among the misfortunes of literary men, those fatal casualties to which all men are alike liable.” “Yet,” adds Mr. D'Israeli, “evert this small volume has its value; for, although the historian confines his narrative to his own times, he includes a sufficient number of names to convince us that to devote t>nf life to authorship is not the true means of improving our happiness or our fortune.”

, a learned prelate, was born April 7, 1531, at Venice, descended from one of the best families in that city. After having made a rapid progress in his studies, he was admitted among the Savii deir Ordini, a small society of five 5'oung men of the highest rank at Venice, who had access to the college where affairs relative to the republic were debated, that they might be trained up to the science of government. Valerio took a doctor’s degree in divinity and in canon law, became professor of philosophy at Venice, 1558, and having afterwards chosen the ecclesiastical profession, was appointed bishop of Verona, on the resignation of his uncle, cardinal Bernardo Naugerio, 1565. He discharged the duties of the episcopal station with great prudence, and to the edification of his diocese, and formed a friendship with St. Charles Borromeo. Pope Gregory XIII. created him cardinal, 1583, invited him to Rome, and placed him at the head of several congregations. Valerio acquired universal esteem by his skill in public affairs, his learning and virtue. He died at Rome, May 24, 1606, aged 75, and although so advanced, his death is supposed to have been hastened by chagrin, occasioned by the interdiction under which pope Paul V. had laid the republic of Venice. This learned bishop left several excellent works: the most known are, “The Rhetoric of a Preacher,” “De Rhetoric* Ecclesiastica libri tres,” Venice, 1574, 8vo, composed by the advice and according to the plan of his intimate friend, St. Charles Borromeo. This was so popular as to be printed eight times in the author’s life, besides being translated into French, of which there is an edition so late as 1750, 12mo, nor, say the French writers, can the study of it be too strongly recommended to young ecclesiastics. His other works are on subjects of philosophy and history. In 1719, appeared in 4to, a work entitled “De cautione adhibenda in edendis Libris,” which contains a complete list of Augustine Valerio’s other works both printed and ms.

, a man of letters of great emience in the fifteenth century, was born at Rome in 1407. His father was a doctor of civil and common law, and advocate of the apostolic consistory. He was educated at Rome, and learned Greek under Aurispa; but in consequence of the troubles which arose on the death of pope Martin, and the advancement of Eugenius to the papal chair, he retired to Pavia. Here he read lectures on rhetoric, and wrote his three books “De Voluptate ac vero bono.” From thence he removed to Milan, and read the same lectures: and before 1435 read them to Alphonsus, king of Arragon, Sicily, and Naples, that learned patroa of letters, who took minutes of his lectures, and acknowledged his literary obligations to him. While in this place he wrote his book on free-will, against Bbetius, and his detection of the forged gift which Constantine is said to have made, of liome, to pope Sylvester, which was first published in 1492. Here too he translated Homer into Latin, and began his six books of “Elegantiae linguae Latinae.” All this while he had followed Alpbonsus in his wars, and had exposed his person in several sea-fights; and, among his other literary undertakings he had written three books of logical disputations, in which, having reduced the ten predicaments, or elements, to three, he was accused of heretical pravity by the inquisitor-general.

Having accepted an invitation to return to Rome from pope Nicholas V. he was favourably received by that pontiff, who settled a handsome pension on him. He now applied himself to a translation of Thucydides, and on presentino- it to the pope, was rewarded by a gratuity of five hundred gold crowns, and was recommended to translate Herodotus, which death prevented him from finishing. What he had done came into the possession of Alphpnsus, and was published by Pontanus, but neither of these translations have been thought eminently successful. That of Thucydides is charged by H. Stephens (who printed it along with his edition of the original (1564) as well as separately) with ignorance, carelessness, and inelegance of language, and Dr. Hudson repeats the charge. Wesseling speaks equally unfavourably of his Herodotus, but he apologizes that the ms. whence he translated was imperfect, and himself overwhelmed with the hostilities of his enemies. Pope Nicholas, in addition to his other favours, appointed him professor of rhetoric; and he employed his leisure time in putting the finishing hand to his “Elegantise lingua: Latino?,” which, as we already noticed, he began at Naples, and sent to the king’s secretaries, one of whom published them without his knowledge. He seems to have written six more books on this subject, which may possibly be concealed in some of the libraries of Italy. He also completed his “Illustrations” of the New Testament, which the pope, and many of the cardinals, earnestly solicited him to circulate, and which Erasmus published in 1504. Valla attacked the Vulgate Latin version by Jerome, which drew on him the censure of his antagonists, and occasioned his notes to be condemned by Paul IV. after the council of Trent had given its sanction to Jerome’s translation. Among the bitterest of his antagonists was the celebrated Poggio, with whom he quarrelled late in life on account of some criticisms of that eminent scholar. It is difficult perhaps to say who gave the first provocation, but it is certain that nothing can exceed the intemperate language and low abuse which passed between them, for 'an account of which we may refer to Mr. Shepherd’s excellent Life of Poggio. Another of Valla’s enemies was Morandus of Bologna, who accused him to pope Nicholas V. of misrepresenting Livy. This Valla answered by two “Confutations,” written with much asperity.

As Valla had formerly entertained thoughts of a clerical life, he declined forming any matrimonial engagement, but is reproached by Poggio with having debauched his sister’s husband’s maid, by whom he had three children, and of whom he speaks, for he does not deny this charge, with tenderness and affection. He afterwards became a canon of St. John Lateran, and secretary and apostolical writer to the pope. He died in 1457, in his fiftieth year, and was buried in the church of which he was canon, where there is a monument and inscription, the latter wrong in stating his death to have happened in 1465. Of all his writings his “Elegantiae linguae Latinos” only serves now to preserve him in the rank of eminent schotars of his time. His irritable temper rendered his life a perpetual literary warfare, but at no time were the quarrels of authors more disgraceful than at the revival of literature.

We have no account of his education, but it probably was liberal, and he seems to have made a rapid progress in the accomplishments suited to his rank in life. A gay, lively disposition led him to the army, in which at a very early age he bore an ensign’s commission, but does not appear to have remained long a candidate for higher promotion. His course of desultory reading, or the company he kept, seems to have given him a taste for the drama, which he cultivated with the greatest success, and divided with Congreve the merit of reviving the comic muse. In some of his winter-quarters he became acquainted with sir Thomas Skipwith; who being a sharer in a theatrical patent, though little concerned in the conduct of it, young Vanbrugh shewed him the outlines of two plays; and sir Thomas encouraged him to finish “The Relapse,” which, notwithstanding its gross indecencies, being acted in 1697, succeeded beyond their warmest expectations, placed Vanbrugh in a high degree of reputation, and stimulated him (under the patronage of lord Halifax) to complete his “Provok'd Wife;” which was successfully brought out at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1698. Though both these comedies met with greater applause than the author expected, yet both were liable to the severest censure, and verified the observation of Pope,

Thus far the satirist was well founded party-rage warped his understanding when he censured Vanbrugh’s plays, and left him no more judgment to see their beauties than sir John had when he perceived not that they were the only beauties he was formed to compose.“Walpole, perhaps, was not aware of the handsome apology Dr. Swift and Mr. Pope have made, in the joint preface to their miscellanies” In regard to two persons only we wish our raillery, though ever so tender, or resentment, though ever so just, had not been indulged. We speak of sir John Vanbrugh, who was a man of wit, and of honour; and of Mr. Addison, whose name deserves all the respect from every lover of learning.“And notwithstanding Walpole’s own contribution of wit and flippancy to depreciate the character of Vanbrugh’s Blenheim and Castle-Howard, we are far more inclined to the opinion of our illustrious artist and elegant writer, str Joshua Reynolds, delivered, as it is, with the modesty that distinguishes, however seldom it accompanies, superior genius.” In the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a poet as well as an architect, there is a greater display of imagination than we shall find, perhaps, in any other; and this is the ground of the effect we feel it) many of his works, notwithstanding the faults with which many of them are charged. For this purpose Vanbrugh appears to have had recourse to some principles of the Gothic architectore, which, thoueh not so ancient as the Grecian, is more so to

It has been remarked that we have very few dates in the biography of Vanini. We can only therefore say generally that, after he had commenced his travels, he went through part of Germany and the Low Countries, to Geneva, and thence to Lyons; whence, having presumed to vent his irreligious notions, under the pretext of teaching philosophy, he was obliged to fly. He passed over into England, and in 1614 was at London, where he was imprisoned for nine and forty days, “well prepared,” says he, with that air of devotion which runs through all his writings, “to receive the crown of martyrdom, which he longed for with all the ardour imaginable.” Being set at liberty, he repassed the sea, and took the road to Italy. He first stopped at Genoa, and undertook to teach youth; but, it being discovered that he had infused pernicious notions into their minds, he was forced to abandon that city. He then returned to Lyons, where he endeavoured to gain the favour of the ecclesiastics by a pretended confutation of Cardan and other atheistical writers, in which he artfully contrived, by the weakness of his arguments, to give his opponents the advantage. This work was printed at Lyons, in 1615, 8vo, under the title of “Amphitheatrum eeternae Providentiae Divino-Magicum, Christiano-Physicum, necnon Astrologo-Catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, & Stoicos. Autore Julio Ceesare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ac Juris utriusque Doctore;” dedicated to the count de Castro, the protector of his family and his benefactor; and it so far imposed orVtbe licensers of books, as to receive their approbation. But Vanini being apprehensive that his artifice might be detected, went again into Italy; where being accused of reriving and propagating his former impieties, he returned to France, and became a monk in the convent of Guienne, a/nd from this he is said to have been banished for immorality. He then retired to Paris, where he endeavoured to introduce himself to Robert Ubaldini, the pope’s nuncio; and, in order to make his court to him and the clergy in general, undertook to write an apology for the council of Trent. He procured likewise several friends, and had access to the mareschal de Bassompierre, who made him his chaplain, and gave him a pension of two hundred crowns. Upon this account, he dedicated to him his “Dialogues,” which were printed at Paris in 1616, 8vo, with this title, “Julii Caesaris Vanini, Neapolitani, Theologi, Philosophi, & Juris utriusque Doctoris, de admirandis Naturae Reginae Deaeque Mortalium arcanis, libri quatuor.” This work likewise was printed with the king’s privilege, and the approbation of three learned doctors, either from carelessness or ignorance. In his “Amphitheatrum” he had taken some pains to disguise his irreligion; but in these “Dialogues,” his sentiments are too obvious, and notwithstanding their having escaped the censors of the press, the faculty of the Sorbonne soon discovered their tendency, and condemned them to the flames. Finding himself now become generally obnoxious, and in consequence reduced to poverty, he is said to have written to the pope, that, “If he had not a good benefice soon bestowed upon him, he would in three months’ time overturn the whole Christian religion;” but although it is not impossible that Vanini might have written such a letter for the amusement of his friends, it is scarcely credible that he should have sent it to Rome. Whatevermay be in this, it is certain that he quitted Paris in 1617, and returned to Toulouse; where he soon infused his impious notions into the minds of his scholars, in the course of his lectures on physic, philosophy, and divinity. This being discovered, he was prosecuted, and condemned to be burnt to death, which sentence was executed Feb. 19, 1619. Gramond, president of the parliament of Toulouse, gives us the following account of his death. “About the same time, Feb. 1619, by order of the parliament of Toulouse, was condemned to death Lucilio Vanini, who was esteemed an arch-heretic with many persons, but whom I always looked upon as an atheist. This wretch pretended to be a physician, but in reality was no other than a seducer of youth. He laughed at every thing sacred: he abominated the incarnation of our Saviour, and denied the being of a God, ascribing all things to chance. He adored nature, as the cause of all beings: this was his principal error, whence all the rest were derived; and he had the boldness to teach it with great obstinacy at Toulouse. He gained many followers among the younger sort, whose foible it is to be taken with any thing that appears extraordinary and daring. Being cast into prison, he pretended at first to be a catholic; and by that means deferred his punishment. He was even just going to be set at liberty, for want of sufficient proofs against him, when Franconi, a man of birth and probity, deposed, that Vanini had often, in his presence, denied the existence of God, and scoffed at the mysteries of the Christian religion. Vanini, being brought before the senate, and asked what his thoughts were concerning the existence of a Gpd answered, that < he adored with the church a God in three persons,‘ and that * Nature evidently demonstrated the being of a deity:’ and, seeing by chance a straw on the ground, he took it up, and stretching it forth, said to the judges, ‘ This straw obliges me to confess that there is a God;’ and he proved afterwards very amply, that God was the author and creator of all things, nature being incapable of creating any thing. But all this he said through vanity or fear, rather than an inward conviction; and, as the proofs against him were convincing, he was by sentence of parliament condemned to die, after they had spent six months in preparing things for a hearing. I saw him in the dung-cart, continues Gramond, when he was carried to execution, making sport with a friar, who was allowed him in order to reclaim him from his obstinacy. Vanini refused the assistance of the friar, and insulted even our Saviour in these words, ‘ He sweated with weakness and fear in going to suffer death, and I die undaunted.* This profligate wretch had no reason to say that he died undaunted: I saw him entirely dejected, and making a very ill use of that philosophy of which he so much boasted. At the time when he was going to be executed he had a horrible and wild aspect; his mind was uneasy, and he discovered in all his expressions the utmost anxiety; though from time to time he cried out that he ’ died like a philosopher.' Before the fire was applied to the wood-pile, he was ordered to put out his tongue, that it might be cut off; which he refused to do; nor could the executioner take hold of it but with pincers. There never was heard a more dreadful shriek than he then gave; it was like the bellowing of an ox. His body was consumed in the flames, and his ashes thrown into the air. I saw him in prison, and at his execution; and likewise knew him before he was arrested. He had always abandoned himself to the gratification of his passions, and lived in a very irregular manner. When his goods were seized there was found a great toad alive in a large crystal bottle full of water. Whereupon he was accused of witchcraft; but he answered, that that animal being burned, was a sure antidote against all mortal and pestilential diseases. While he was in prison he pretended to be a catholic, and went often to the sacrament, but, when he found there were no hopes of escaping, he threw off the mask, and died as he had lived.”

, an eminent painter, was born at Siena, in 1563, the son of a painter who was in no great reputation, and received his earliest instruction in the school ofArchangelo Salimbeni; but when he was twelve years old he travelled to Bologna, and there studied for two years under the direction of Passerotti. Yet finding in himself an impatient desire to see the celebrated antiques, and the works of Raphael, he went to Rome, and placed himself with Giovanni da Vecchia. By the precepts of that master, his proficiency was extraordinary; so that his performances not only extorted applause from the ablest judges, but also excited the jealousy and envy of Gioseppino, who was instructed in the same school. Having thus established his taste, he returned to his native city, where he studiously contemplated the paintings of Baroccio, and so highly admired them, that he preferred the style and manner of that master to all others, imitated him with success; and was generally esteemed to be no way inferior. Yet he profited afterwards by studying the compositions of Correggio. He was principally engaged in grand works for the churches and convents at Siena and at Rome. To the latter of those cities he was invited by pope Clement VIII. and, by order of that pontiff, he painted in the church of St. Peter an incomparable design, representing Simon the sorcerer reproached by St. Peter; for which performance he received the honour of knighthood. He undoubtedly had an excellent genius; his invention was fruitful and ready, his style of composition truly fine, and his design correct. His manner of colouring was bold, lively, and beautiful his penciling tender and delicate; and the airs of his heads were remarkably graceful. The most capital works of Vanni are at Siena, Rome, Pisa, and Pistoia; among which are mentioned a Crucifixion, a Flight into Egypt, the Wise Men’s offering to Christ, and the Marriage of St. Catherine, all of them esteemed admirable. He died in 1610, aged forty-seven.

