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

, Pritius, or Pritzius, a protestant divine, was born at Leipsic in 1662. He was chosen in 1707, at Gripswalde, professor of divinity, ecclesiastical counsellor, and minister; which offices he there held till 1711, when he was called to preside over the ministry at Francfort on the Maine. At that place he died, much beloved and esteemed, on the 24th of August, 1732. Besides the works that were published by this learned author, he was, from 1687 to 1698, one of the writers of the Leipsic Journal. He was the author of many compilations of various kinds, and wrote, 1. “A learned Introduction to the reading of the New Testament,” 8vo; the best edition is 1724. 2. “De Immortalitate Animac,” a controversial book, against an English writer. 3. An edition of the works of St. Macarius. 4. An edition of the Greek Testament, with various readings, and maps. 5. An edition of the letters of Milton and some other works.

, of Aquitaine, a celebrated, learned and pious writer, in the 5th century, and one of the greatest defenders of the grace of Christ, after St. Augustine, was secretary to St. Leo, and is even supposed by some critics to have been author of the epistle addressed by that pope to Flavian against the Eutychian heresy. Prosper had before zealously defended the books of St. Augustine, to whom he wrote in the year 429, concerning the errors of the SemiPelagians, which had recently appeared in Gaul and after St. Augustine’s death, he continued to support his doctrine, which he did in a candid and argumentative manner. Prosper answered the objections of the priests of Marseilles, refuted the conferences of Cassian, in a book entitled “Contra Collatorem,” and composed several other works, in which he explains the orthodox doctrine, with the skill of an able divine, against the errors of the Pelagians and Semi- Pelagians. Many learned men have asserted, with great appearance of probability, that Prosper was only a layman but others, with very little foundation, suppose him to have been bishop of Reggio in Italy, or rather of Riez in Provence. The time of his death is not ascertained, but he was alive in 463. The best edition of his works is that of Paris, 1711, folio, by M. Mangeant, reprinted at Rome, 1732, 8vo. Prospers poem against the Ungrateful, i. e. against the enemies of the grace of Christ, is particularly admired. M. le Maistre de Sacy has given an elegant translation of it in French verse, 12mo. Our author must be distinguished, however, from another Prosper, who lived about the same time, and went from Africa, his native country, into Italy, to avoid the persecution of the Vandals. This Prosper, called “the African,” was author of a treatise on the Call of the Gentiles, which is esteemed, and of the “Epistle to the Virgin Demetriade,” in the “Appendix Angustiniana,” Antwerp, 1703, fo].

, a Polish knight, and Socinian writer, was born about 1592, and studied at Altdorf, until his adherence to the Socinian tenets obliged him to remove to Leyden. On his return to Poland, he was advanced to several posts of honour, and made use of his influence to encourage the Socinians in propagating their opinions, and establishing churches in the Polish territories. He also wrote “A History of their Churches,” but the work was lost, when, in 1658, his disciples were banished from their country. Przipcovius procured an asylum with the elector of Brandenburg, who gave him the appointment of privy-counsellor; and in 1663 a synod of Unitarians, held in Silesia, selected him as their correspondent with their brethren in other nations, with a view of promoting the interests of the community. He died in 1670, at the age of 78. His works were published in 1692, folio, and may be considered as the seventh volume of the collection entitled “Bibliotheca Fratrum Poionorum.”

, the younger, a Greek physician, mathematical writer, critic, and commentator of the writings of the classic ages, flourished about 1105. He is, for his various and extensive learning, ranked among the first scholiasts of his time. He commented and explained no less than twenty-four plays of Menander, which, though now lost, were extant in his time. The emperor Constantine Ducas made him preceptor to his son Michael, who succeeded to the crown in 1071. His principal works are, 1. “De Quatuor Mathematicis Scientiis,” Bas. 1556, 8vo. 2. “De Lapidum Virtutibus,” Tol. 1615, 8vo. 3. “De Victus ratione,” in 2 books, Bale, 1529, 8vo. 4. “Synopsis Legum, versibus Grsecis edita,” Paris, 1632. Leo Allatius has written a treatise de Psellis, Rome, 1634, 8vo, which contains an account of all the authors of the name of Psellus. One of them, “Michael Psellus the Elder, who flourished in the ninth century, was author of” De Operatione Daemonum," Gr. & Lat. Paris, 1623, which has been improperly given to the preceding author.

, a great geographer, mathematician, and astronomer of antiquity, was born at Pelusium, in Egypt, about the year 70, and flourished in the reigns of Adrian and Marcus Antoninus. He tells us himself, in one place, that he made a great number of ob* servations upon the fixed stars at Alexandria, in the second year of Antoninus Pius and in another, that he observed an eclipse of the moon in the ninth year of Adrian, whence it is reasonable to conclude that this astronomer’s observations upon the heavens were made between A. D. 125, and A. D. 140. Hence appears the error of some authors in supposing that this Claudius Ptolemy was the same with the astrologer Ptolemy, who constantly attended Galba, promised Otho that he should survive Nero, and afterwards that he should obtain the empire; which is as improbable as what Isidorus, an ecclesiastical writer of the seventh century, and some modems after him, have asserted; namely, that this astronomer was one of the kings of Egypt. We know no circumstances of the life of Ptolemy but it is noted in his Canon, that Antoninus Pius reigned three-and-twenty years, which shews that himself survived him.