, an able anatomist, was horn at Bologna in 1542. He taught surgery in his native place, until pope Gregory XIII. soon after his elevation to the pontificate in 1572, invited him to Rome, and appointed him his first physician. Here he lectured on anatomy, and acquired very great reputation, not only for his discoveries in that branch, but for his skill in lithotomy and other surgical operations; and he promised to have attained the highest rank in his profession, when a premature death deprived the world of his services. He died in 1575, at the age of thirty-two. The Pons Varolii, which still perpetuates his name, and his other discoveries in the ceconomy of the brain and nerves, are contained in his “Anatomise, sive de resolutione corporis hurnani, libri quatuor,” Padua, 1573, 8vo, and “De Nervis opticis Epistola,” ibid.

Such was his reputation that he began to distrust the sincerity of the public, and seems to have suspected that there was more fashion than real opinion in the extravagance of their applause. This engaged him in a dangerous experiment, the publication of a poem without his name. But whether the number of his productions had gradually formed the public taste to his own standard of excellence, or that his fertile and irregular genius was singularly adapted to the times, the result of this trial confirmed the former judgment of the public; and his “Soliloquies to God,” though printed under a feigned name, attracted as much notice, and secured as many admirers, as any of his former productions. Emholdened probably by this success, he dedicated his “Corona Tragica,” a poem on the queen of Scots, to pope Urban VIII, who had himself composed an epigram on the subject. Upon this occasion he received from that pontiff a letter written in his own hand, and the degree of doctor of theology. Such a flattering tribute of admiration sanctioned the reverence in which his name was held in Spain, and spread his fame through every catholic country. The cardinal Barberini followed him with veneration in the streets; the king would stop to gaze at such a prodigy; the people crowded round him whereever he appeared; the learned and the studious thronged to Madrid from every part of Spain to see this phoenix of their country, this “monster of literature;” and even Italians, no extravagant admirers in general of poetry that is not their own, made pilgrimages from their country for the sole purpose of conversing with Lope. So associated was the idea of excellence with his name, that it grew in common conversation to signify any thing perfect in its kind; and a Lope diamond, a Lope day, or a Lope woman, became fashionable and familiar modes of expressing their good qualities.

Lope’s poetry was as advantageous to his fortune as to his fame; the king enriched him with pensions and chaplaincies: the pope honoured him with dignities and preferments; and every nobleman at court aspired to the character of his Maecenas, by conferring upon him frequent and valuable presents. His annual income was not less rhan 1500 ducats, exclusive of the price of his plays, which Cervantes insinuates that he was never inclined to forego, and Montalvan, one of his biographers, estimates at 80,000. He received in presents from individuals as much as 10,500 more. His application of these sums partook of the spirit of the nation from which he drew them. Improvident and indiscriminate charity ran away with these gains, immense as they were, and rendered his life unprofitable to his friends, and uncomfortable to himself. He continued to publish plays and poems, and to receive every remuneration that adulation and generosity could bestow, till 1635, when religious thoughts had rendered him so hypochondriac, that he could hardly be considered as in full possession of his understanding. On the 22d of August, which was Friday, he felt himself more than Usually oppressed in spirits, and weak with age; but he was so much more anxious about the health of his soul than of his body, that he would not avail himself of the privilege to which his infirmities entitled him of eating meat; and even resumed the superstitious flagellation, to which he had accustomed himself, with more than usual severity. This discipline is supposed to have hastened his death. He became ill on that night, and having passed the necessary ceremonies with excessive devotion, he expired on Monday, Aug. 26, 1635, in the seventy-third year of his age.

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

Early in the Spring of 1535, Vergerius set out on this embassy, in which he was exceedingly indiistrious, and negociated with almost all the princes of Germany. At Prague he met with John the pious elector of Saxony, with whom he dealt very artfully, and, among other things, suggested, that the intended council should be held at Mantua, pretending the convenience of its situation as to plenty and facility of access, but really because the heads of the protestant party being assembled in Italy would be more in the pope’s power. This, however, was easily seen through, and objected to. He also went to Wittemberg, and had a conference with Luther, which has been variously represented. It appears, however, both from father Paul and Pallavicino, that he treated Luther with urbanity, but made no impression on the steady mind of that illustrious reformer.

In 1556 Vergerius returned to the pope, and reported, as the issue of his inquiries, that the protestants demanded a free council, in a convenient place, within the territories of the empire, which the emperor had promised them: that as to the Lutheran party, there was no remedy but absolute force and entire suppression: that the protestants would hear nothing of hostility to the king of England, and that the rest of the princes had equal repugnance. The only comfortable hint Vergerius communicated was, that George duke of Saxony (Luther’s greatest enemy) had declared, that the pope and the emperor ought to make war against the protestants as soon as possible,. Catching at this, the pope immediately sent Vergerius to Naples, where the emperor then was, in order to propose such a war, as the quickest method of settling the controversy. The emperor so far listened to this as to take a journey to Rome to debate the matter; and the issue was, that a council was proposed to be held at Mantua: but to this, from motives of self-preservation, the protestants could not consent. As a reward, however, for his services, Vergerius was made bishop of Justinopolis.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

, a writer who did not want either genius or learning, was born at Urbino, in Italy, in the fifteenth century; but the year is not named, nor have we any account of his early history. He was first known in the literary world by “A Collection of Proverbs,” 1498, and this being the first work of the kind, it occasioned some jealousy between him and Erasmus. When Erasmus afterwards published his “Adagia,” and did not take notice of his work, Vergil reproached him in terms not civil, in the preface to his book “De llerum Inventoribus.” Their friendship, however, does not seem to have been interrupted by it; and Vergil, at the instigation of Erasmus, left the passage out in the later editions. These “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil were printed three or four times in a very short space; and this success encouraged him to undertake a more difficult work, his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” printed in 1499. At the end of the 4th edition at Basil, 1536, 12mo, is subjoined a short commentary of his upon the Lord’s prayer. After this, he was sent into England by pope Alexander VI. to collect the papal tribute, called Peter-pence, and was the last collector of that oppressive tax. He recommended himself in this country so effectually to the powers in being, and was so well pleased with' it, that, having obtained the rectory of Church Langton in Leicestershire, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life in England. In 1507 he was presented to the archdeaconry of Wells, and prebend of Nonnington, in the church of Hereford; and was the same year collated to the prebehd of Scamelsby in the church of Lincoln, which he resigned in 1513 for the prebend of Oxgate in that of St. Paul’s. In 1517 he published at London a new edition of his work “De Rerum Inventoribus,” then consisting of six books, with a prefatory address to his brother John Matthew Vergil. About 1521 he undertook a considerable work at the command of Henry VIII.; upon which he spent above twelve years. It was a “History of England,” which he published and dedicated in 1533 to his royal patron. The purity of his language is generally allowed, and he excelled most of the writers of this age for elegance and clearness of style, but his work is chargeable with great partiality, and even falsehood, and this charge has been advanced by sir Henry Savile and Humphrey Lloyd, who reproaches him in very severe terms. Caius, in his book “De Antiquitatibus Cantabrigiae,” mentions it as a thing “not only reported, but even certainly known, that Polydore Vergil, to prevent the discovery of the faults in his history, most wickedly committed as many of our ancient and manuscript histories to the flames as a waggon could hold.” For this, however, we have no direct authority. His greatest fault is, that he gives a very unfair account of the reformation, and of the conduct of the protestants. Yet his work has been printed several times, and very much read; and is necessary to supply a chasm of almost seventy years in our history, including particularly the lives of Edward IV. and Edward V. which period is hardly to be found in Latin in any other author.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, in the month of July, 1499. In very early life he began his studies in philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and particularly Greek and Latin. In 1522, he went to Spain with Paul Vettori, a relation, who was general of the gallies, and appointed to accompany the new pope, Adrian VI. into Italy. Our author stopt at Catalonia, and travelled over that and the neighbouring parts in quest of the remains of Roman antiquities, of which he took copies. He also afterwards continued this research at Rome, when he went there to congratulate Clement VII. on his accession to the popedom. This pope had been a npbleman of Florence, and of his own standing. When the revolt took place at Florence Vettori sided with the republican party, and, during the prevalence of the Medici family, retired to the country, and devoted himself to study, with the firm resolution to meddle no more with public affairs. When the duke Alexander was killed, and the senators and patricians were assembled to consider of a new form of government, they invited Vettori to take part in their deliberations; but instead of complying, he went to Rome, and left his discordant and tumultuous countrymen to determine among themselves whether they would be freemen or slaves. “My country,” he used to say, “is in the same situation as Rome formerly; it will neither tolerate liberty nor slavery. Riches have produced pride, and pride, ambition. The laws have no longer any force; every day they are repealing old laws and making new ones, and no more respect is paid to the new than to the old. In the present state of my country, I clearly see that it must have a sovereign, but I will not aid in giving it a sovereign, for fear of giving it a tyrant.”

Mr. Roscoe, whom we have hitherto principally followed, observes, that of all the writers of Latin poetry at the period in which he lived, Vida has been the most generally known beyond the limits of Italy. This is to be attributed, Mr. Roscoe adds, not only to the fortunate choice of his subjects, but to his admirable talent of uniting a considerable portion of elegance, and often of dignity, with the utmost facility and clearness of style; insomuch that the most complex descriptions or abstruse illustrations are rendered by him perfectly easy and familiar to the reader. Dr. Warton is of opinion that the merits of Vida seem not to have been particularly attended to in England, till Pope introduced him in these lines:

In order to acquire a greater knowledge of the principles of architecture, Vignola went to Rome, and at first returned to painting fora maintenance; but not reaping much profit, abandoned that art a second time, and procured employment as a draughtsman from Melighini, of Ferrara, then architect to pope Paul III. and who had established a school of architecture at Rome. Yignola was afterwards employed to make drawings, for the use of this academy, of the ancient edifices of the city, from which he derived great advantage in his studies. While here, about 1537, or J 540, he met with Primaticcio, who was employed by Francis I. king of France, to purchase antiques (See Primaticcio); and Vignola was of so much service in making casts for him, that Primaticcio engaged him to go with him to France. There Vignola assisted that celebrated artist in all his works, and particularly in making the bronze casts which are at Fontainebleau. He also made various architectural designs for the king, who was prevented from having them executed, by the wars in which France was then involved. After a residence of about two years, he was invited to Bologna, to undertake the new church of St. Petronius, and his design was allowed the preference, and highly approved by Julio Romano, the celebrated painter, and Christopher Lombard, the architect. At Minerbio, near Bologna, he built a magnificent palace for count Isolani, and in Bologna the house of Achilles Bocchi. The portico of the exchange in that city is also of his designing, but it was not built until 1562, in the pontificate of Pius IV. His most useful work at Bologna was the canal of Navilio, which he constructed with great skill for the space of a league. But happening to be ill rewarded for this undertaking, he went to Placentia, where he gave a design for the duke of Parma’s palace, which was executed by his son Hyacinth, who was now able to assist him in his various works. He afterwards built several churches and chapels in various parts of Italy, which it is unnecessary to specify. These, it is supposed, he had finished before his return to Rome in 1550, where Vasari presented him to pope Julius III. who appointed him his architect. While at Rome, he was employed in various works, both of grandeur and utility, the last of which, and reckoned his finest work, was the magnificent palace or castle of Caprarola, so well described and illustrated by plates in his works.

, a French abbe, related to the celebrated Montfaucon the antiquary, appears to have been a native, or to have been educated at Toulouse, whence he came to Paris, in hopes of recommending himself by his talents in the pulpit, which were of no mean kind, and by his lively conversation, which perhaps fully as much contributed to procure him friends. He also entertained the public with his pen, and published various works of imagination and criticism, written in a peculiar style of humour, one of which at least entitles him to the notice of the English reader. This, which was first published at Paris in 1670, was entitled “Le eomte de Gabalis, ou entretiens sur les sciences secrettes,” with an addition entitled “Les genies assistans et les gnomes irreconciliables.” D'Argonne, in his “Melanges d'Histoire et de Litterature,” gives the following account of this singular work, as quoted by Dr. Warton: “The five dialogues of which it consists, are the result of those gay conversations in which the abbe was engaged with a small circle of men, of fine wit and kumour, like himself. When the book first appeared, it was universally read as innocent and amusing. But at length its consequences were perceived, and reckoned dangerous, at a time when this sort of curiosities began to gain credit. Our devout preacher was denied the pulpit, and his book forbidden to be read. It was not dear whether the author intended to be ironical, or spoke all seriously. The second volume, which he promised, would have decided the question; but the unfortunate abbe was soon afterwards assassinated by ruffians on the road to Lyons. The laughers gave out, that the gnomes and sylphs, disguised like ruffians, had shot him, as a punishment for revealing the secrets of the Cabala; a crime not to be pardoned by those jealous spirits, as Villars himself has declared in his book.” It was from this book that Pope took the machinery of the sylphs, of which he has made such admirable use in his “Rape of the Lock,” although it does not appear that he borrowed any particular circumstances relating to those spirits, but merely the general idea of their existence. The abbe* was killed in 1675, and it is said that the fatal shot came from one of his relations.

Besides “The Rehearsal,” the duke was the author of some other dramatic pieces; as “The Chances,” a comedy altered from Fletcher; “The Restauration, or Right will take place,” a tragi-comedy; “The Battle of Sedgmoor,”' a farce; “The Militant Couple, or the Husband may thank himself,” a fragment. He was the author of some prose pieces, among which were “An Essay upon Reason and Religion,” in a letter to Nevile Pain, esq.; “On Human Reason,” addressed to Martin Clifford, esq.; “An account of a Conference between the duke and father Fitzgerald, whom king James’sent to convert his grace in his sickness;” and, “A short Discourse upon the reasonableness of men’s having a religion or worship of God.” This last was printed in 1685, and passed through three editions. The duke wrote also several small poems complimentary and satirical. One is entitled “The lost mistress, a complaint against the countess of” Shrewsbury, as is supposed; whose lord he killed in a duel on her account, and who is said to have held the duke’s horse, disguised like a page, during the combat. The loves of this tender pair are touched by Pope, in some well-known lines. Pope informed Spence, “that the duke’s duel with lord Shrewsbury was concerted between him and lady Shrewsbury. All that morning she was trembling for her gallant, and wishing for the death of her husband; and after his fall, 'tis said the duke lay with her in his bloody shirt.” The following account of this infamous affair, which Mr. Malone copied from a ms letter dated Whitehall, Jan. 10, 1673-4, affords but a sorry idea of the profligate reign in which such a tragedy could be acted vrith impunity.

He is supposed to have been in his forty-fifth- year when he began to write the “Æneid;” the design of which is thus explained by an able master in classical literature. Augustus being freed from his rival Antony, the government of the Roman empire was to be wholly in him; and though he* chose to be called their father, he was, in every thing but the name, their king. But the monarchical form of government must naturally displease the Romans: and therefore Virgil, like a good courtier, seems to have laid the plan of his poem to reconcile them to it. He takes advantage of their religious turn, and of some old prophecies that must have been very flattering to the Roman people, as promising them the empire of the whole world. He weaves these in with the most probable account of their origin, that of being descended from the Trojans. He shews, that ^neas was called into their country by the express order of the gods; that there was an uninterrupted succession of kings from him to Romulus; that Julius Ca;sar was of this royal race, and that Augustus was his sole heir. The result of which was, that the promises made to the Roman people in and through this race, terminating in Augustus, the Romans, if they would obey the gods, and be masters of the world, were to yield obedience to the new establishment under that prince. The poem, therefore, may very well be considered as a political work: Pope used to say, “it was evidently as much a party-piece, as Absalom and Achitophel:” and, if so, Virgil was not highly encouraged by Augustus and Maecenas for nothing. The truth is, he wrote in defence of the new usurpation of the state; and all that can be offered in his vindication, which however seems enough, is, that the Roman government could no longer be kept from falling into a single hand, and that the usurper he wrote for was as good a one as they could have. But, whatever may be said of his motives for writing it, the poem has in all ages been highly applauded. Augustus was eager to peruse it before it was finished; and entreated him by letters to communicate it. Macrobius has preserved to us part of one of Virgil’s answers to the emperor, in which the poet excuses himself; who, however, at length complied, and read himself the sixth book to the emperor, when Octavia, who had just lost her son Marcellus, the darling of Rome, and adopted son of Augustus, made one of the audience. Virgil had artfully inserted that beautiful lamentation for the death of young Marcellus, beginning with “O nate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum” but suppressed his name till he came to the line “Tu Marcellus eris:” upon hearing which Octavia could bear no more, but fainted away, overcome with surprise and sorrow. When she recovered, shfc made the poet a present of ten sesterces for every line, which amounted in the whole to above 2OOO/.

Parthenope cecini Pascua, Kura, Duces." His bones were carried to Naples, according to his earnest request; and a monument was erected at a small distance from the city. He was of a swarthy complexion, tall, of a sickly constitution, afflicted with frequent head-aches and spitting of blood, very temperate, sober, and chaste, whatever may have been surmised to the contrary. That he wrote in his youth some indecent verses is not to he doubted, since the younger Pliny, who had done the same, justifies himself by his example; and, in his “Bucolics,” he relates very criminal passions; but it does not thence follow that he was tainted with them. On the contrary, it is delivered down to us as a certain truth, that the inhabitants of Naples gave him the name of Parthenias, on account of the purity of his words and manners. He was so very bashful, that he frequently ran into the shops, to prevent being gazed at in the streets; yet so honoured by the Roman people, that once, coming into the theatre, the whole audience rose, out of respect to him. He was of a thoughtful and melancholy temper, spoke little, loved retirement and contemplation. His fortune was not only easy, but affluent: he had a delightful villa in Sicily, and a fine house and well furnished library near Maecenas’s gardens on the Esquiline-hill at Rome. He revised his verses with prodigious severity, and used to compare himself to a she-bear, which licks her cubs into shape. He was so benevolent and inoffensive, that most of his contemporary poets, though they envied each other, agreed in loving and esteeming him. Among Caligula’s follies we may undoubtedly reckon his contempt and hatred of Virgil; who, he had the confidence to say, had neither wit nor learning, and whose writings and effigy he endeavoured to remove out of all libraries. The emperor Alexander Severus, on the contrary, called him the Plato of the poets, and placed his picture with that of Cicero in the temple in which he had placed Achilles and other great men. So did Silius Italicus the poet, when he kept Virgil’s birthday, as Pliny relates, with greater solemnity than his own; and so did our sir William Temple, who did “not wonder that the famous Dr. Harvey, when he was reading Virgil, should sometimes throw him down upon the table, and say, `He had a devil'.” With regard to the characteristical difference between Virgil and Homer, so much disputed, it may with truth be affirmed, that the former excelled all other poets in judgment, and the latter in invention; the former is the greater genius, the latter the most correct writer. “Methinks the two poets,” says Mr. Pope, “resemble the heroes they celebrate. Homer, boundless and irresistible as Achilles, bears all before him, and shines more and more, as the tumult increases Virgil, calmly daring, like Æneas, appears undisturbed in the midst of the action, disperses all about him, and conquers with tranquillity. Or, when we look on their machines, Homer seems like his own Jupiter in his terrors, shaking Olympus, scattering the lightnings, and firing the heavens: Virgil, like the same power in his benevolence, counselling with the gods, Jaying plans for empires, and regularly ordering his whole creation.”

, once celebrated as an elegant French writer, was the son of a wine-merchant, and born at Amiens in 1598. His talents and taste for the Belles Lettres gave him considerable celebrity, and easily introduced him to the polite world. He was the first in France distinguished for what is called a bel esprit; and, though this is all the merit of his writings, yet this merit was then great, because it was uncommon. His reputation opened his way to court, and procured him pensions and honourable employments. He was sent to Spain about some affairs, whence out of curiosity he passed over to Africa. He was mightily caressed at Madrid, where he composed verses in such pure and natural Spanish, that every body ascribed them to Lopez de Veo;a. It appears by his “Letters,” that he was in England in 1633. He made two journeys to Rome, where in 1633 he was admitted a member of the academy of Humoristi; as he had been of the French academy in 1634. He was the person employed to carry the news of the birth of Lewis XIV. to Florence; and had a place in the household of that monarch. He had several considerable pensions from the court; but the love of play and women kept him from being rich. He died in 1648. He wrote verses in French, Spanish, and Italian; and there are some very fine lines written by him, but they are but few. His letters make the bulk of his works; and have been often printed in 2 vols. 12mo. They are elegant, polite, and easy; but, like the genius of the writer, without nerves or strength. Boileau praises Voiture excessively; and doubtless, considered as a polisher and refiner in a barbarous age, he was a writer to be valued; yet his letters would not now be thought models, and are indeed seldom read. Voiture, ( says Voltaire, gave some idea “of the superficial graces of that epistolary style, which is by no means the best, because it aims at nothing higher than pleasantry and amusement. His two volumes of letters are the mere pastime of a wanton imagination, in which we meet not with one that is instructive, not one that flows from the heart, that paints the manners of the times, or the characters of men: they are rather an abuse than an exercise of wit.” With all this insignificance, Voiture’s letters cost him much labour: a single one took nearly a fortnight, a proof that his wit came slower in writing than in conversation, otherwise he would never have been the delight of every company. Pope appears to have had a good opinion of these letters, as he thought them a suitable present for Miss Blount, and never seems to have suspected that this was not paying that lady’s delicacy any great compliment.

, a French painter, very celebrated in his day, was born at Paris in 1582, and bred up under his father, who was a painter also. He knew so much of his art, and was in such repute at twenty years of age, that Mons. de Saucy, who was going ambassador to Constantinople, took him with him as his painter. There he drew the picture of the grand signer; and, though it was impossible to do it otherwise than by the strength of memory, and from a view of him at the ambassador’s audience, yet it proved a great likeness. Thence he went to Venice; and afterwards, settling himself in Rome, became so illustrious* in his profession, that, besides the favours which he received from pope Urban VIII. and the cardinal his nephew, he was chosen prince of the Roman academy of St. Luke. He staid fourteen years in Italy; and then, in 1627, Lewis XIII. who, in consideration of his capacity, hatl allowed him a pension all the while he was abroad, sent for him borne to work in his palaces. He practised both in portrait and history; and furnished some of the apartments of the Louvre, the palaces of Luxemburg and iSt. Germains, the galleries of cardinal Richelieu, and other public places, with his works. His greatest perfection lay in his colouring, and his brisk and lively pencil; otherwise he was but tery indifferently qualified. He had no genius for grand compositions, was unhappy in his invention, unacquainted with the rules of perspective, and understood but little of the union of colours, or the doctrine of lights and shadows. Yet France was indebted to him for destroying the insipid and barbarous manner which then reigned, and for beginning to introduce a better taste. The novelty of Vouet’s manner, and the kind reception he gave all who came to him, made the French painters, his contemporaries, follow it, and brought him disciples from all parts. Most of the succeeding painters, who were famous in their profession, were bred up under him, as Le Brun, Perrier, Mignard, Le Sueur, Dorigny, Du Fresnoy, and several others, whom he employed as assistants in a great number of pictures he drew, and from his instructions they well knew how to execute his designs. He had the honour also to instruct the king himself in the art of designing.

, an eminent Irish Roman catholic, and reckoned a great ornament to his country, was born at Waterford, Oct. 16, 1588. His first studies were begun at home under the tuition of his brother Matthew, who took him to Portugal in the fifteenth year of his age, and placed him in a seminary established for the Irish at Lisbon, where he applied to philosophy for six months under the direction of the Jesuits. In 1605, after having passed his noviciate, he was admitted among the Franciscans, and afterwards continued his studies at their convents at Liria, at Lisbon, and afterwards at Coimbra, in all which places he was admired for the diligence and success of his application. After being admitted into priest’s orders he removed to Salamanca, where he continued some time, and was made superintendant of the students, and lecturer in divinity, in both which offices he gave great satisfaction. In 1618, when Anthony a Trejo, vicar-general of the Franciscans, was advanced to the bishopric of Carthagena, in Spain, and appointed legate extraordinary to pope Paul V. upon one of those disputes which frequently agitated the Romish church, respecting the immaculate conception, the bishop, although he had the choice of many men of the Spanish nation, eminent for learning and talents in business, yet preferred Wadding to be chaplain of this embassy, although then but thirty years old, and a foreigner.

But while this legation was going on, he removed from the cardinal’s palace, as enjoying there a course of life which he thought incompatible with his profession of Franciscan, and took up his residence at the Franciscan-convent of St. Peter, where he was honoured with the respect of many of the dignified ecclesiastics of Rome; and on the departure of the bishop to Spain, when the care of the legation was entrusted to the duke of Albuquerque, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, Wadding was appointed his assistant, and was, says his biographer, the life of the whole negotiation. He wrote three pamphlets on the subject of the immaculate conception, the titles of which we may be excused from giving. During the time he could spare from the business of this legation, he published an edition of some works of St. Francis, from Mss. in the public libraries, under the title of “Opusculorum St. Francisci Libri tres,” Antwerp, 1623. Before this time he performed what will probably be thought a more acceptable service to theological studies, in undertaking to print Calasio’s Concordance (see Calasio). Calasio died at Rome, wliile Wadding was there, leaving this large work in manuscript. Wadding, who saw its merits, regretted that it should be lost; and being unable of himself to defray the expence of printing, applied to pope Paul V. and to Benignus a Genua, the general of the Franciscans, by whose encouragement the whole was published at Rome in 1621, 4 vols, folio, under the inspection of Wadding, who prefixed to it a learned treatise “De Hebraic lingoos origine, praestaiitia et militate.” Pope Paul dying while the work was in the press, he dedicated it to his successor, Gregory XV. He published also, from original Mss. the works of some other Spanish divines, and wrote a life of Thomasius, patriarch of Constantinople, “Vita B. Petri Thomce Aquitani Carmelitse,” &c. Lyons, 1637, 8vo. But the most labourius effort of editorship was his rescuing from obscurity all the manuscript copies of Duns Scotus’s works, transcribing, collating, and correcting, and afterwards publishing the whole, in twelve folio volumes, at Lyons, in 1639.

This was once a place of great fame in the university, and may be traced to very high antiquity. In 1251, pope Innocent IV. granted a power to the friars eremites of St. Austin, to travel into any countries, build monasteries, and celebrate divine service. With this permission, they first established a house in London, but deputed some of their number to go to Oxford, where they hired an obscure bouse near the public schools. Acquiring some reputation for their skill in philosophy and divinity, or at least what were then so called, they attracted the attention of sir John Handlove, or Handlow, of Burstall in Buckinghamshire, a very opulent gentleman, who purchased for them a piece of ground, enlarged afterwards by a gift from Henry III. On this tney built a house and chapel in a sumptuous form, and held schools for divinity and philosophy of such reputation, that, before the divinity school was built, the university acts were kept, and the exercises in arts were performed in this place. It was in particular enjoined that every bachelor of arts should once in ea^h year dispute, and once answer, at this house, and this continued until the dissolution, when the disputations were removed to St. Mary’s, and afterwaids to the schools. Alter the dissolution, the premises were let, on a lease of twenty-one years, at 3l. yearly, to Thomas Carwarden, or Carclon, esq. who appears to have demolished the whole, and carried off the materials. In 1552, king Edward VI. sold the site to Henry duke of Suffolk, and Thomas Duport, gentleman, who almost immediately conveyed it to Henry Baylie, M. D. formerly a fellow of New college, for forty-five shillings yearly. In 1553, Baylie sold it to his father-in-law, Edward Freere, of Oxford, who left it to his son William, by whom, in 1587, it was again sold to the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty of Oxford lor the principal sum of 450l.

He wrote and published near twenty works, some in French, the others in Latin. The first came out at Nuremberg in 1667, the design of which is to shew the spuriousness of the pretended fragment of Petronius. In another, printed in the first volume of “Amcenitates Literarise,” he endeavours to prove the real existence of Pope Joan, which has been so much questioned. His principal work is entitled “Tela Ignea Satanae,” Altorf, 1681, in 2 vols. 4to. This is a collection of pieces written by the Jews against the Christian religion; with a Latin version, and long notes in the way of refutation.

While in France he is said to have made a considerable figure in the learned world, and was applied to by Dr., now bishop Fell, to procure the collation of some valuable Greek Mss. of the New Testament at Paris, for the use of Dr. Mill, whose edition Dr. Fell patronised. In the beginning of the reign of James II. he returned home with lord Preston, and was soon after chosen preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s Inn. This, it would appear, was against the wish of the king, who, on the death of his predecessor, Dr. Claget, sent a message to the society, desiring them not to proceed to an election until they heard from him, but they returned an answer that they bad already chosen Dr. Wake. During his residence in France an incident occurred which occasioned his first appearance as an author, and his being known as an able writer both at home and abroad. Bossuet, the bishop of Meaux (See Bossuet) had now published his very artful “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” a copy of which came into the hands of Mr. Wake, who, in the preface to his Answer, gives a very curious account of the different alterations the work had undergone, in order to answer the real purposes for which it was written. He observes, that “the first design of monsieur de Meaux’s book was either to satisfy or to seduce the late mareschal de Turenne. How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say, but am willing to believe that the change that honourable person made of his religion was upon somewhat better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few articles of the Roman faith; and that the author supplied either in his personal conferences with him, or by some other papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the first draught, which we have seen of this. The manuscript copy which then appeared, and for about four years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause, wanted all those chapters of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it; and in the other points which it handled, seemed so loosely and favourably to propose the opinions of the church of Rome, that not only many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at it, but the protestants, who saw it, generally believed that monsieur de Meaux durst not publicly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their doctrine. And the event shewed that they were not altogether mistaken. For in the beginning of 1671 the Exposition being with great care, and after the consideration of many years, reduced into the form in which we now see it, and to secure all, fortified with the approbation of the archbishop of Rheims, and nine otheV bishops, who profess that ‘ having examined it with all the care which the importance of the matter required, they found it conformable to the doctrine of the church, and as such recommended it to the people which God had committed to their conduct,’ it was sent to the press. The impression being finished and just ready to come abroad, the author, who desired to appear with all advantage to himself and his cause that was possible, sent it to some of the doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation to he joined to that of the bishops, that so no authority, ordinary or extraordinary, might be wanting to assert the* doctrine contained in it to be so far from the suspicion the Protestants had conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. But, to the great surprise of monsieur de Meaux, and those who had so much cried up his treatise before, the doctors of the Sorbonne, to whom it was communicated, instead of the approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants had said of it; and, as became their faculty, marked several of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the doctrine of their church. To prevent the open scandal, which such a censure might have caused, with great industry and all the secrecy possible the whole edition was suppressed, and the several places, which the doctors had marked, changed; and the copy so speedily sent back to the press again, that in the end of the same year another much altered was publicly exposed, as the first impression that had at all been made of it. Yet this could not be so privately carried on, but that it soon came to a public knowledge; insomuch that one of the first answers that was made to it, charged monsieur de Meaux with this change. I do not hear, that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the relation, either in the advertisement prefixed to the later editions of his book, wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same treatise, or in any other vindication: whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be denied, let the reader judge. But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of the whole book, but to be a plain demonstration, how improbable soever monsieur de Meaux would represent it, * that it is not impossible for a bishop of the Church of Rome, either not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what is the doctrine of it; or not sufficiently sincere, as without disguise to represent it.' And since a copy of that very book so marked, as has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne, is fallen into my hands, I shall gratify the reader’s curiosity with a particular view of the changes that have been made, that so he may judge whether of the two was the cause of those great advances which the author in that first edition had thought fit to make towards us.” Such was part of the preface to Mr. Wake’s “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” 1686, 4to, which he was induced to undertake, by having observed that the French catholics with whom he had conversed, had, from ignorance, or the misrepresentations of their instructors, entertained very false notions of the points in controversy between the Churches of Rome and England.