, an ancient Latin author, who gained great fame by his comic pieces called “Mimes,” is supposed from his name to have been a Syrian by birth. Having been made a slave and brought to Rome when young, he there obtained his liberty by his merit; and proved so excellent a composer of Mimes, that the Romans preferred him to the best of their own or the Greek dramatic writers. Julius Caesar first established his reputation, and gave him the 1 prize of poetry against Laberius, who was an eminent writer in that style, and contended with Syrus for it. He continued to flourish many years under Augustus. Cassius Severus was a professed admirer of him, and the two Senecas speak of him with the highest encomiums. Many moderns, and particularly the Scaligers, have launched out very much in his praise. They say, he stripped Greece of all her wit, fine turns, and agreeable raillery and that his “Sentential include the substance of the doctrine of the wisest philosophers. These” Sentences“were extracted from his mimic pieces some time under the Antonines, as the best editors say. They are generally 'printed with the” Fables of Phaedrus,“and are subjoined to thejn by Dr. Bentley, at the end of his edition of” Terence," in 1726, 4to. There is also a separate edition of them by Gruter, with copious notes, Leyden, 1708, 8vo.

We have already mentioned his first work his second was, 2. “De Statu Germanici Imperii liber unus,” which he published in 1667, under the name' of “Severini di Mozambano,” with a dedication to his brother Isaac Puffendorf, whom he styles “Laelio Signor de Trezolani.” Puffendorf sent it the year before to his brother, then ambassador from the court of Sweden to that of France, in order to have it printed in that kingdom. His brother offered it to a bookseller, who gave it Mezeray to peruse. Mezeray thought it worth printing, yet refused his approbation, on account of some passages opposite to the interests of France, and of others in which the pritfsts and monks were severely treated. Isaac Puffendorf then sent it to Geneva, where it was printed in 12mo. The design of the author was to prove that Germany was a kind of republic, the constituent members of which being ill-proportioned, formed a monstrous whole. The book and its doctrine, therefore, met with great opposition; it was condemned, prohibited, and seized in many parts of Germany; and written against immediately by several learned civilians. It underwent many editions, and was translated into many languages and, among the rest, into English by Mr. Bohun, 1696, in 12mo. 3. “De Jure Naturae & Gentium,” Leyden, 1672, 4to. This is Puffendorf’s greatest work and it has met with an universal approbation. It is indeed a body of the law of nature, well digested; and, as some think, preferable to Grotius’s book “De Jure Belli & Pacis,” since the same subjects are treated in a more extensive manner, und with greater order. It was translated into French by Barbeyrac, who wrote large notes and an introductory discourse, in 1706; and into English, with Barbeyrac’s notes, by Dr. Basil Kennet and others, in 1708. The fourth and fifth edition of the English translation have Mr. Barbeyrac’s introductory discourse, which is not in the three former. In the mean time Puffendorf was obliged to defend this work against several censurers the most enraged of whom was Nicholas Beckman, his colleague in the university of Lunden. This writer, in. order to give the greater weight to his objections, endeavoured to draw the divines into his party, by bringing religion into the dispute, and accusing the author of heterodoxy. His design in this was, to exasperate the clergy of Sweden against Puffendorf; but the senators of that kingdom prevented this, by enjoining his enemies silence, and suppressing Beckman’s book by the king’s authority. It was reprinted at Giessen; and, being brought to Sweden, was burned in 1675 by the hands of the executioner: and Beckman, the author, banished from the king’s dominions for having disobeyed orders in republishing it, Beckman now gave his fury full scope, and not only wrote virulently and maliciously against Puffendorf, but likewise challenged him to fight a duel he wrote to him from Copenhagen in that style, and threatened to pursue him wherever he should go, in case he did not meet him at the place appointed. Puffendorf took no notice of the letter, but sent, it to the consistory of the university yet thought it necessary to reply to the satirical pieces of that writer, which he did in several publications. Niceron gives a good account of this controversy in the 18th vol.- of his “Memoires.”

Among the “Letters of Tom Brown from the Dead to the Living,” is one from Dr. Blow to Henry Purcell, in which it is humourously observed, that persons of their profession are subject to an equal attraction from the church and the play-house; and are therefore in a situation resembling that of Mahomet’s tomb, which is said to be suspended between heaven and earth. This remark so truly applies to Purcell, that it is more than probable that his particular situation gave occasion to it; for he was scarcely known to the world, before he became, in the exercise of his calling, so equally divided between both the church and the theatre, that neither could properly call him her own. In a pamphlet entitled “Roscius An^licanus, or an Historical View of the Stage,” written by Downes the prompter, and published in 1708, we have an account of several plays and entertainments, the music of which is by that writer said to have been composed by Purcell.

The poetry of Mr. Pye cannot, perhaps, upon the whole, be said to be of that very superior kind which has universally exacted the applause of first-rate excellence. Yet none can deny that he is generally the elegant scholar, the man of taste and fancy, and the writer of polished versification 5 while the great interests of virtue and public spirit have uniformly been countenanced by his pen.

, an early Christian writer and apologist, was a disciple of the apostles, according to Eusebius and Jerome, and bishop of Athens, where he was born, or at least educated. About the year 125, when the emperor Adrian, then in the sixth year of his reign, wintered at Athens, and was there initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, a persecution arose against the Christians. Quadratus, who had succeeded Publius, the martyred bishop, in order to stop the persecution, composed an “Apology for the Christian Faith,” and presented it to the emperor. This Apology, which happened to be accompanied by another from Aristides (see Aristides), had the desired effect, and was extant in Eusebius’ s time; who tells us, that it shewed the genius of the man, and the true doctrine of the apostles; but we have only a small fragment preserved by Eusebius, in the fourth book of his history, in which the author declares, that “none could doubt the truth of the miracles of Jesus Christ, because the persons healed and raised from the dead by him had been seen, not only when he wrought his miracles, or while he was upon earth, but even a very great while after his death so that there are many,” says he, “who were yet living in our time.” Valesius, and others upon his authority, will have the Quadratus who composed the Apology, to be a different person from Quadratus, the bishop of Athens; but his arguments do not seem sufficiently grounded, and are therefore generally rejected. Jerome affirms them to be the same. Nothing certain can be collected concerning the death of Quadratus; but it is supposed that he was banished from Athens, and then put to a variety of torments, under the reign of Adrian.

, an ingenious French writer, whose talent was Latin poetry, was born at Chinon, in Touraine, about 1602. Early in life he studied physic, and practised it for some years. When Mr. De Laubardemont, counsellor of state, and a creature of cardinal Richelieu, was sent to take cognisance of the famous pretended possession of the nuns of Loudun, with secret instructions doubtless to find them real, Quillet was in that town and so everted himself in detecting the imposture, that Laubardemont issued out a warrant against him. On this, as he saw that the whole was a trick carried on by cardinal Richelieu, in order to destroy the unhappy Grandier, and at the same time, as some suppose, to frighten Louis XIII. he thought it not safe to continue at Loudun, or even in France, and therefore immediately retired into Italy. This must have happened about 1634, when Grandier was executed.

During Quin’s connection with Mr. Rich, he was employed, or at least consulted, in the conduct of the theatre by his principal, as a kind of deputy-manager. While he was in this situation, a circumstance took place which has been frequently and variously noticed, and which it may not be improper to relate in the words of the writer last quoted. “When Mr. James Quin was a managing-actor under Mr. Rich, at LincolnVInn-fields, he had a whole heap of plays brought him, which he put in a drawer in his bureau. An author had given him a play behind the scenes, which I suppose he might lose or mislay, not troubling his head about it. Two or three days after, Mr. Bayes waited on him, to know how he liked his play Quin told him some excuse for its not being received, and the author desired to have it returned. ‘ There,’ says Quin, `there it lies on the table.‘ The author took up a play that was lying on the table, but on opening, found it was a comedy, and his was a tragedy, and told Quin of his mistake. ’ Faith, then, sir,‘ said he, ’ I have lost your play.‘ ` Lost my play’ cries the bard. `Yes, I have,‘ answered the tragedian but here is a drawer full of both comedies and tragedies: take any two you will in the room of it.’ The poet left him in high dudgeon, and the hero stalked across the room to his Spa water and Rhenish, with a negligent felicity.”

He had the next seasoil, 1746-7, occasion to exert himself, being engaged at Covent-garden with Garrick. -.“It is not, perhaps,” says Mr. Davies, “more difficult to settle the covenants of a league between mighty monarchs, than to adjust the preliminaries of a treaty in which the high and potent princes of a theatre are the parties. Mr. Garrick and Mr. Quin had too much sense and temper to squabble about trifles. After one or two previous and friendly meetings, they selected such characters as they intended to act, without being obliged to join in the same play. Some parts were to be acted alternately, particularly Richard III. and Othello.” The same writer adds “Mr. Quin soon found that his competition with Mr. Garrick, whose reputation was hourly increasing, whilst his own was on the decline, would soon become ineffectual. His Richard the Third could scarce draw together a decent appearance of company in the boxes, and he was with some difficulty tolerated in the part, when Garrick acted the same character to crowded houses, and with very great applause.”

, a celebrated French poet, was born in 1636, and was one of a family that had produced some dramatic performers. He had but little education, and is said to have been servant to Tristan D'Hermile, from whom he imbibed some taste for poetry. The lessons of Tristan were probably of some use to him, as that author had had long experience in theatrical matters but Quiuault owed still more to nature. Before he was twenty years old, he had distinguished himself by several pieces for the stage, which had considerable success: and before he was thirty, he produced sixteen dramas, some of which were well received, but not all equally. It is supposed that some of these early pieces prejudiced Boileau against Quinault early in his career. There was neither regularity in the plan, nor force in the style: romantic lovers and common-place gallantry, in scenes which required a nervous pencil and vigorous colouring. These were defects not likely to escape the lash of the French Juvenal. He covered the young poet with ridicule; reproached him with the affectedly soft and languishing dialogue of his lovers, by whom even / hate you was said tenderly. Quinault, born with great sensibility, was so wounded by his seventy, that he applied to the magistrates, not only to silence Boileau, but oblige him to remove his name from his satires but the attempt was vain and it was not till after Quinault was inlisted by Lulli to write for the opera, that he silenced all his enemies, except Boileau and his party, who envied him his success. The French nation knew no better music than that of Lulli, and thought it divine. Quinault’s was thought of secondary merit, till after his decease and then, in proportion as the glory of Lulli faded, that of Quinault increased. After this his writings began to be examined and felt; and of late years, his name is never mentioned by his countrymen without commendation. His operas, however, though admirable to read, are ill-calculated for modern music; and are obliged to be new written, ere they can be new set, even in France. Marmontel, who had modernized several of them for Piccini to set in 1788, gave M. Laborde a dissertation on the dramatic writings of Quinault for music which is published in the fourth volume of his “Essai sur la Musique.” He begins by asserting that Quinault was the creator of the French opera upon the most beautiful idea that could be conceived; an idea which he had realized with a superiority of talent, which no writer has since approached. His design was to form an exhibition, composed of the prodigies of all the arts; to unite on the same stage all that can interest the mind, the imagination, and the senses. For this purpose a species of tragedy is necessary, that shall be sufficiently touching to move, but not so austere as to refuse the enchantments of the arts that are n-ecessary to embellish it. Historical tragedy, in its majestic and gloomy simplicity, cannot b.e sung with any degree of probability, nor mixed with festivals and dances, or be rendered susceptible of that variety, magnificence, show, and decoration, where the painter and the machinist ought to exhibit their enchantments.