The court being now sufficiently roused, Piers de Gerardin, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and one of the archbishop’s correspondents, was sent for, and ordered to give up all the letters he had received from the archbishop of Canterbury, and a copy of all his own. Having complied, these letters were immediately sent to Rome, where it is said pope Clement XI. so admired those of our archbishop, that he declared it was a pity the author of such profound letters was not a member of their church.

The author of No. IV. of Mosheim’s Appendix deduces from the whole of this transaction, and particularly from the entire correspondence given in that Appendix, that Wake was invited to this correspondence by Dupin, the most moderate of all the Roman jcatholic divines; that he entered into it with a view to improve one of the most favourable opportunities that could be offered, of withdrawing the church of France from the jurisdiction of the pope; a circumstance which must have immediately weakened the power of the court of Rome, and, in its consequences, offered a fair prospect of a farther reformation in doctrine and worship, as the case happened in the church of England, when it happily threw off the papal yoke; that he did not give any of the doctors of the Sorbonne the smallest reason to hope that the church of England wpuld give up any one point of belief or practice to the church of France; but insisted, on the contrary, that the latter should make alterations and concessions, in order to be reconciled to the former; that he never specified the particular alterations which would be requisite to satisfy the rulers and doctors of the church of England; but only expressed a general desire of an union between the two churches, if that were possible, or at least of a mutual toleration: that he never flattered himself that this union could be perfectly accomplished, or that the doctors of the Gallican church, would be entirely brought over to the church of England; but thought that every advance made by them, and every concession, must have proved really advantageous to the. protestant cause.

Thus much it has been thought necessary to advance, in vindication of the character of Dr. Wake, which, after long enjoying the good opinion of mankind, was at last, with equal fury and falsehood, attacked by the author of the “Confessional,” who does not scruple to say, speaking of the archbishop, that “this pretended champion of the Protestant religion had set on foot a project for union with a Popish church, and that with concessions in favour of the grossest superstition and idolatry.” Nothing could be farther from Wake’s purpose, and nothing more at variance with the whole tenour of his public life or private sentiments; and, in truth, the whole of the above correspondence with the popish doctors was a matter of private sentiment, and neither party appears to have been authorized by, or to have consulted the church to which they respectively belonged. Had that been done, it is not quite clear that the plan, even as far as it has been divulged, would have been more acceptable in England than in France. The best part of it, the best object at which it aimed, was the separation of the church of France from the jurisdiction of the pope.

To the works of Pope, our English poet, Mr. Wukefield paid particular attention, and designed to have given an edition of his works; but after he had published the first volume, the scheme was rendered abortive by Dr. Warton’s edition. He printed, however, a second volume, entitled “Notes on Pope,” and also gave a new edition of Pope’s Iliad and Odyssey. As a classical editor he appeared in a selection from the Greek tragedians, in editions of Horace, Virgil, Bion and Moschus, and finally his superb edition of Lucretius, which, after all, must decide his character as a critic. Many eminent scholars, both at home and abroad, have given their opinion of this edition, but their decision is not uniform. We would refer the reader to a vry learned and impartial view of Mr. Wakefield’s critical character by Mr. Elmsley, in one of the numbers of the “Classical Journal.” Among Mr. Wakefield’s publications, prior to this, we omitted to mention the “Memoirs” of his own life, in one volume 8vo, which appeared in 1792, and contained an account of his life nearly to that period. We have followed it partly in the preceding account, as to facts, but upon the whole are inclined to apply to him what he has advanced of a Mr. Mounsey. He is one “on whose abilities his numerous acquaintance will reflect with more pleasure than on his life.”

, one of the earliest reformers of the church from Popery, but erroneously said to be the founder of that body of reformed Christians called the Waldenses, was an opulent merchant of Lyons in the twelfth century. The first time when he appears to have opposed the errors of the religion in which he was educated, was about 1160, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was confirmed by pope Innocent III. with the addition that men should fall down before the consecrated wafer and worship it as God. The absurdity of this forcibly struck the mind of Waldo, who opposed it in a very courageous manner. It does not appear, however, that he had any intention of withdrawing himself from the communion of the Romish church, or that in other respects he had any very serious notions of religion. The latter appears to have been produced first by the sudden death of a person with whom he was in company. This^lett very serious impressions on his mind, and he betook himself to reading the scriptures. At that time the Latin vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures in Europe; but that language was accessible to few. Waldo, however, from his situation in life, had had a good education, and could read this volume. “Being somewhat learned,” says Reinerius, “he taught the people the text of the New Testament.” He was also now disposed to abandon his mercantile pursuits, and distributed his wealth to the poor as occasion required, and while the latter flocked to him to partake of his alms, he also attended to their spiritual instruction, and either translated, or procured to be translated the four gospels into French; and thus the inhabitants of Europe were indebted to him for the first translation of the Bible into a modern tongue, since the time that the Latin had ceased to be a living language.

As Waldo became more acquainted with the scriptures, he discovered that a multiplicity of doctrines, rites, and ceremonies, which had been introduced into the national religion, had not only no foundation, but were most pointedly condemned, in the Bible. On this ground he had no scruple to expose such errors, and to condemn the arrogance of the pope, and the reigning vices of the clergy, while at the same time he endeavoured to demonstrate the great difference there was between the Christianity of the Bible and that of the Church of Rome. Such bold opposition could not long be tolerated. The archbishop of Lyons accordingly prohibited the new reformer from teaching any more on pain of excommunication, and of being proceeded against as a heretic. Waldo replied, that though a layman, he could not be silent in a matter which concerned the salvation of his fellow-creatures. Attempts were next made to apprehend him; but the number and affection of his friends, the respectability and influence of his connections, many of whom were men of rank, the universal regard that was paid to his character for probity and religion, and the conviction that his presence was highly necessary among the people whom he had by this time gathered into a church, and of which he became the head, all operated so strongly in his favour, that he lived concealed at Lyons during the space of three whole years.

But pope Alexander III. had no sooner heard of these proceedings than he anathematized the reformer and his adherents, commanding the archbishop to proceed against them with the utmost rigour. Waldo was now compelled to quit Lyons; his flock, in a great measure, followed their pastor, and hence, say the ecclesiastical historians, a dispersion took place not unlike that which arose in the church of Jerusalem on the occasion of the death of Stephen. The effects were also similar. Waldo himself retired into Dauphiny, where he preached with abundant success; his principles took deep and lasting root, and produced a numerous body of disciples, who were denominated Leonists, Vaudois, Albigenses, or Waldenses; for the very same class of Christians is designated by these various appellations at different times, and according to the different countries, or quarters of the same country in which they appeared. From the name Waldenses, a corruption of Vallenses, or Vaudois, i. e. those xvho inhabited the valleys of Piedmont, occasion was taken to prove that these ancient churches had no existence till the time of Waldo. Waldo appears to have visited Picardy, propagating his doctrines, and finally, according to Thuanus, settled in Bohemia, where de died in 1179.

The remainder of his life he spent in tranquillity and retirement, and died, 1745, in his seventy- first year. Whatever objections his ministerial conduct may be liable to, yet in his private character he is universally allowed to have had amiable and benevolent qualities. That he was a tender parent, a kind master, a beneficent patron, a firm friend, an agreeable companion, are points that have been seldom disputed; and Pope, who was no friend to courts and courtiers, has paid him, gratis, a handsomer compliment on the last of these heads than all this liberality could ever purchase. In answer to his friend, who persuades him to go and see sir Robert, he says,

, an Irish catholic of great learning liberality, was born at Moortown, in the county of Kildare, irr the early part of the seventeenth century. He was a friar of the Franciscan order, and was professor of divinity at Louvain, where he probably was educated. Returning to Ireland, he went to Kilkenny at the time the pope’s nuncio was there, but was not of his party. On the contrary, he made many endeavours to persuade the Ifish Roman catholics to the same loyal sentiments as he himself held; and after the restoration of Charles II. when he was procurator of the Romish clergy of Ireland, he persuaded many of them to subscribe a recognition or remonstrance, not only of their loyalty to the king, but of their disclaiming the pope’s supremacy in temporals. This drew upon him the resentment of many of his brethren, and particularly of the court of Rome. Such hopes, however, were entertained of this important change in the sentiment! of the Irish catholics, that in 1666 the court thought proper to permit their clergy to meet openly in synod at Dublin, in order, as was expected, to authorize the above remonstrance by a general act of the whole body. But this assembly broke up without coming to any decision, and the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, considered it necessary to proceed against those who refused to give any security for their allegiance. But when, in 1670, lord Berkeley succeeded him, by some secret orders or intrigues of the popishly-affected party in England, Walsh, and those who had signed the remonstrance, were so persecuted as to be obliged to leave the country. Walsh came to London, and by the interest of the duke of Ormond, got an annuity of lOOl. for life. He had lived on terms of intimacy with the duke for nearly forty years, and had never touched much on the subject of religion until the reign of James II. when he made some overtures to gain the duke over to popery; but desisted when he found his arguments had no effect. Dodwell took some pains, although in vain, to convert Walsh, hoping, that as they had cast him out of the communion of the church of Rome, he might be persuaded to embrace that of the church of England. Walsh died in September 1687, and was buried in St. Dun* stan’s in the West.

, an English critic and poet, was the son of Joseph Walsh of Abberley in Worcestershire, esq. and born about 1663, for the precise time does not appear. According to Pope, his birth happened in 1659; but Wood places it four years later. He became a gentleman-commoner of Wadham-college in Oxford in 1678, but left the university without a degree, and pursued his studies in London and at home. That he studied, in whatever place, is apparent from the effect; for he became, in Dryden’s opinion, “the best critic in the nation.” He was not, however, merely a critic or a scholar. He was likewise a man of fashion, and, as Dennis remarks, ostentatiously splendid in his dress. He was likewise a member of parliament and a courtier, knight of the shire for his native county in several parliaments, in another the re* presentative of Richmond in Yorkshire, and gentleman of the horse to queen Anne under the duke of Somerset. Some of his verses shew him to have been a zealous friend to the Revolution; but his political ardour did not abate his reverence or kindness for Dryden, to whom, Dr. Johnson says, he gave a Dissertation on Virgil’s Pastorals; but this was certainly written by Dr. Chetwood, as appears by one of Drydeu’s letters. In 1705 he began to correspond with Pope, in whom he discovered very early the power of poetry, and advised him to study correctness, which the poets of his time, he said, all neglected. Their letters are written upon the pastoral comedy of the Italians, and those pastorals which Pope was then preparing to publish. The kindnesses which are first experienced are seldom forgotten. Pope always retained a grateful memory of Walsh’s notice, and mentioned him in one of his latter pieces among those that had encouraged his juvenile studies.

Soon after this sir Francis was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. As to his share in baffling the designs of the court of Spain, Welwood, in his “Memoirs,” informs us that Walsingham, by a refined piece of policy, defeated, for a whole year together, the measures that the Spanish monarch had taken for fitting out his armada to invade England. “The vast preparations,” he says, “that were making for a considerable time in Spain, kept all Europe in suspense, and it was not certain against whom they were designed; though it was the general opinion they were to subdue the Netherlands all at once, which Spain was sensible could not be done without a greater force by sea as well as land, than had hitherto been employed for that service. Queen Elizabeth thought fit to be upon her guard, and had some jealousies that she might be aimed at: but how to find it out was the difficulty, which at length Walsingham overcame. He had intelligence from Madrid, that Philip had told his council that he had dispatched an express to Rome with a letter written with his own hand to the pope, acquainting him with the true design of his preparations, and asking his blessing upon ity which for some reasons he would not disclose to them till the return of the courier. The secret being thus lodged with the pope, Walsingham, by means of a Venetian priest retained at Rome as his spy, got a copy of the original letter, which was stolen out of the pope’s cabinet by a gent tleman of the bed-chamber, who took the keys out of the pope’s pocket w.hile he slept. And upon this intelligence Walsingham found a way to retard the Spanish invasion for a whole year, by getting the Spanish bills protested at Genoa, which should have supplied them with money to carry on their preparations.” In our article of Thomas Sutton, founder of the Charter-house, we have mentioned that this gentleman was Walsingham’s chief agent in getting these bills protested.

, an English prelate of great abilities and eminence, was born at Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, Dec. 24, 1698. His father was George Warburton, an attorney and town-clerk of the place in which this his eldest son received his birth and education. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hobman, an alderman of the same town; and his parents were married about 1696. The family of Dr. Warburton came originally from the county of Chester, where his great-grandfather resided. His grandfather, William Warburton, a royalist during the rebellion, was the first that settled at Newark, where he practised the law, and was coroner of the county of Nottingham. George Warburton, the father, died about 1706, leaving his widow and five children, two sons and three daughters, of which the second son, George, died young; but, of the daughters, one- survived her brother. The bishop received the early part of his education under Mr. Twells, whose son afterwards married his sister Elizabeth; but he was principally trained under Mr. Wright, then master of Okehamschool in Rutlandshire, and afterwards vicar of Campden in Gloucestershire. Here he continued till the beginning of 1714, when his cousin Mr. William Warburton being made head -master of Newark-school, he returned to his native place, and was for a short time under the care of that learned gentleman. During his stay at school, he did not distinguish himself by any extraordinary efforts of genius or application, yet is supposed to have acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His original designation was to the same profession as that of his father and grandfather; and he was accordingly placed clerk to Mr. Kirke, an attorney at East Markham in Nottinghamshire, with whom he continued till April 1719, when he was qualified to engage in business upon his own account. He was then admitted to one of the courts at Westminster, and for some years continued the employment of an attorney and solicitor at the place of his birth. The success he met with as a man of business was probably not great. It was certainly insufficient to induce him to devote the rest of his life to it: and it is probable, that his want of encouragement might tempt him to turn his thoughts towards a profession in which his literary acquisitions would be more valuable, and in which he might more easily pursue the bent of his inclination. He appears to have brought from school more learning than was requisite for a practising lawyer. This might rather impede than forward his progress; as it has been generally observed, that an attention to literary concerns, and the bustle of an attorney’s office, with only a moderate share of business, are wholly incompatible. It is therefore no wonder that he preferred retirement to noise, and relinquished what advantages he might expect from continuing to follow the law. It has been suggested by an ingenious writer, that he was for some time usher to a school, but this probably was founded on his giving some assistance to his relation at Newark, who in his turn assisted him in those private studies to which he was now attached; and his love of letters continually growing stronger, the seriousness of his temper, and purity of his morals, concurring, determined him to quit his profession for the church. In 1723 he received deacon’s orders from archbishop Dawes and his first printed work then appeared, consisting of translations from Cæsar, Pliny, Claudian, and others, under the title of “Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse, from Roman Poets, Orators, and Historians,” 12mo. It is dedicated to hig early patron, sir Robert Sutton, who, in 1726, when Mr. Warburton had received priest’s orders from bishop Gibson, employed his interest to procure him the small vicarage of Gryesly in Nottinghamshire. About Christmas, 1726, he came to London, and, while there, was introduced to Theobald, Concanen, and other of Mr. Pope’s enemies, the novelty of whose conversation had at this time many charms for him, and he entered too eagerly into their cabals and prejudices. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to Concanen, dated Jan. 2, 1726, very disrespectful to Pope, which, by accident, falling into the hands of the late Dr. Akenside, was produced to most of that gentleman’s friends, and became the subject of much speculation. About this time he also communicated to Theobald some notes on Shakspeare, which afterwards appeared in that critic’s edition of our great dramatic poet. In 1727, his second work, entitled “A Critical and Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Historians,” &c. was published in 12mo, and was also dedicated to sir Robert Sutton in a prolix article of twenty pages. In 1727 he published a treatise, under the title of “The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated,” which he undertook at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, esq. afterwards a master in Chancery, who put the materials into his hands, and spent some time in the country with him during the compilation of the work. On April 25, 1728, by the interest of sir Robert Sutton, he had the honour to be in the king’s list of masters of arts, created at Cambridge on his majesty’s visit to that university. In June, the same year, he was presented by sir Robert Sutton to the rectory of Burnt or Brand Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln, and neighbourhood of Newark, where he fixed himself accompanied by his mother and sisters, to whom he was ever a most affectionate relative. Here he spent a considerable part of the prime of life in a studious retirement, devoted entirely to letters, and there planned, and in part executed, some of his most important works. They, says his biographer, who are unacquainted with the enthusiasm which true genius inspires, will hardly conceive the possibility of that intense application, with which Mr. Warburton pursued his studies in this retirement. Impatient of any interruptions, he spent the whole of his time that could be spared from the duties of his parish, in reading and writing. His constitution was strong, and his temperance extreme; so that he needed no exercise but that of walking; and a change of reading, or study, was his only amusement.