In the year 68, upon the death of Nero, Galba returned to Rome, and took Quintilian with him who there taught rhetoric at the expence of the government, being allowed a salary out of the public treasury. His career was attended with the highest reputation, and he formed many excellent orators, who did him great honour; among whom was the younger Pliny, who continued in his school to the year 78. After teaching for twenty years he obtained leave of Domitian to retire, and applied himself to compose his admirable book called “Institutiones Oratorise.” This is the mpst complete work of its kind which antiquity has left us; and the design of it is to form a perfect orator, who is accordingly conducted through the whole process necessary to attain eminence in that art. Few books abound more with good sense, or discover a greater degree of just and accurate taste. Almost all the principles of good criticism are to be found in it. He has digested into excellent order all the ancient ideas concerning rhetoric, and is at the same time himself an eloquent writer. “Though some parts of his work,” says Blair, “contain too much of the technical and artificial system then in vogue, and for that reason may be thought dry aiui tedious, yet I would not advise the omitting to read any part of his ‘ Institutions.’ To pleaders at the bar, even these technical parts may prove of some use. Seldom has any person of more sound and distinct judgment than Quintilian, applied himself to the study of the art of oratory.” The first entire copy of the “Institutiones Oratorio,” for the Quiutilian then in Italy was much mutilated and imperfect, was discovered by Poggius, as we have already noticed in his article, in the monastery of St. Gall, at the time of holding the council of Constance. The most useful editions of this work are those of Burman, 1720, 2 vols. 4to of Capperoperius, Paris, fol. 1725; of Gesner, Gottingen, 1738, 4to, beautifully reprinted in 1805, at Oxford, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a distinguished French officer and wit, was born April 3, 1618, at Epiry in Nivernois, descended from a family which ranks among the most noble and ancient of the duchy of Burgundy. He served in his father’s regiment from twelve years old, and distinguished himself so much by his prudent conduct in several sieges and battles, that he would certainly have risen to the rank of marechal, had he not as much distinguished himself by indiscriminate satire, and hy immoral conduct. Being left a widower, 1648, he fell violently i love with Mad. de Miramion, and carried her off, but could not prevail on her to return his passion. He was admitted into the French academy in 1665, and the same year a scandalous history in ms. was circulated under his name, which is called “The amorous History of the Gauls,” containing the amours of two ladies (d'Olonne, and de Chatillon) who had great influence at court. It has since been joined to other novels of that time, and printed in Holland, 2 vols. 12mo, and at Paris, under the title of Holland, 5 vols. 12mo. This ms. being shown to the king, his majesty was extremely angry, and to satisfy the offended parties, sent De Bussy to the Bastile, April 7, 1665. From thence he wrote several letters acknowledging that he was the author of the history, but had entrusted the original to the marchioness de la Baume, who had betrayed his confidence by taking a copy; alleging also that the characters had been changed and spoilt, for the purpose of raising up enemies to him. The king did not believe one word of this, but tired with his repeated importunities, granted his request and De Bussy obtained leave to stop a month in Paris, after which he retired to his own estate, where he remained in banishment till 1681. The king then permitted him to return to Paris, and not only recalled him to court in 1682, but even suffered him to attend his levee, at the duke de Saint- Aignan’s earnest solicitation. He soon perceived, however, that the king showed him no countenance, and he therefore retired again to his estate. In 1687, he revisited the court for his children’s interests, and returned home the year following but ceased not to offer his services to the king, from whom he obtained several favours for his family. He died April 9, 1693, at Autun, aged 75. His works are, 1. “Memoires,” 2 vols, 4to, or 12mo, concerning his adventures at court, and in the army, and what happened after his disgrace. 2. “Letters,” 7 vols. 3. A small piece, entitled “Instructions for the conduct of Life,” which he gave his sons, when he sent one to the academy, and the other to college. This is said to do credit to his principles, which appear to have been better than his practice. The only work of his now read in France is that which produced all his misfortunes, the “Histoire amoureuse des Gaules,” the last edition of which was printed at Paris in 1754, 5 vols. 12mo. He has been called very unjustly the French jetronius, for he has neither the indecency nor the elegance of that writer. The French critics are very favourable to him, in asserting that although in the above work we may discover symptoms of malignity, there are none of exaggeration or falsehood.

In the mean time, the success of his ode upon the king’s marriage led him to loftier attempts, which ended in his becoming a writer for the theatre. In 1666, he published his tragedy of “Alexandra;” concerning which Mr. de Valincour relates a fact, which he had from Racine himself. Reading this play to Corneille, he received the highest encomiums from that great writer; but at the same time was advised by him to apply himself to any other kinds of poetry, as more proper for his genius than dramatic. “Corneille,” adds de Valincour, “was incapable of low jealousy if he spoke so to Mr. Racine, it is certain that he thought so. But we know that he preferred Lucan to Virgil whence we must conclude, that the art of writing excellent verse, and the art of judging excellently of poets and poetry, do not always meet in the same person.” It was certainly singular advice to a man who was to become Corneille’s legitimate successor, and sole rival in the French drama.

In 1703, Radcliffe was himself taken ill (on Wednesday, March 24), with something like a pleurisy neglected it; drank a bottle of wine at sir Justinian Isham’s on Thursday, took to his bed on Friday and on the 30th was so ill, tiiat it was thought he could not live till the next day. Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury and Mr. Whitfield (then queen’s chaplain, and rector of St. Martin, Ludgate, afterwards vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate), were sent for by him, and he desired them to assist him. By a will, made the28th, he disposed of the greatest part of his estate to charity; and several thousand pounds, in particular, for the relief of sick seamen set ashore. Mr. Bernard, the serjeant-surgeon, took from him 100 ounces of blood and on the 31st he took a strange resolution of being removed to Kensington, notwithstanding his weakness, from which the most pressing entreaties of his friends could not divert him. In the warmest time of the day he rose, and was carried by four men in a chair to Kensington, whither he got with difficulty, having fainted away in his chair. “Being put to bed,” says Dr. Atterbury, on whose authority we relate these particulars, “he fell asleep immediately, and it is concluded now (April 1) that he may do well so that the town- physicians, who expected to share his practice, begin now to think themselves disappointed.” Two days after, the same writer adds, “Dr. Radclitfe is past all danger: his escape is next to miraculous. It hath made him not only very serious, but very devout. The person who faath read prayers to him often (and particularly this day) tells me, he never saw a man more in earnest. The queen asked Mr. Bernard how he did and when he told her that he was ungovernable, and would observe no rules, she answered, that then nobody had reason to take any thing ill from, him, since it was plain he used other people no worse than he used himself.”

In April 1589, he accompanied don Antonio, the expelled king of Portugal, then in London, to his dominions, when an armament was sent to restore him and for his conduct on this occasion, was honoured by the queen with a gold chain. On his return to England, the same year, he touched upon Ireland, where he visited Spenser the poet, whom he brought to England, introduced into the queen’s favour, and encouraged by his own patronage, himself being no inconsiderable poet. Spenser has described the circumstances of sir Walter’s visit to him in a pastoral, which about two years after he dedicated to him, and entitled <: Colin Clout’s come home again.“In 1592 he was appointed general of an expedition against the Spaniards at Panama. Soon after this we find him again in the House of Commons, where he made a distinguished figure, as appears from several of his printed speeches. In the mean time, he was no great favourite with the people, and somewhat obnoxious to the clergy, not only on account of his principles, which were not thought very orthodox, but because he possessed some lands which had been taken from the church. His enemies, knowing this, ventured to attack him; and, in 1593, he was aspersed with atheism, in a libel agairfst several ministers of state, printed at Lyons with this title:” Elizabeths Reginse Angliae Edictum, promulgatum Londini, Nov. 29, 1591; et Andr. Philopatris ad idem responsio.“In this piece the writer, who was the Jesuit Parsons, inveighs against sir Walter Ralegh’s” School of Atheism“insinuating, that he was not content with being a disciple, but had set up for a doctor in his faculty. Osborn accounts for this aspersion thus:” Ralegh,“says he,” was the first, as I have heard, who ventured to tack about, and sail aloof from the beaten track of the schools; and who, upon the discovery of so apparent an error as a: torrid zone, intended to proceed in an inquisition after more solid truths till the mediation of some, whose livelihood lay in hammering shrines for this superannuated study, possessed queen Elizabeth, that such a doctrine was against God no less than her father’s honour, whose faith, if he owned any, was grounded upon school-divinity. Whereupon she chid him, who was, by his own confession, ever after branded with the title of Atheist, though a known asserter of God and providence." That he was such an assert er, has been universally allowed yet Wood not only adopts the unfavourable opinion of his principles, but pretends to tell us from whom he imbibed them.

, a political and poetical writer of considerable note, is said to have been descended of mean parentage, and was born probably in America. There at least, from the Memoirs of Benjamin Franklin we learn that he became acquainted with that eminent man, who gives a favourable account of him, as being “ingenuous and shrewd, genteel in his addre3, and extremely eloquent.” Franklin appears to have considered him, however, as a man who might be imposed on, and acknowledges “that he had a hand in unsettling his principles,” The first effect of this was Ralph’s leaving 1 a wife and children in America, in 1725, and regardless of what became of them, forming another female connexion, by marriage, as it would appear, soon after he arrived with Franklin in England, fie is also said to have assumed Franklin’s name for some time, until a quarrel dissolved their friendship, such as it was. In 1728 he published his “Night,” and in 1729, “Zeuma, or the Love of Liberty.”

Warburton says these lines were inserted after the first edition of the Dunciad, and that he was not known to Pope, until he published a swearing-piece called “Sawney,” very abusive df Pope, Swift, and Gay. He adds that “this low writer attended his own works with panegyrics in the Journals; anfd once, in particular, praised himself highly above Mr. Addison, in wretched remarks upon that author’s account of English poets, printed in a London Journal, Sept. 172$. He was wholly illiterate, and knew no language, not even French. Being advised to read the rules of dramatic poetry before he began a play, he smiled and replied, ‘ Shakspeare writ without rules.’ He ended at last in the common sink of all such writers, a political newspaper, to which he was recommended by his friend Arnall (see Arnall), and received a small pittance for pay and being detected in writing on both sides on one and the same day, he publicly justified the morality of his conduct.”

Such is Warburton’s account, heightened a little, unqaestionnbly, by his regard for Pope, but, except where he calls him illiterate, not much beyond the truth for Ralph’s pen was completely venal, and both his principles and his distresses prevented any consideration on the moral part of his conduct. He had by this time produced on the stage, “The Fashionable Lady,” an opera, “The Fall of the Earl of Essex,” a tragedy and afterwards, “The Lawyer’s Feast,” a farce, and “The Astrologer,” a comedy, none of which had much success. He was a writer, iff 1739, in the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper; but from his letters to Dr. Birch* in the British Museum, it appears that he was no great gainer hy any of his performances. There is an excellent pamphlet, however* attributed tp him, which was published about 1731, a “Review of the Public Buildings of London” but from the style and subject, we should suppose his name borrowed. In 1735 he commenced a managing partner with Fielding- in the Haymarket theatre but, as Davies says, “he had no other share in the management than viewing and repining at his partner’s success.”