Mr. Warburton’s extraordinary merit had now attracted the notice of the heir-apparent to the crown, in whose immediate service we find him in June 1738, when he published “Faith working by Charity to Christian edification; a sermon preached at the last episcopal visitation for confirmation in the diocese of Lincoln; with a preface, shewing the reasons of its publication; and a postscript, occasioned by some letters lately published in the Weekly Miscellany: by William Warburton, M. A. chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales.” A second edition of “The Divine Legation” also appeared in November 1738. In March 1739, the world was in danger of being deprived of this extraordinary genius by an intermitting fever, which with some difficulty was relieved by a plentiful use of the bark. His reputation was now rising everyday; and he about this time rendered a service tt> Pope, by means of which he acquired an ascendancy over that great poet, which will astonish those who observe the air of superiority which, until this connection, had been shewed in all Pope’s friendships, even with the greatest men of the age. The “Essay on Man” had been now published some years and it is universally supposed that the author had, in the composition of it, adopted the philosophy of lord Bolingbroke, whom on this occasion he had followed as his guide, without understanding the tendency of his principles. In 1758 M. de Crousaz wrote some remarks on it, accusing the author of Spinosism and Naturalism; which falling into Mr. Warburton’s hands he published a defence of the first epistle in “The Works of the Learned,” and soon after of the remaining three, in seven letters, of which six were pri.nted in 1739, and the seventh in June 1740, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man, by the author of the Divine Legation.” The opinion which Mr. Pope conceived of these defences, as well as of their author, will be best seen in his letters. In consequence, a firm friendship was established between them, which continued with much undiminished fervour until the death of Mr. Pope, who, during the remainder of his life, paid a deference and respect to his friend’s judgment and abilities which will be considered by many as almost bordering on servility.

In 1741 the second volume of “The Divine Legation,” in two parts, containing books IV. V. VI. was published; as was also a second edition of the “Alliance between Church and State.” In the summer of that year Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton, in a country-ramble, took Oxford in their way, where they parted; Mr. Pope, after one day’s stay, going westward; and Mr. Warburton, who stayed aday after him to visit Dr. Conybeare, then dean of Christ Church, returning to London. On that day the vice chancellor, Dr. Leigh, sent a message to his lodgings with the usual compliment, to know if a doctor’s degree in divinity would be acceptable to him; to which such an iuiiswer was returned as so civil a message deserved. About the same time Mr. Pope had the like offer made him of a doctor’s degree in law, which he seemed disposed to accept, until he learnt that some impediment had been thrown in the way of his friend’s receiving the compliment intended for him by the vice-chancellor. He then absolutely refused that proposed to himself. “Mr. Pope,” says Hurd, “retired with some indignation to Twickenham, but consoled himself and his friend with this sarcastic reflection, ' We shall take our degree together in fame, whatever we do at the university?” This biographer also informs us that “the university seemed desirous of enrolling their narmes among their graduates,” but that “intrigue and envy defeated this scheme.” He adds, that this was “the fault of one or two of its (the university’s) members,” a number surely insufficient to produce such an effect. But the real history of this matter seems never to have been given.

Mr. Pope’s affection for Mr. Warburton was of service to him in more respects than merely increasing his fame. He introduced and warmly recommended him to most of his friends, and amongst the rest to Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior Park, whose niece he some years afterwards married. In consequence of this introduction, we find Mr. Warburton at Bath in 1742. There he printed a sermon which had been preached at the abbey-church, on the 24th of October, for the benefit of Mr. Allen’s favourite charity, the general hospital, or infirmary. To this sermon, which was published at the request of the governors, was added, “A* short account of the nature, rise, and progress, of the General Infirmary, at Bath.” In this year also he printed a dissertation on the Origin of Books of Chivalry, at the end of Jarvis’s preface to a translation of Don Quixote, which, Mr. Pope tells him, he had not got over two paragraphs of before he cried out, < Aut Erasmus, aut Dmbolus. 1 “I knew you,” adds he, “as certainly as the ancients did the Gods, by the first pace and the very gait. I have not a moment to express myself in; but could not omit this, which delighted me so much.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, however, has completely demolished Warburton’s system o-n this subject. Pope’s attention to his interest did not rest in matters which were in his own power; he recommended him to some who were more able to assist him; in particular, he obtained a promise from lord Granville, which probably, however, ended in nothing. He appears also to have been very solicitous to bring lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Warburton together, and the meeting accordingly took place, but we are told by Dr. Warton, they soon parted in mutual disgust with each other. In 1742 Mr. Warburton published “A critical and philosophical Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man: in which is contained a Vindication of the said Essay from the misrepresentations of Mr. de Resnel, the French translator, and of Mr. de Crousaz, professor of philosophy and mathematics in the academy of Lausanne, the commentator.” It was at this period, when Mr. Warburton had the entire confidence of Pope, that he advised him to complete the Dunciad, by changing the hero,- and adding to it a fourth book. This was accordingly executed in 1742, and published early in 1743, 4to, with notes by our author, who, in consequence of it, received his share of the castigation which Gibber liberally bestowed on both Pope and his annotator. In the latter end of the same year. he published complete editions of “The Essay on Man,” and “The Essay on Criticism:” and,from the specimen which he there exhibited of his abilities, it may be presumed Pope determined to commit to him the publication of those works which he should leave. At Pope’s desire, he about this time revised and corrected the “Essay on Homer,” as it now stands in the last edition of that translation. The publication of “The Dunciad” was the last service which our author rendered Pope in his life-time. After a lingering and tedious illness, the event of which had been long foreseen, this great poet died on the 30th of' May, 1744; and by his will, dated the 12th of the preceding December, bequeathed to Mr. Warburton one half of his library, and the property of all such of his works already printed as he had not otherwise disposed of or alienated, and all the. profits which should arise from any edition to be printed after his death; but at the same time directed that they should be published without any future alterations. In 1744 Warburton’s assistance to Dr. Z. Grey was handsomely acknowledged in the preface to Hudibras; but with this gentleman he had afterwards a sharp controversy (See Grey.) “The Divine Legation of Moses” had now been published some time; and various answers and objections to it had started up from different quarters. In this year, 1744, Mr Warburton turned his attention to these attacks on his favourite work; and defended himself in a manner which, if it did not prove him to be possessed of much humility or diffidence, at least demonstrated that he knew how to wield the weapons of controversy with the hand of a master. His first defence now appeared under the title of “Remarks on several Occasional Reflections, in answer to the Rev, Dr. Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the master of the Charter-house, Dr. Richard Grey, and others; serving to explain and justify divers passages in the Divine Legation as far as it is yet advanced: wherein is considered the relation the several parts bear to each other and the whole. Together with an Appendix, in answer to a late pamphlet, entitled” An Examination of Mr. W's Second Proposition,“8vo. And this was followed next year by” Remarks on several Occasional Reflections; in answer to the Rev. Doctors Stebbing and Sykes; serving to explain and justify the Two Dissertations, in the Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to offer up his son, and the nature of the Jewish theocracy, objected to by those learned writers. Part II. and last;“8vo. Both these answers are couched in those high terms of confident superiority which marked almost every performance that fell from his pen during the remainder of his life. Sept. 5, 1745, the friendship between him and Mr. Allen was more closely cemented by his marriage with his niece, Miss Tucker, who survived him. At this juncture the kingdom was under a great alarm, occasioned by the rebellion breaking out in Scotland. Those who wished well to the then-established government found it necessary to exert every effort which could be used against the invading enemy. The clergy were not wanting on their part; and no one did more service than Mr. Warburton, who published three very excellent and seasonable sermons at this important crisis. I,” A faithful portrait of Popery by which it is seen to be the reverse of Christianity, as it is the destruction of morality, piety, and civil liberty. A sermon preached at St. James’s church, Westminster, Oct. 1745,“Sva. II.” A sermon occasioned by the present unnatural Rebellion, &e> preached in Mr. Allen’s chapel, at Prior Park, near Bath, Nov. 1745, and published at his request,'? 8vo. III. “The nature of National Offences truly stated. A sermon preached on the general fast-day, Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8vo. On account of the last of these sermons he was again involved in a controversy with his former antagonist, Dr. Stebbing, which occasioned “An Apologetical Dedication to the Rev. Dr. Henry Stebbing, in answer to his censure and misrepresentations of the sermon preached on the general fast-day to be observed Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8yo. Notwithstanding his great connections, his acknowledged abilities, and his established reputation, a reputation founded on the durable basis of learning, and upheld by the decent and attentive performance of every duty incident to his station; yet we do not find that he received any addition to the preferment given him in 1728 by sir Robert Sutton (except the chaplaihship to the prince of Wales) until April 1746, when he was unanimously called by the society of Lincoln’s Inn to be their preacher. In November he published “A Sermon preached on the Thanksgiving appointed to be observed the 9th Oct. for the suppression of the late unnatural Rebellion,” 1746, 8vo. In 1747 appeared his edition of “Sbakspeare,” from which he derived very little reputation. Of this edition, the nameless critic already quoted, says, “To us it exhibits a phenomenon unobserved before in the operations of human intellect a mind, ardent and comprehensive, acute and penetrating, warmly devoted to the subject and furnished with all the stores of literature ancient or modern, to illustrate and adorn it, yet by some perversity of understanding, or some depravation of taste, perpetually mistaking what was obvious, and perplexing what was clear; discovering erudition of which the author was incapable, and fabricating connections to which he was indifferent. Yet, with all these inconsistencies, added to the affectation, equally discernible in the editor of Pope and Shakspeare, of understanding the poet better than he understood himself, there sometimes appear, in the rational intervals of his critical delirium, elucidations so happy, and disquisitions so profound, that our admiration of the poet (even of such a poet), is suspended for a moment while we dwell on the excellencies of the commentator.”

In the same year he published, 1. “A Letter from an author to a member of parliament, concerning Literary Property,” 8vo. 2. “Preface to Mrs. Cockburn’s remarks upon the principles and reasonings of Dr. Rutherforth’s Essay on the nature and obligations of Virtue,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Preface to a critical enquiry into the opinions and practice of the Ancient Philosophers, concerning the nature of a Future State, and their method of teaching by double Doctrine,” (by Mr. Towne), 1747, 8vo, 2d edition. In 1748 a third edition of “The Alliance between Church and State corrected and enlarged.” In 1749, a very extraordinary attack was made on the moral character of Mr. Pope from a quarter whence it could be the least expected. His “Guide, Philosopher, and Friend,” lord Bolingbroke, published a book which he had formerly lent Mr. Pope in ms. The preface to this work, written by Mr. Mallet, contained an accusation of Mr. Pope’s having clandestinely printed an edition of his lordship’s performance without his leave or knowledge. (See Pope.) A defence of the poet soon after made its appearance, which was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and was afterwards owned by him. It was called “'A Letter to the editor of Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism, the Idea of a patriot King, and the State of Parties, occasioned by the editor’s advertisement;” which soon afterwards produced an abusive pamphlet under the title of “A familiar epistle to the most Impudent Man living,” &c. a performance, as has been truly observed, couched in Janguage bad enough to disgrace even gaols and garrets. About this time the publication of Dr. Middleton’s “Enquiry concerning the Miraculous Powers,” gave rise to a controversy, which was managed with great warmth and asperity on both sides. On this occasion Mr. Warburton puolished an excellent performance, written with a degree of candour and temper which, it is to be lamented, he did not always exercise. The title of it was “Julian or, a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which defeated the emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, 1750,” 8vo. A second edition of this discourse, <c with Additions,“appeared in 1751. The critic above quoted has some remarks on this work too important to be omitted.” The gravest, the least eccentric, the most convincing of Warburton’s works, is the ' Julian, or a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, which defeated that emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in which the reality of a Divine interposition is shewn, and the objections to it ar are answered/ The selection of this subject was peculiarly happy, inasmuch as this astonishing fact, buried in the ponderous volumes of the original reporters, was either little considered by an Uninquisitive age, or confounded with the crude mass of false, ridiculous, or ill-attested miracles, which “with no friendly voice” had been recently exposed by Middleton. But in this instance the occasion was important: the honour of the Deity was concerned; his power had been defied, and his word insulted. For the avowed purpose of defeating a well-known prophecy, and of giving to the world a practical demonstration that the Christian scriptures contained a lying prediction, the emperor Julian undertook to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem; when, to the astonishment and confusion of the builders, terrible flames bursting from the foundations, scorched and repelled the workmen 'till they found themselves compelled to desist. Now this phenomenon was not, the casual eruption of a volcano, for it had none of the concomitants of those awful visitations: it may even be doubted whether it were accompanied by an earthquake; but the marks of intention and specific direction were incontrovertible. The workmen desisted, the flames retired, they returned to the work, when the flames again burst forth, and that as often as the experiment was repeated.

In 1751, Mr. Warburton published an edition of Pope’s “Works,” with notes, in nine volumes, octavo and in the same year printed “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Middleton, inserted in a pamphlet entitled The Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,” &c. 8vo. and “An Account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans, the Welsh Prophet, in the last Century;” the latter of which pieces afterwards subjected him to much ridicule. In 1753, Mr. Warburton published the first volume of a course of Sermons, preached at Lincoln’s-inn, entitled “The Principles of natural and revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained;” and this, in the subsequent year, was followed by a second. After the public had been some time promised lord Bolingbroke’s Works, they were about this time printed. The known abilities and infidelity of this nobleman had created apprehensions, in the minds of many people, of the pernicious effects of his doctrines; and nothing but the appearance of his whole force could have convinced his friends how little there was to be dreaded from arguments against religion so weakly supported. The personal enmity, which had been excited many years before between the peer and our author, had occasioned the former to direct much of his reasoning against two works of the latter. Many answers were soon published, but none with more acuteness, solidity, and sprightliness, than “A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in two Letters to a Friend,” 1754. The third a/id fourth letters were published in 1755, with another edition of the two former; and in the same year a smaller edition of the whole; which, though it came into the world without a name, was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and afterwards publicly owned by him. To some copies of this is prefixed an excellent complimentary epistle from the president Montesquieu, dated May 26, 1754. At this advanced period of his life, that preferment which his abilities might have claimed, and which had hitherto been withheld, seemed to be approaching towards him. In September 1754 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, and in the 'next year was presented to a prebend * in the cathedral of Durham, worth 500l. per annum, on the death of Dr. Mangey. About the same time, the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury; and, a new impression of “The, Divine Legation” having being called for, he printed a fourth edition of the first part of it, corrected and enlarged, divided into two volumes, with a dedication to the earl of Hardwicke. The same year appeared “A Sermon preached before his grace Charles duke of Marlborough president, and the Governors of the Hospital for the small-pox and for inoculation, at the parish church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Thursday, April the 24th, 1755,” 4to; and in 1756 “Natural and Civil Events the Instruments of God’s moral Government, a Sermon preached on the last public Fast-day, at Lincoln’s-inn Chapel,” 4to. In 1757, a pamphlet was published, called “Remarks on Mr. David Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion;” which is said to have been composed of marginal observations made by Dr. Warburton on reading Mr. Hume’s book; and which gave so much offence to the author animadverted upon, that he thought it of importance enough to deserve particular mention in the short account of his life. On Oct. 11, in this year, our author was ad­* Soon after he attained this pre- Neal’s History of the Puritans, which ferment, he wrote the Remarks on are now added to his Works. “vanced to the deanery of Bristol and in 175&republished the second part of” The Divine Legation,“divided into two parts, with a dedication to the earl of Mansfield, which deserves to be read by every person who esteems the wellbeing of society as a concern of any importance. At the latter end of next year, Dr. Warburton received the honour, so justly due to his merit, of being dignified with the mitre, and promoted to the vacant see of Gloucester. He was consecrated on the 20th of Jan. 1760; and on the 30th of the same month preached -before the House of Lords. In the next year he printed” A rational Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,“12mo. In 1762, he published” The Doctrine of Grace: or, the office and operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,“2 vols. 12mo, one of his performances which does him least credit; and in the succeeding year drew upon himself much illiberal abuse from some writers of the popular party, on occasion of his complaint in the House of Lords, on Nov. 15, 1763, against Mr. Wilkes, for putting his name to certain notes on the infamous” Essay on Woman.“In 1765, anotber edition of the second part of” The Divine Legation“was published, as volumes III. IV. and V.; the two parts printed in 1755 being considered as volumes I. and II. It was this edition which produced a very angry controversy between him and Dr. Lowth, whom in many respects he found more than his equal. (See Lowth, p. 438.) On this occasion was published,” The second part of an epistolary Correspondence between the bishop of Gloucester and the late professor of Oxford, without an Imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated Laws of Honour and Society,“1766, 8vo. In 1776, he gave a new edition of” The Alliance between Church and State;“and” A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign Parts, at the anniversary Meeting in the parish church of St. Mary-le-bow, on Friday, Feb. 21,“8vo. The next year produced a third volume of his” Sermons,“dedicated to lady Mansfield and with this, and a single” Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry on Thursday, April 30, 1767, before his royal highness Edward duke of York, president, and the governors of the London Hospital. &c.“4to, he closed his literary labours. His faculties continued unimpaired for some time after this period; and, in 1769, he gave the principal materials to Mr. Ruffhead, for his” Life of Mr. Pope." He also transferred 500l. to lord Mansfield, judge Wilmot, and Mr. Charles Yorke, upon trust, to found a lecture in the form of a course of sermons; to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable introductory letters of bishop Hurd and the well- adapted continuation of bishops Halifax and Bagot, Dr. Apthorp, the Rev. R. Nares, and others. It is a melancholy reflection, that a life spent in the constant pursuit of knowledge frequently terminates in the loss of those powers, the cultivation and improvement of which are attended to with too strict and unabated a degree of ardour. This was in some degree the misfortune of Dr. Warburton. Like Swift and the great duke of Marlborough, he gradually sunk into a situation in which it was a fatigue to him to enter into general conversation. There were, however, a few old and valuable friends, in whose company, even to the last, his mental faculties were exerted in their wonted force; and at such times he would appear cheerful for several hours, and on the departure of his friends retreat as it were within himself. This melancholy habit was aggravated by the loss of his only son, a very promising young gentleman, who died of a consumption but a short time before the bishop himself resigned to fate June 7, 1779, in the eighty-first year of his age. A neat marble monument has been lately erected in the cathedral of Gloucester, with the inscription below *.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was of low extraction, and born in Oxfordshire about 1667. Jacob said of him, in his Lives of the Poets, that he kept a public house in the city, but in a genteel way, which was much frequented by those who were adverse to the Whig administration. Ward, however, was affronted when he read this account, not because it made him an enemy to the Whigs, or the keeper of a public house, but because his house was said to be in the city. In a book, therefore, called “Apollo’s Maggot,” he declared this account to be a great falsity, protesting that his public house was not in the city, but in Moorfelds. Oldys says he lived a while in Gray’s-­Inn, and for some years after kept a public house in Moorfields, then in Clerkenwell, and lastly a punch-house in Fulwood’s-Rents, within one door of Gray’s-Inn, where he would entertain any company who invited him with many stories and adventures of the poets and authors he had acquaintance with. He was honoured with a place in the “Dunciad” by Pope, whom, however he contrived to vex, by retorting with some spirit. He died June 20, 1731, and was buried the 27th of the same month in St. Pancras church-yard, with one mourning-coach for his wife and daughter to attend his hearse, as himself had directed in his poetical will, which was written by him June 24, 1725. This will was printed in Appleby’s Journal, Sept. 28, 1731. Ward is most distinguished by his well-known “London Spy,” a coarse, but in some respect a true, description of London manners. He wrote one dramatic piece, called “The Humours of a Coffee-house,” and some poems in the Hudibrastic style, but not “England’s Reformation,” as asserted in Mr. Reed’s edition of the Biog. Dram. 1782. That was the production of Thomas Ward, who will be mentioned hereafter.

, an English prelate, famous chiefly for his skill in mathematics and astronomy, was the son of John Ward an attorney, and born at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire. Wood says he was baptised the 16th of April, 1617; but Dr. Pope places his birth in 1618. He was taught grammar-learning and arithmetic in the school at Buntingford; and thence removed to Sidney college in Cambridge, into which he was admitted in 1632. Dr. Samuel Ward, the master of that college, was greatly taken with his ingenuity and good nature; and shewed him particular favour, partly perhaps from his being of the same surname, though there was no affinity at all between them. Here he applied himself with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to mathematics, his initiation into which, Pope thus relates: “In the college library Mr. Ward found by chance some books that treated of the mathematics, and they being woolly new to him, he inquired all the college over for a guide to instruct him in that way; but all his search was in vain; these books were Greek, I mean unintelligible, to all the fellows of the college. Nevertheless he took courage, and attempted them himself, proprio Marte, without any confederates or assistance, or intelligence in that country, and that with so good success, that in a short time he not only discovered those Indies, but conquered several kingdoms therein, and brought thence a great part of their treasure, which he shewed publicly to the whole university not long after.”

In 1654, both the Savilian professors performed their exercise in order to proceed doctors in divinity; and, when they were to be presented, Wallis claimed precedency. (See Wallis.) This occasioned a dispute; which being decided in favour of Ward, who was really the senior, Wallis went out grand compounder, and by that means obtained the precedency. In 1657 he was elected principal of Jesus-college by the direction of Dr. Mansell, who had been ejected from that headship many years before; but Cromwell put in one Francis Howell, with a promise of So/. a year to Dr. Ward, which was never paid. In 1659 he was chosen president of Trinity-college, although absolutely disqualified for the office, and was therefore obliged, at the restoration, to resign it. At that time, however, he was presented to the vicarage of St. Lawrence-Jewry: for, though he was not distinguished by his sufferings during the exile of the royal family, yet he was known to be so averse to the measures of the late times, and to be so well affected to the royal cause, that his compliances were forgiven. He was installed also, in 1660, in the precentorship of the church of Exeter. In 1661 he became fellow of the Royal Society, and dean of Exeter; and the following year was advanced to the bishopric of that church. Dr. Pope tells us, he was promoted to that see, without knowing any thing of it, by the interest of the duke of Albemarle, sir Hugh Pollard, and other gentlemen, whom he had obliged during his residence at Exeter.

In the House of Lords he was esteemed an admirable speaker and a close reasoner, equal at least to the earl of Shaftesbury. He was a great benefactor to both his bishoprics, as by his interest the deanry of Burien, in Cornwall was annexed to the former, and the chancellorship of the garter to the latter. He was polite, hospitable, and generous: and in his life-time, founded the college at Salisbury, for the reception and support of ministers’ widows, and the sumptuous hospital at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the place of his birth. His intimate friend, Dr. Walter Pope, has given us a curious account of his life, interspersed with agreeable anecdotes of his friends. Pope’s zeal and style, however, provoked a severe pamphlet from Dr. Thomas Wood, a civilian, called “An Appendix to the Life,” 1679, 12mo, bound up, although rarely, with Pope’s work.

Of Robert Ware some farther notice must be taken, as he was a writer of considerable note in his day. He had by those writings appeared so averse to the Roman catholic interest of Ireland in the reign of Charles II. that, fearing the resentment of that party, which he had reason to believe would be severe enough, and being advised by the earl of Clarendon, then lord lieutenant, he removed with his family into England on the same day that lord Tyrcon* nel landed in Ireland to take upon him the government, which he continued until the revolution. Mr. Ware died March 1696, after publishing, I. “The Examinations of Faithful Commin and Thomas Heath,” &c. Dublin, 1671, 4to. 2. “The Conversion of Philip Corwine, a Franciscan Friari to the protestant religion^ in 1569,” ibid. 1681, 4to. 3. “The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, in the life and death of George Brown, sometime archbishop of Dublin,” ibid. 1681, 4to. This stands the first in the English edition of sir James Ware’s Works, Dublin, 1705, fol. and is also reprinted in the “Phoenix,” vol. I. 4. “Foxes and Firebrands or a specimen of the danger and harmony of popery and separation wherein is proved from undeniable matter of fact and reason, that separation from the Church of England is, in the judgment of papists, and by sad experience, found the most compendious way to introduce popery, and to ruin the protestant religion, in two parts,” London, 1680, 4to, Dublin, 1682, 8vo. The first part, with the examinations of Commin and Heath, was published by Dr. John Nalson in 1678, 8vq, and the second part was added by Mr. Robert Ware. 5. “The hunting of the Romish Fox, and the quenching of sectarian firebrands; being a specimen of popery and separation,” Dublin, 1683, 8vo. 6. “Foxes and Firebrands, the third part,” Loud. 1689, 8vo. 7. “Pope Joan; or an account that there was such a she-pope, proved from Romish authors before Luther,” &c. ibid. 1689, 4to. Mr. Ware left also an unfinished and imperfect ms. on the history and antiquities of the city and university of Dublin.

Warham now, according to lord Bacon, began much to gain upon the king’s opinion, and having executed his office of master of the rolls, as well as his other employments, with great ability, and with much reputation, he was in 1502 made keeper of the great seal of England, and on the first of January following lord high chancellor. In the beginning of 1503 he was advanced to the see of London. In the preceding year the king’s eldest son Arthur prince of Wales was married to Catherine of Arragon, but died soon after, and Henry’s avarice rendering him unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, he proposed that she should marry his younger son Henry, now prince of Wales. But there being great reason to believe that the marriage between prince Arthur and Catherine had been really consummated, Warham remonstrated, in very strong terms, against this preposterous measure, and told the king, that he thought it was neither honourable, nor well-pleasing to God. In this, however, he was opposed by Fox bishop of Winchester, who insisted that the pope’s dispensation could remove all impediments, either sacred or civil. This marriage, it is well-known, afterwards took place, and was the cause of some of the most important events in English history.

Warham continued to hold his place of chancellor for the first seven years of Henry VIII. but became weary of it when Wolsey had gained such an ascendancy over the king, as to be intrusted with almost the sole administration of public affairs. Warham, says Burnet, always hated cardinal Wolsey, and weuld never stoop to him, esteeming it below the dignity of his see. Erasmus relates of Warham, that it was his custom to wear plain apparel, and that once when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, and Wolsey took upon him to publish an order, that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed, in silk or damask, Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s commands, came in his usual cloath-s. One misunderstanding between Warham and Wolsey was about the latter’s having the cross carried before him in the province of Canterbury. Warham as primate of all England, had taken umbrage that Wolsey, who was only archbishop of York, should cause the cross to be carried before him in the presence of Warham, and even in the province of Canterbury, contrary to the ancient custom; which was, that the cross of the see of York should not be advanced in the same province, or ia the same place, with the cross of Canterbury, in acknowledgment of the superiority of the latter see. When Warham expostulated with Wolsey on this subject, he appears to have convinced him of the impropriety of his conduct; but rather than desist from it, and lose a dignity he had once assumed, Wolsey contrived how he might, for the future, have a right to it, wkhout incurring any imputation of acting contrary to rule. And though his being a cardinal did not give him the contested right, he knew that he might assume it with a better grace, if he was invested with the legantine character; and therefore he solicited and obtained it, being made the pope’s legate a latere in November 1515. On this, in the following month, the archbishop Warham resigned the seals, and Wolsey was made lord chancellor in his room. There were subsequently many contests between these two great statesmen, in which Warham generally maintained the dignity and independence of his character with great firmness; but Wolsey, as long ag he remained the king’s favourite, was the more powerful antagonist. Still, notwithstanding his superiority, Warham sometimes was enabled to convince him that he stretched his power too far. Of this we have a remarkable instance. Warham had summoned a convocation of the prelates and clergy of his province to meet at St. Paul’s April 20, 1523, and the cardinal had summoned a convocation of his province of York to meet at Westminster at the same time. But as soon as the convocation of Canterbury met, and were about to proceed to business, the cardinal summoned them to attend him April 22, in a legantine council at Westminster. This extraordinary step gave great offence to the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury. They indeed obeyed the summons, ljut when they came to treat of business, the proctors for the clergy observed, that their commissions gave them no authority to treat or vote but in convocation. This objection proved unanswerable, and the cardinal, to his great mortification, was obliged to dismiss his legantine council. When, in 1529, Wolsey was deprived of all his honours, the great seal was again offered to Warham, but being now far advanced in years, and displeased with the general proceedings of the court, he declined the offer. In his last year, 1532, he exhibited two instances of weakness, the one in being, with many others however, imposed upon by the pretended visions of Elizabeth Barton, commonly called the Maid of Kent; the other, in a kind of protest, which he left in the hands of a notary, against all the laws that had been made, or that should thereafter be made, by the present parliament, in derogation of the authority of the pope, or the right and immunities of the church. The design of this private protest against those laws to which he had given his consent in public, is not very obvious. Burnet would suggest, that it was a piece of superstitious penance imposed on him by his confessor, in which case it must be accounted an instance of extreme weakness.