Before he left Leadhills he had no opportunity of reading any books but such as were in the hands of the country people all over Scotland. Amongst those were the hktory in verse of king Robert the Bruce, the exploits of sir William Wallace, and the poems of sir David Lindsey , a favourite of king James V. which coming at an early period to one not distracted by a variety of studies, made a deep impression upon his mind, and gave a cast to all his after sentiments, particularly with regard to the dignity and independence of Scotland, in the history and antiquities of which he became very knowing. In the “Ever Green,” a collection of old Scottish poems, published by him in 1724, there are two pieces of his own, one of them called “The Vision,” said to have been written in Latin, about 1300, and translated in 1524, and which has for its subject the sufferings of Scotland under Edward I. and the Balioi faction. It consists of twenty pages, and is full of poetical imagery. What were his motives for writing so long a poem without reaping any fame from it, is not easy to guess. Perhaps it was only for the sake of amusing himself with the profound remarks of learned critics and antiquaries upon it; perhaps some political ideas not very orthodox had their share in the concealment But whatever might be his reason for concealing himself at this time, he certainly did not mean that this should continue always a secret, as appears by his communicating it to his son, from whom the writer of this article had the information; and by his putting, by way of name to the end of it, A R. Scot, which, though it appears at first sight to mean Archibald Scot, is no other than the two initials of his own name, with his country added to them. His notions about the independency of Scotland had made him, for some time, consider the union of the two crowns as a hardship: an opinion which he held in common with many worthy men and sincere friends of their country in those days; and there is a poem of his in print called “The Tale of the Three Bonnets,” in which the manner of bringing about that treaty is handled with a great dea4 of satirical humour: but his good sense and observation getting, at length, the better of those early prejudices, this poem never obtained a place in any of his two volumes, and is now difficult to he met with.

As a dramatic writer, his turn was entirely to comedy; and Baker pronounces his language elegant, and his sentiments just and forcible; his characters for the most part, strongly drawn, and his satire well chosen and poignant; and this critic also recommended the altering his pieces, so as to render them fit for the present stage, or at the least giving the world a correct and critical edition of them.

About this time several bold and artful attacks were made upon the Christian religion, which drew forth many able answers from the divines of the church of England. Amongst other works published in favour of deism and infidelity, was that entitled “Christianity not founded on Argument;” which, from the singularity of its positions, attracted much notice. Dr. Randolph was encouraged by his patron, archbishop Potter, to try his strength ill controversy in answer to this plausible writer; nor was the archbishop disappointed in the hopes he might form: Dr. Randolph’s answer, entitled “The Christian’s Faith a rational assent,” 1744, was considered as a truly valuable acquisition, and met with a most favourable reception.

, a learned writer of the 16th century, and professor of Oriental languages at Leyden, was born February 27, 1539, at Lanoy, in French Flanders. He began his studies at Ghent, and after some interruption from the death of his father, resumed them at Nuremberg and Paris, where he applied with great assiduity to the Greek and Hebrew languages, under the ablest masters, until the civil wars obliged him to go into England, where he taught Greek at Cambridge, After some time he returned to the Netherlands, and, in 1565, married a daughter of Christopher Plantin, the celebrated printer, Raphelengius assisted his father-in-law in correcting his books, which he also enriched with notes and prefaces, and was particularly engaged in the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp, printed in 1571, by order of Philip II. king of Spain. In 1585 he settled at Leyden, where Plantin had a printing-office; laboured there with his usual assiduity, and was chosen, for his learning, to be professor of Hebrew and Arabic in that university. He died July 20, 1597, aged fifty-eight, le'aving, “Remarks and corrections on the Chalciee Paraphrase;” a “Hebrew Grammar;” a “Chaldee Dictionary,” in the Dictionary to the Polyglot of Antwerp; an “Arabic Lexicon,” 1613, 4to; and other works. One of his sons, of the same name, published notes on Seneca’s Tragedies, and “Elogia carmine elegiaco in imagines 50 doctorum virorum,” Ant. 1587, fol.

, a skilful botanist, was a native of Augsburg, and a pupil of Rondelet. He sailed from Marseilles, in 1573, for the Levant, and performed a laborious and dangerous journey through Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt; of which he has left an account in German, full of curious information relative to medical and other rare plants, with several wooden cuts. He died physician to the Austrian army, at Hatvany, in Hungary, in 1606, according to Dryander, Bibl. Banks, v. 395, though Haller says 1596. The latter writer mentions his being obliged to quit his country, on account of his religion, which was protestant. His splendid herbarium, once the property of queen Christina, and of Isaac Vossius, is preserved in the university of Leyden. From it Gronovius composed his “Flora Orientalis.” An English translation of his journey was published by Staphorst in 1693, 8vo.

, a learned English divine, and editor of lord Bacon’s works, was born at Norwich about 1588. He was admitted a Bible-clerk in Bene't college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Chapman, on the 22d of January, 1660, and took both the degrees in arts before the 19th of March, 1609, when he was elected a fellow of the house. Upon this he commenced tutor, and was ordained deacon by the bishop of Ely, at Downham, September 22, 1611; not long after which, he was presented by the university of Cambridge to the rectory of Bowthorpe in Norfolk, and was instituted to it Dec. 10, 1612. In 1616, by the favour of sir Francis Bacon, who procured the living for him of the college, he obtained the rectory of Landbeach. He had commenced B. D. the year before, and upon his patron’s being made lord-keeper of the great seal, was appointed his domestic chaplain. While Mr. Rawley was in this situation, he proceeded D. D. in 1621. He was of great use to his master, in writing down, compiling, digesting, and publishing his works; to many of which he wrote prefaces and dedications, as well as translated several of them into Latin. These, with some other pieces committed to his care, he collected together, and printed, after his lordship’s decease, London, 1638, folio, with a dedication to king Charles, one of whose chaplains he then was. In 1657, he published at London, in folio, under the title of “Resuscitatio,” several others of lord Bacon’s tracts; to which at the request of many foreigners, and natives of the kingdom, he prefixed some account of his patron’s life. This, which is thought to be drawn up in a clear and manly style, shews Dr. Rawley to have been an able writer. It was likewise translated into Latin, and placed before the “Opuscula varia Posthuma,” printed in 8vo the year following, which, he tells us, were the last things he had in his hands. However, he republished the “Resuscitatio,” with some additions, in 1661; at which time he was chaplain in ordinary to his majesty king Charles II. He was so great a favourite with lord Bacon, that, after his resignation of the seals, he recommended Dr. Rawley to his successor, bishop Williams, for farther preferment. This the bishop promised, and desired lord Bacon to point out in what he would wish him to promote Dr. Rawley but his lordship modestly declining this, and referring the choice to the lord- keeper, Dr Rawley appears to have derived no advantage from his friend’s recommendation. Lord Verulam, besides the care of his writings, left the doctor by will, as a farther testimony of his regard, one hundred pounds, with the king of Spain’s Polyglot. After the publication of his master’s works, in 1638, Dr. Ravvley resided upon his rectory at Landbeach. He married Barbara, the daughter of Mr, John Wicksted, alderman of Cambridge, by whom he had two children. His daughter^ Mary, died in her infancy; but his son, William, became fellow of Corpus Christi college, and was buried at Landbeach, on the 3d of July, 1666. Dr. Rawley lost his son, his wife, and his servants, all in the same year, of the plague; which probably affected him so much as to bring down his grey hairs with sorrow to the grave. He died on the 18th of June, 1667, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, after haying been pastor at Landbeach fifty years, and throughout the whole of the troubles. His remains were deposited near the Communion-table, in the chancel of his own church, under a black marble, with a Latin inscription to his memory. Dr. Rawley was proctor in convocation for the clergy of the diocese of Ely, in 1661, and as such subscribed to the Book of Common-Prayer, upon its revisal. He had the appellation of the lord Bacon’s learned chaplain; and that this title was justly bestowed upon him, is evident from the testimonies of several considerable men, both at home and abroad. He presented lord Bacon’s works, as he published them, to the library of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge; and bequeathed to it “Camden’s Britannia,” with “Ciceronis Opera,” in 2 vols. and Plato, in 3 vols. folio. These books were delivered by his executor Mr. John Rawley, to whose care we are indebted for those Remains of lord Bacon which were published by Dr. Tenison.

, a French writer of considerable, but temporary celebrity, was born at St. Genies in the Rovergue, in 1713. He was educated among the Jesuits, and became one of their order. The learning of that society is universally known, as well as the happy talents which its superiors possessed, of assigning to each member his proper employment. Raynal, after having acquired among them a taste for literature and science, and being ordained a priest, displayed such talents in the pulpit, that his preaching attracted numerous audiences. Hi* love of independence, however, induced him, in 1748, to dissolve his connexion with the Jesuits, and to take up his’ residence at Paris. Such is the account given by our principal authority; but, according to the abbe Barruel, he was expelled the society for his impiety. With this circumstance Barruel may be much better acquainted than we can be: but it seems probable that his impieties had not then reached much farther than to call in question the supreme authority of the church; for Raynal himself assures us, that he did not utter his atrocious declarations against Christianity till he had ceased to be a member of the order of Jesuits. He then associated himself with Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Diderot, and was by them employed to furnish the theological articles for the “Encyclopedic.” But though his religious opinions were certainly lax, he could not even then be what, in a Protestant country, would be deemed a man remarkable for impiety; for he employed the abbe Yvon, whom Barruel calls an old metaphysician, but an inoffensive and upright man, to write the articles which he was engaged to furnish. In this transaction, indeed, he shewed that he possessed not a proper sense of honour, for he paid poor Yvon with twentyrive louis d'ors for writing theological articles, for which he received himself six times that sum; and the trick being discovered, Raynal was disgraced, and compelled to pay up the balance to the abbe Yvon; but though he had thus shewn himself to be without honour, it is difficult to believe he had yet proceeded so far as blasphemy, of which he has been accused, since he had employed a Christian divine to supply his place in the “Encyclopedic.”

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Stockton, in the county of Durham, in March 1723, and succeeded his father in the business of a ropemaker, which he carried on in that country until 1757, when he removed to Sun Tavern fields at Stepney near London, and there pursued the same occupation with great credit and probity until his death, Aug. 15, 1787, aged sixty-four. In 1750 he married Sarah, daughter of Mr. John Watson, of Stockton, flax-dresser, who died many years before him, and by whom he left issue John Watson Reed, late of Ely-place, Holborn, attorney at law, who died Jan. 31, 1790; Shakspeare, who succeeded him in his business; and Sarah, who married Gilbert Wilson, and died his widow a few days before her brother.

He was the first among the French who succeeded in satire; and, if Boileau has had the glory of raising that species of composition to perfection among them, it may be said of Regnier, that he laid the foundation, and was perhaps more an original writer than Boileau. He is supposed to have taken Juvenal and Persius for his model: it is certain, that he has in some places imitated Ovid, and borrowed largely from the Italians. While pretending, however, to expose vice, much of that impurity, which ran through his life, crept also into his writings. Seventeen of his satires, with other poems, were printed at Rouen in 1614. There is a neat Elzevir edition of his works at Leyden, 1652, 12mo; but the best are those of Rouen, 1729, 4to, with short notes by M. Brossette and of London, 1733, with notes by Lenglet du Fresnoy, one of Tonson’s handsome books 4to, of which there are large paper copies.