About 1760 he wrote for the “Biographia Britannica,” the life of sir Thomas Pope, which he republished in 1772, 8vo, and again in 1780, with very considerable additions and improvements; and in 1761 he published the “Life and Literary Remains of Dr. Batburst.” In the same year, and in 1762, he contributed to the Oxford collections, verses on the royal marriage, and on the birth of the prince of Wales, and an ode entitled the “Complaint of Cherwell,” under the name of John Chichester, brother to the earl of Donegal f. His next publication was the “Oxford Sausage, or select pieces written by the most celebrated wits of the university of Oxford.” The preface and several of the poems are undoubtedly his, and the latter are authenticated by his adding them afterwards to his avowed productions. In 1766 he superintended an edition from the Clarendon press of “Cephalus’ Anthology,” to which he prefixed a very curious and learned preface. In this he announced his edition of “Theocritus,” which made its appearance in 1770, 2 vols. 4to, a most correct and splendid work, that carried his fame to the continent.

ver, one of Mr. Warton’s pupils, who could not write for themselves. Kiddington, Oxon. on the presentation of George Henry earl of Litchfield, then chancellor of the university, a nobleman whose memory he afterwards honoured by an epitaph. In 1774 he published the first volume of his “History of English Poetry,” the most important of all his works, and to the completion of which the studies of his whole life appear to have been bent. How much it is to be regretted that he did not live to complete his plan, every student in ancient literature must be deeply sensible. He intended to have carried the history down to the commencement 6f the eighteenth century. A second volume accordingly appeared in 1778, and a third in 1781, after which he probably relaxed from his pursuit, as at the period of his death in 1.790, a few sheets only of the fourth volume were printed, and no part left in a state for printing. His original intention was to have comprised the whole in two or three volumes, but it is now evident, and he probably soon became aware, that five would have scarcely been sufficient if he continued to write on the same scale, and to deviate occasionally into notices of manners, laws, customs, &c. that had either a remote, or an immediate connection with his principal subject. What his reasons were for discontinuing his labours, cannot now be ascertained. It is well known to every writer that a work of great magnitude requires temporary relaxation, or a change of employment, and may admit of both without injury; but he might probably find that it was now less easy to return with spirit to his magnum opus, than in the days of more vigour and activity. It is certain that he wished the public to think that he was making his usual progress, for in 1785, when he published “Milton’s Juvenile Poems,” he announced the speedy publication of the fourth volume of the history, of which, from that time to his death, ten sheets only were finished. His brother, Dr. Joseph, was long supposed to be engaged in completing this fourth volume. In one of his letters lately published by Mr. Wooll, and dated 1792, he says, “At any leisure I get busied in finishing the last volume of Mr. Warton’s History of Poetry, which I have engaged to do, for the booksellers are clamorous to have the book finished (though the ground I am to go over is so beaten) that it may be a complete work.” Yet on his death in 1800, it did not appear that he had made any progress . Mr. Warton’s biographer has traced the origin of this work to Pope, who, according to Ruffhead, had sketched a plan of a history of poetry, dividing the poets into classes or schools; but Ruffhead’s list of poets is grossly erroneous. Gray, however, Mr. Mason informs us, had meditated a history of English poetry, in which Mason was to assist him. Their design was to introduce specimens of the Provencal poetry, and of the Scaidic, British, and Saxon, as preliminary to what first deserved to be called English poetry about the time of Chaucer, from whence their history, properly so called, was to commence. Gray, however, was deterred by the magnitude of the undertaking; and being informed that Warton was employed on a similar design, more readily relinquished his own.

Such is Mr. Mant’s account, who adds (in p. cxxvi) that Warton “judiciously preferred the plan on which he has proceeded to that proposed by Pope, Gray, and Mason.” Jt appears, however, that Warton had made considerable progress on hisown plan before he knew any thing of Gray’s, and that when he heard of the latter, and perhaps at the same time of its being relinquished, he thought proper, which he might then do without indelicacy, to apply to Gray, through the medium of Dr. Hurd, requesting that he would communicate any fragments, or sketches of his design. Mr. Gray, in answer to this application, sent the following letter:

"P. IV. School of France, introduced after the restoration Waller, Dryden, Addison, Prior, and Pope, which has continued down to our own times.

“You will observe, that my idea was in some measure taken from a scribbled paper of Pope, of which (I believe) you have a copy. You will also see that I had excluded dramatic poetry entirely, which if you. have taken in, it will at least double the bulk and labour of your book *.”

"Your plan for the History of English Poetry is admirably constructed and much improved from an idea of Pope, which Mr. Mason obligingly sent me by application from our friend Dr. Hurd. I regret that a writer of your consummate taste should not have executed it.

* We have his brother’s authority the laugh of the Probationary Odes; that “he always heartily joined in the for a man more devoid of envy, anger, laugh, and applauded the exquisite wit and ill-nature, never existed. So sweet aad humour that appeared in many of was his temper, so remote from pethose original satires.” Mr. Bowles’s dantry and all affectation was his conevidence may be cited a? more impar- duct, that when even Ritson’s scurtial, and as affording the testimony of rilous abuse came out, in which he asan excellent judge, to the character of sertcd that his back was “broad enough, Warton.” I can say, being at that and his heart hard enough,“to bear time a scholar of Trinity college, that anything Ritsou could lay on it, h* the laureate, who did the greatest ho- only said, with hii usual smile,” A nour to hi* station from his real poeti- black-lettered dog, sir" Bowles’s edita.1 abilities, did most heartily join in tion of Pope’s wvrks, VI. 325. communicated to the editor by Dr. Kurd. At the time of our author’s death a new edition of his Poems was also preparing for publication.

His temper was habitually calm. His disposition gentle, friendly, and forgiving. His resentments, where he could be supposed to have any, were expressed rather in the language of jocularity than anger. Mr. Mant has given as a report, that Dr. Johnson said of Warton, “he was the only man of genius that he knew without a heart.” But it is highly improbable that Johnson, who loved and practised truth and justice, should say this of one with whom he had exchanged so many acts of personal and literary friendship. It is to be regretted, indeed, that towards the end of Johnson’s life, there was a coolness between him and the Wartons; but if it be true that be wept on the recollection of their past friendship, it is very unlikely that he would have characterised Mr. Warton in the manner reported. Whatever was the cause of the abatement of their intimacy, Mr. Warton discovered no resentment, when he communicated so many pleasing anecdotes of Johnson to Mr. Boswell, nor when he came to discuss the merits of Milton in opposition to the opinions of that eminent critic. Dr. Warton, indeed, as may be seen in his notes on Pope, mixed somewhat more asperity with his review of Johnson’s sentiments.

The “Triumph of Isis” was written in his twenty-first year, and exhibiis the same beauties and faults which are to be found in his more mature productions. Among these last, is a redundancy of epithet which is more frequently a proof of labour than of taste. The “Pleasures of Melancholy” appears to be & more genuine specimen of early talent. He was only in his seventeenth year, when his mind was so richly stored with striking and elegant imagery­In general he seems to have taken Milton for his model, and throughout his poems we find expressions borrowed with as much freedom from Milton, as he has proved that Milton borrowed from others. One piece only, “Newmarket,” is an imitation of Pope, and is certainly one of the finest satires in our language. In this he has not only adopted the versification of Pope, and emulated his wit and point, but many of his lines are parodies on what he recollected in Pope’s Satires. This freedom of borrowing, however, seems so generally allowed, that it can form no higher objection against Warton than against Pope, Gray, and others of acknowledged eminence. We cannot be surprized that the memory of such a student as Warton should be familiar with the choicest language of poetry, and that he should often adopt it unconscious of its being the property of another. The frequent use of alliteration is a more striking defect; but perhaps these are strictures which ought not to interfere with the general merit of Warton as a poet of original genius. His descriptive pieces, had he written nothing else, would have proved his claim to that title. Nothing can be more natural, just, or delightful than his pictures of rural life. The “First of April” and the “Approach of Summer” have seldom been rivalled, and cannot perhaps be exceeded. The only objection which some critics have started is, that his descriptions are not varied by reflection. He gives an exquisite landscape, but does not always express the feelings it creates. His brother, speaking of Thomson, observes that the unexpected insertion of reflections “imparts to us the same pleasure that we feel, when, in wandering through a wilderness or grove, we suddenly behold in the turning of the walk a statue of some Virtue or Muse.” Yet in Warton’s descriptive poetry, it is no small merit to have produced so much effect, and so many exquisite pictures without this aid.

Amidst all these honours and employments, he now found leisure to complete the first volume of his celebrated “Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope,” which he dedicated to Dr. Young, but did not subscribe his name. Dodsley likewise, although the real publisher, thought proper to employ his deputy Mrs. Cooper, on this occasion. The following passage from one of Dodsley’s letters, published by Mr. Wooll, will probably throw some light on his motive. “Your Essay is published, the price 5$. bound, I gave Mrs. Cooper directions about advertising, and have sent it to her this afternoon, to desire she will look after its being inserted in the evening papers. I have a pleasure in telling you that it is lik'd in general, and particularly by such as you would wish should like it. But you have surely not kept your secret; Johnson mentioned it to Me., Hitch as yours. Dr. Birch mentioned it to Garrick as yours, and Dr. Akenside mentioned it as yours to me; and many whom I cannot now think on have asked for it as yours or your brother’s, I have sold many of them iii my own shop, and have dispersed and pushed it as much as I can and have said more than I could have said if my name had been to it.”—The objections made to this admirable piece of criticism xvere, in the mean time, powerful enough to damp the ardour of the essayist, who left his work in an imperfect state for the long space of twentysix years.

The tenour of his life was now even. During such times as he could spare from the school, and especially on the return of the Christmas vacation, he visited his friends in London, among -whom were the whole of that class who composed Dr. Johnson’s Literary Club, with some persons of rank, by whom he was highly respected, but who appear to have remembered their old master in every thing but promotion. In 1782, he was indebted to his friend and correspondent, Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, for a prebend of St. Paul’s and the living of Thorley in Hertfordshire, which, after some arrangements, he exchanged for Wickham. This year also he published his second and concluding volume of the “Essay on Pope,” and a new edition, with some alterations, of the first.

During his retirement at Wickham, he was induced by a liberal offer from the booksellers of London, and more, probably, by his love for the task, to superintend a new edition of “Pope’s Works;” which he completed in 1797 in nine volumes octavo. That this was the most complete and best illustrated edition of Pope, was generally allowed, but it had to contend with objections, some of which were not urged with the respect due to the veteran critic who had done so much to reform and refine the taste of his age. It was proper to object that he had introduced one or two pieces which ought never to have been published, but it was not so proper or necessary to object that he had given us his essay cut down into notes. Besides that this was unavoidable, they who made the objection had not been very careful to compare the new with the old matter; they would have found upon a fair examination that his original illustrations were very numerous, and that no discovery respecting Pope’s character or writings made since the edition of Warburton, was left untouched.

After the publication of Pope, he entered on an edition of Dryden, and about 1799 had completed two volumes with notes, which have since been published. At this time the venerable author was attacked by an incurable disorder in his kidneys, which terminated his useful and honourable life on Feb. 23, 1800, in his seventy-eighth year . He left a widow, who died in 1806, a son and three daughters, the youngest by his second wife. He was interred in the same grave with his first wife, in the north aisle of Winchester cathedral: and the Wiccamists evinced their respect for his memory by an elegant monument by Flaxman, placed against the pillar next to the entrance of the choir on the south side of the centre aisle.

The personal character of Dr. Warton continues to be the theme of praise with all who knew him. Without affectation of superior philosophy, he possessed an independent spirit; and amidst what would have been to others very bitter disappointments, he was never known to express the language of discontent or envy. As a husband and parent, he displayed the tenderest feelings mixed with that prudence which implies sense as well as affection. His manners partook of what has been termed the old court: his address was polite, and even elegant, but occasionally it had somewhat of measure and stateliness. Having left the university after a short residence, he mixed early with the world, sought and enjoyed the society of the fair sex, and tempered his studious habits with the tender and polite attentions necessary in promiscuous intercourse. In this respect there was a visible difference between him and his brother, whose manners were more careless and unpolished. In the more solid qualities of the heart, in true benevolence, kindness, hospitality, they approached more closely. Yet though their inclinations and pursuits were congenial, and each assisted the other in his undertakings, it may be questioned whether at any time they could have exchanged occupations. With equal stores of literature, with equal refinement of taste, it may be questioned whether the author of the Essay on Pope could have pursued the History of English poetry, or whether the historian of poetry could have written the papers we find in the Adventurer.

His biographer has considered his literary character under the three heads of a poet, a critic, and an instructor; but it is as a critic principally that he will be known to posterity, and as one who, in the language of Johnson, has taught “how the brow of criticism may be smoothed, and how she may be enabled, with all her severity, to attract and to delight.” A book, indeed, of more delightful variety than his Essay on Pope, has not yet appeared, nor one in which there is a more happy mixture of judgment and sensibility. It did not, however, flatter the current opinions on the rank of Pope among poets, and the author desisted from pursuing his subject for many years. Dr. Johnson said that this was owing “to his not having been able to persuade the world to be of his opinion as to Pope.” This was probably the truth, but not the whole truth. Motives of a delicate nature are supposed to have had some share in inducing him to desist for a time. Warburton was yet alive, the executor of Pope and the guardian of his fame, and Warburton was no less the active and zealous friend and correspondent of Thomas Warton; nor was it any secret that Warburton furnished Ruffhead with the materials for his Life of Pope, the chief object of which was a rude and impotent attack on the Essay. Warburton died in 1779, and in 1782, Dr. Warton completed his Essay, and at length persuaded the world that he did not differ from the common opinion so much as was supposed *. Still by pointing out what is not poetry, he gave unpardonable offence to those, whose names appear among poets, but whom he has reduced to moralists and versifiers.

In this work our author produced no new doctrine. The severe arrangement of poets in his dedication to Young, which announced the principles he intended to apply to Pope, and to the whole body of English poetry, was evidently taken from Philips, the nephew of Milton. In the preface to the Theatrum of this writer, it is asserted, that “wit, ingenuity, and learning in verse, even elegancy itself, though that comes nearest, are one thing true native poetry is another in which there is a certain air and spirit, which, perhaps, the most learned and judicious in other arts do not perfectly apprehend; much less is it attainable by any art or study.” On this text the whole

* “I thank you for the friendly is comprehended in these words of your delicacy in which you speak of my own. He chose to be the poet of reaEssay on Pope. I uever thought we son rather than of fancy.” Letter from disagreed so much as you seem to Dr. Warton to Mr. Haylty, published imagine. All I said, and all I think, by Mr. Wooll, p. 406. of the Essay is founded, and whatever objections were raised to it, while that blind admiration of Pope which accompanied his long dictatorship continued in full force, it is now generally adopted as the test of poetical merit by the best critics, although the partialities which some entertain for individual poets may yet give rise to difference of opinion respecting the provinces of argument and feeling.

, a minor poet and miscellaneous writer, born at Abington in Northamptonshire in 1689, received the rudiments of his education in Westminsterschool, where he wrote the celebrated little poem called “Apple-Pie,” which was universally attributed to Dr. King, and as such had been incorporated in his works. Very early inlife Mr. Welsted obtained a place in the office of ordnance, by the interest of his friend the earl of Clare, to whom, in 1715, he addressed a small poem (which Jacob calls “a very good one”) on his being created duke of Newcastle; and to whom, in 1724, he dedicated an octavo volume, under the title of “Epistles, Odes, &c. written on several subjects; with a translation of Longinus’s Treatise on the Sublime.” In 1717 he wrote “The Genius, on occasion of the duke of Marlborough’s Apoplexy;” an ode much commended by Steele, and so generally admired as to be attributed to Addison; and afterwards ' An Epistle to Dr. Garth, on the Duke’s death.“He addressed a poem to the countess of Warwick, on her marriage with Mr Addison; a poetical epistle to the duke of Chandos; and an ode to earl Cadogan, which was highly extolled by Dean Smedley. Sir Richard Steele was indebted to him for boih the prologue and epilogue to” The Conscious Lovers;“and Mr. Philips, for a complimentary poem on his tragedy of” Humfrey duke of Gloucester.“In 1718, he wrote” The Triumvirate, or a letter in verse from Palemon to Celia, from Bath,“which was considered as a satire against Mr. Pope. He wrote several other occasional pieces against this gentleman, who, in recompence for his enmity, thus mentioned him in his” Dunciad:"

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born at Groningen about 1419, and having lost his friends in his infancy, was sent by a benevolent lady, along with her only son, to be educated at a college at Swoll, which at that time happened to be in greater estimation than that of Groningen. This college was superintended by a community of monks, and Wesselus had at one time an inclination to have embraced the order, but was disgusted by some superstitious practices. After having studied here with great diligence, he removed to Cologne, where he was much admired for his proficiency, but already betrayed a dislike to the sentiments of the schoolmen. Being invited to teach theology at Heidelberg, it was objected that he had not received his doctor’s degree; and when he offered to be examined for that degree, he was told that the canons did not permit that it should be bestowed on a layman. Having therefore a repugnance to take orders, he confined his services to the reading of some lectures in philosophy; after which he returned to Cologne; and afterwards visited Louvain and Paris. The philosophical disputes being carried on then with great warmth between the realists, the formalists, and the nominalists, he endeavoured to bring over the principal champions of the formalists to the sect of the realists, but at lasthimself sided with the nominalists. He appears, however, to have set little value on any of the sects into which philosophy was at that time divided; and to a young man who consulted him concerning the best method of prosecuting his studies, he said, “You, young man, will live to see the day when the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and other modern disputants of the same stamp, will be exploded by all true Christian ditines, and when the irrefragable doctors themselves will be little regarded.” A prediction, says Brucker, which discovers so much good sense and liberality, that Wessel ought to be immortalized under the appellation of the Wise Doctor. Brucker admits him in his History of Philosophy, from the penetration which, in the midst of the scholastic phrenzy of his age, enabled him to discover the futility of the controversies which agitated the followers of Thomas, Scotus, and Occam. Some say that Wesseltis travelled into Greece, to acquire a more perfect acquaintance with the Greek and Hebrew languages than was then to be found in Europe. It is certain that he gained the esteem and patronage of Francis della Rovera, afterwards pope Sixtus IV. who, in an interview at Rome, offered him preferment. Wesselus desired only a copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek; and when the pope asked why he did not solicit for a bishopric, our philosopher replied, “Because I do not want one,” On his return he taught philosophy and philology at Groningen with great approbation, and died here Oct. 4, 1489. On his death-bed he was perplexed with doubts, which were soon relieved. His biographer says, that, “Being visited, in the sickness which brought him to his end, by a friend, who inquired after his health, he replied, that ‘he was pretty well, considering his advanced age, and the nature of his indisposition but that one thing made him very uneasy, viz. that being greatly perplexed with various thoughts and arguments, he began to entertain some little doubts with respect to the truth of the Christian religion.’ His friend was much surprised, and immediately exhorted him to direct all his thoughts to Christ the only Saviour; but, finding that such an admonition was displeasing, he went away deeply afflicted. But an hour or two after, Wesselus seeing his friend come back to him, he said, with an air of as much satisfaction and joy as one in his weak condition cpuld discover, < God be praised all those vain doubts are fled and now, all I know is Jesus Christ, and Rim crucified' after which confession he resigned his soul to God.” It appears that his religious sentiments were in many respects contrary to those of the Romish church, and some even called him the forerunner of Luther. Many of his Mss. were burnrd after his death by the contrivance of the monks, but what his friends saved were published at Groningen in 1614, consisting of “Tractatus de Oratione -r- de cohibendis cogitationibus de causis incarnationis de sacramento euchanstiae Farrago rerum Theologicarum epistolsp,” &c. Foppens, however, mentions an edition prior to this, published by Luther in 1525, and another at Marpurg in 1617, 4to.

Pope’s Woiks, from the authority of with which he always mentions lord

, son to the preceding, was born about 1699. He was educated at home; and, as what was calculated to distinguish him most, his father’s prime object was to form him a complete orator. The first prelude to his innumerable misfortunes may justly be reckoned his falling in love with, and privately marrying at the Fleet, when he was scarcely sixteen years old, a young lady, the daughter of major-general Holmes; a match by no means suited to his birth and fortune, and far less to the ambitious views his father had entertained for him. However, the amiable lady deserved infinitely more happiness than she met with by an alliance with his family; and the young lord was not so unhappy through any misconduct of hers as by the death of his father, which this precipitate marriage is thought to have occasioned about a year after. The duke, being so early free from paternal restraints, and possessed of a fortune of 16,000l. a year, plunged into those numberless excesses which became at last fatal to him; and proved, as Pope expresses it,

Pope has drawn his character in these masterly lines:

Whiston was occasionally exposed, as appears from the works of Swift and Pope, to the ridicule of these wits; but he was not himself without some portion of hutnour. The two following instances may be given on the authority of his son. “Being in company with Mr. Addison, sir Richard Steele, Mr. secretary Craggs, and sir Robert Waipole, they were busily engaged in a dispute, whether a secretary of state could be an honest man. Mr. Whiston, not intermeddling in it, was pressed to declare his opinion, which at length he did, by saying, he thought honesty was the best policy, and if a prime minister would practise it, he would find it so. To which Mr. Craggs replied: it might do for a fortnight; but would not do for a month.‘ Mr. Whiston asked him, ’ if he had ever tried it for a fortnight?' To which he making no reply, the company gave it for Mr. Whiston.”

His works, besides the translations already noticed, were, 1. “Answer to Edmund Campian his ten Reasons.” 2. “A defence of his answer against John Durye.” 3. “A refutation of Nicolas Sannders his Demonstration, whereby he would prove that the Pope is not Antichrist.” 4. “A collection thereto added of ancient heresies raked up again to make the popish apostacy.” 5. “A thesis propounded and defended at the commencement in 1582. that the Pope is the Antichrist spoken of in Scripture.” 6. “Answer to William Rainolds against the Preface to that against Saunders in English.” 7. “A disputation concerning the Scripture against the Papists of these times, particularly Bellarminc and Stapleton.” 8. “A defence of the authority of the Scriptures, against Thomas Stapleton his defence of the authority of the Church.” 9. “Lectures on the Controversies concerning the Bishop of Rome/' 10” Lectures on the Controversie concerning the Church.“11.” Lectures on the Controversie concerning Councils.“12.” A treatise of Original Sin, against Slapleton’s three former books of Justification.“The last four articles were published after the author’s death by John Allenson. 13.” A lecture on 1 Tim. ii. 4. read on Feb. 27, 1594, before the earl of Essex, and other honourable persons.“14.” Lectures concerning the Sacraments in general, and the Eucharist and Baptism in particular." This last was taken down by John Allenson, and published by Dr. Samuel Ward. Whitaker’s works were afterwards collected and published in Latin, at Geneva, in 1610, 2 vols. fol.

, an English historian, was born at Basingstoke, in Hampshire, of the great part of which place his ancestors had been proprietors. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1557. In the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign he obtained leave of absence for a set time, but his attachment to the Roman catholic religion being discovered, his fellowship was declared void, in 1564. He had gone abroad, and after Remaining some time at Louvain, settled at Padua, where he studied the canon and civil law, and received his doctor’s decree in both those faculties. Afterwards, being invited to Douay, he was made regius professor, and taught civil and canon law nearly twenty years. The universityappointed him their chancellor, or rector magnificus, not only on account of his own merit, but in consequence of the particular recommendation of the pope. At length he was created count palatine, a title conferred by the emperor upon lawyers that have distinguished themselves in their profession. He had married two wives, by both of whom he had fortunes, and when the last died, being desirous of entering into the church, he obtained a dispensation from the pope for that purpose. He was now ordained priest, and made a canon of St. Peter’s church, in Douay. He died in 1612, and was buried in St. James’s hurch, the cemetery of most of the English catholics.

Dodd has given a catalogue of forty-eij*ht publications by White, and endeavours to vindicate his character with considerable impartiality. He says, White was “a kind of enterprizer in the search of truth, and sometimes waded too deep; which, with the attempt of distinguishing between the schoolmen’s superstructures, and strict fundamentals, laid him open to be censured by those that were less inquisitive. It must be owned he sometimes lost himself, by treading in unbeaten paths, and adhered too stiffly to dangerous singularities. This created him adversaries from all quarters. Besides Protestants, who engaged with him. upon several controversial matters, he had several quarrels, both with the clergy and religious of his own communion, who attacked his works with great fury. His book of the” Middle State of Souls’.' gave great scandal, (though I find mention made of it by the learned Mabillon, as a master-piece in its kind). This performance was so represented by his adversaries, as if it rendered prayers for the dead an insignificant service: and the representation was so prejudicial to many of the clergy, that they were neglected in the usual distributions bestowed for the benefit of the faithful deceased. Another work, which drew a persecution upon him, was entitled, “Institutiones Sacrae,” &c. from whence the university of Douay drew twenty-two propositions, and condemned them, under respective censures, Nov. 3, 1660, chiefly at the instigations of Dr. George Leyburn, president of the English college, and John Warner, professor of divinity in the same house. He was again censured for his political scheme, exhibited in his book styled “Obedience and Government;” wherein he is said to assert an universal passive obedience to any species of government which has obtained an establishment; and, as his adversaries insinuated, was designed to flatter Cromwell in his usurpation, and incline him to favour the Catholics, upon the hopes of their being influenced by such principles. These, and several other writings, having given great offence, and the see of Rome being made acquainted with their pernicious tendency (especially when he had attacked the pope’s personal infallibility), they were laid before the inquisition, and censured by a decree of that court, May 14, 1655, and Sept. 7, 1657. Mean time, a body of clergymen, educated in the English college at Douay, signed a public disclaim of his principles. Mr. White had several things to allege against these proceedings. It appeared to him, that neither the court of inquisition, nor any other inferior court, though assembled by his holiness’s orders, were invested with sufficient power to issue out decrees that were binding over the universal church: he exposed, at the same time, the methods and ignorance of the cardinals and divines who were sometimes employed in censuring books; and hinted, how unlikely it was that his holiness either would or could delegate his power to such kind of inferior courts. As to his brethren who had disclaimed his doctrine, he takes notice that they were persons entirely under Dr. Leyburn’s direction, who was his grand adversary, and was continually labouring to discredit his writings. Afterwards, when prejudices were removed, and passion had sufficiently vented itself on both sides, they both came to temper; and Mr. White submitted himself and his writings to the catholic church, and, namely, to the see of Rome. Yet, notwithstanding this submission, a great many, who had conceived almost an irreconcileable idea both of his person and writings, could scarce endure to hear him named. They represented him to be as obstinate as Luther, who, at first, humbled himself to the pope, only to gain time to spread his pestiferous opinions: they would have it, that his design was, visibly, to establish a new heresy. Nay, they pryed into his morals and conduct in private life; miscarriages, in that way, being commonly the forerunners of heresy. But those that were not hurried away with passion and prejudice judged more favourably of him. They owned his rashness, and that he had propagated several singularities, that had given scandal, were erroneous, and carried on with too much violence and disrespect to superior powers: yet that all this was done without any intention of breaking out of the pale of, the church, or opposing the supremacy of the see of Rome. Some, who have calmly reflected upon these matters, have been pleased to observe the wise conduct of the see of Rome upon the occasion, which was far different from that of Mr. White’s adversaries; who, transported with zeal for religion, and, it is to be feared, sometimes with less commendable views, made every thing appear with a formidable aspect: whereas the see of Rome, governed by milder counsels, proceeded with their usual caution, and only barely censured some of his works, wherein Mr. White had the fate of a great many other pious and learned authors, when they happened to advance propositions any way prejudicial to religion. Whatsoever opinion the see of Rome might have of Mr. White’s case, tney judged it a piece of wisdom to let it die gradually. They were well assured, that though he had wit and learning sufficient to have raised a great disturbance in the church, yet he wanted interest to make any considerable party; and they had the charity to think he wanted a will. It is true, several eminent clergymen, who had been his scholars, and were great admirers of his virtue and learning, were unwilling to have his character sacrificed, and his merits lie under oppression, by unreasonable oppositions; and therefore they supported him in some particular controversies he had with doctor Leyburn and others: which was misrepresented by some, as a combination in favour of the novelties he was charged with in point of doctrine. But, adds Dodd, time and recollection have placed things in a true light."

Long before this period , Whitehead, who from his infancy had discovered a turn for poetry, and had, when at school, corresponded in rhime with his father, distinguished himself both as a poet and a politician. In the latter character, he appears to have united the principles of Jacobitism and republicanism in no very consistent proportions. As a Jacobite, he took every opportunity of venting his spleen against the reigning family; and, as a republican, he was no less outrageous in his ravings about liberty; which, in his dictionary, meant an utter abhorrence of kings, courts, and ministers. His first production of this kind was the “State Dunces,” in 1733, inscribed to Mr. Pope, and written with a close imitation of that poet’s satires. The keenness of his abuse, and harmony of his verse, and, above all, the personalities which he dealt about him with a most liberal hand, conferred popularity on this poem, and procured him the character of an enemy who was to be dreaded, and a friend who ought to be secured. He was accordingly favoured by the party then in opposition to sir Robert Walpole; and, at no great distance of time, became patronized by Bubb Dodington, and the other adherents of the Prince of Wales’ s court. The “State Dunces” was answered, in a few days, by “A Friendly Epistle” to its author, in verse not much inferior. Whitehead sold his poem to Doclsley for ten guineas; a circumstance which Dr. Johnson, who thought meanly of our poet, recollected afterwards, when Dodsley offered to purchase his “London,” and conditioned for the same sum. “I might, perhaps, have accepted of less, but that Paul Whitehead had a little before got ten guineas for a poem, and I would not take less than Paul Whitehead.”

In 1739, Whitehead published his more celebrated poem, entitled “Manners;” a satire not only upon the administration, but upon all the venerable forms of the constitution, under the assumption of a universal depravity of manners. Pope had at this time taken liberties which, in the opinion of some politicians, ought to be repressed. la his second dialogue of “Serenteen Hundred and Thirtyeight,” he gave offence to one of the Foxes, among others; which Fox, in a reply to Lyttelton, took an opportunity of repaying, by reproaching him with the friendship of a lampooner, who scattered his ink without fear or decency, and against whom he hoped the resentment of the legislature would quickly be discharged. Pope, however, was formidable, and had many powerful friends. With all his prejudices, he was the first poet of the age, and an honour to his country. But Paul Whitehead was less entitled to respect: he was formidable rather by his calumny than his talents, and might be prosecuted with effect.

No farther steps were taken against the author of “Man-r ners;” the whole process, indeed, was supposed to be intended rather to intimidate Pope than to punish Whitehead; and it answered that purpose: Pope became cautious, “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,” and Whitehead for some years remained quiet. The noise, however, which this prosecution occasioned, and its failure as to the main object, induced Whitehead’s enemies to try whether he might not be assailed in another way, and rendered the subject of odium, if not of punishment. In this pursuit the authors of some of the ministerial journals published a letter from a Cambridge student who had been expelled for atheism, in which it was intimated that Whitehead belonged to a club of young men who assembled to encourage one another in shaking off what they termed the prejudices of education. But Whitehead did not suffer this to disturb the retirement so necessary in his present circumstances, and as the accusation had no connection with his politics or his poetry, he was content to sacrifice his character with respect to religion, which he did not value, in support of the cause he had espoused. That he was an infidel seems generally acknowledged by all his biographers; and when he joined the club at Mednam Abbey, it mustbe confessed that his practices did not disgrace his profession.

His poems were appended to the last edition of Dr. Johnson’s collection, yet it may be doubted whether any partiality can assign him a very high rank even among versifiers. He was a professed imitator of Pope, in his satires, and may be entitled to all the praise which successful imitation deserves. His lines are in general harmonious and correct, and sometimes vigorous, but he owed his popularity chiefly to the personal calumnies so liberally thrown out against men of rank, in the defamation of whom a very active and extensive party was strongly interested. Like Churchill’s, therefore, his works were forgotten when the contending parties were removed or reconciled. But he had not the energetic and original genius of Churchill, nor can we find many passages in which the spirit of genuine poetry is discoverable. Of his character as a poet, he was himself very careless, considering it perhaps as only the temporary instrument of his advancement to ease and independence. No persuasions could induce him to collect his works, and they would probably* never have been collected, had not the frequent mention of his name in conjunction with those of his political patrons, and the active services of his pen, created a something like permanent reputation, and a desire to collect the various documents by which the history of factions may be illustrated.