, or Des-Marais (Francis Seraphin), a French writer, was born at Paris in 1632 and, at fifteen, distinguished himself by translating the “Batrachomyomachia” into burlesque verse. At thirty, he went to Rome as secretary to an embassy. An Italian ode of his writing procured him a place in the academy de la Crusca in 1667; and, in 1670, he was elected a member of the French academy. In 1684, he was made perpetual secretary, after the death of Mezeray; and it was he who drew up all those papers, in the name of the academy, against Furetiere. In 1668, the king gave him the priory of Grammont, which determined him to the ecclesiastical function: and, in 1675, he had an abbey. His works are, an Italian translation of Anacreon’s odes, which he dedicated to the academy de la Crusca in 1692; a French grammar and two volumes of poems, in French, Latin, Italian, and Spanish. He translated, into French, Tully “De Divinatione, & de Finibus” and Rodrigue’s “Treatise of Christian perfection,” from the Spanish. He died in 17 Is, aged 82. “He has done great service to language,” says Voltaire, “and is the author of some poetry in French and Italian. He contrived to make one of his Italian pieces pass for Petrarch’s but he could not have made his French verses pass for those of any great French poet.”

, commonly called Cousin Jaques, a very eccentric French writer, was born at Laon Nov. 6, 1757. From his eighteenth to his twentysecond year, he taught rhetoric and the belles iettres in several colleges, and came to Paris in 1770, where he was made a member of the Musee and of the Lyceum of arts. He was also a member of the academy of Bretagne, and of many other learn'ed societies, all which seem to indicate reputation and talents. The former he employed every means to acquire, but appears in general to have been more ambitious of temporary than lasting fame, and thought himself very successful when he puzzled the wits of Paris with the strange titles of his publications. In 1799 he began to publish, in a periodical form, what he called “Dictionnaire des hommes et des choses,” which his biographer styles a whimsical work, without informing us in what respect. Something political seems to have entered into its composition, as after he had published several numbers, it was suppressed by the police. He tried his talents likewise on the theatre; and if success be a proof of merit, had no reason to complain. His plays were, 1. “Les ailes de l'amour,” which was performed at three theatres. 2. “Le club des bonnes gens,” played 117 times at Feydau, and often reprinted at Paris. 3. “Histoire universelle,” a comic opera, played 87 times at Feydau in 1790 and 1791. 4. “Nicodeme dans la Lune,” represented 373 times. 5. “La petite Nanette,” &c. and other operas, which were all successful, and of which he also composed the music, in an easy and agreeable style.

His other publications were, 6. “Petites maisons du Parnasse,” Bouillon, 1783, 8vo, a collection in prose and Terse, mostly original, but some borrowed. 7. “Maiborough, Tarlututa, Hurlaberla,” 3 vols. 8vo; with the contents of this we are unacquainted, as well indeed as with those of the following. 8. “Les Lunes,” Paris, 1785, 1787, 24 vols. 12mo, of which two editions were published. 9. “Le Courier des Planetes,” Paris, 1788, 1790, 10 vols. 10. “Les Nouvelles Lunes,” Paris, 1791, 8vo. 11. “Le Consolateur,” ibid. 1792, 3 vols. 8vo. 12. “La Constitution de la Lune,” ibid. 1793. 13. “Testament d'un electeur de Paris,” ibid. 1795. 14. “Precis historique de la prise de la Bastille,” ibid. 1789, which is said to have gone through seventeen editions. 15. “Histoirede France pendant trois mois,” ibid. 1789, 8vo. This fertile writer died at Charenton, near Paris, in April 1810.

, a French writer, very learned in Oriental history and languages, was born at Paris in 1646; and, being taught classical literature by the Jesuits, and philosophy in the college of Harcourt, afterwards entered into the congregation of the oratory, where he did not continue long. His father being first physician to the dauphin, he was early introdued to scenes, where his parts, his learning, and his politeness, made him admired. His reputation was afterwards advanced and established by several learned works, which he published. In 1700, heattended cardinal de Noailles to Rome; and received great honours, together with the priory of Frossey in Bretagne, from pope Clement V. Returning by Florence he was honoured in the same manner by the great duke; and was also made a member of the academy de la Crusca. On his return to France he devoted himself entirely to letters, and composed a great number of learned dissertations, which are printed in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” of which he was a member, as well as of the French academy. He died in 1720. Voltaire blames him for having prevented Bayle’s dictionary from being printed in France. This is very natural in Voltaire and Voltaire’s followers; but it is a more serious objection to Renaudot, that, while his love of learning made him glad to correspond with learned Protestants, his cowardly bigotry prevented him from avowing the connection. Not long before Dr. Pocock’s death that eminent orientalist received a letter from Renaudot, in which he professes a very high esteem for the doctor, desires the liberty of consulting him in all the doubts that should occur in preparing his “Collection of Liturgies,” &c. and promises, in return for this favour, to make a public acknowledgment of it, and preserve a perpetual memory of the obligation; yet, when the above work appeared, he travelled out of his way to reproach Dr. Pocock with a mistake, which was perhaps the only one that could be discovered in his writings.

The spleen of the ecclesiastics against Capnio was still further increased by a comedy abounding with keen satire, which this writer, whose genius was not inferior to his learning, produced; the chief design of which was to expose the ignorance of the monks. Jt was at first only circulated in manuscript, but afterwards found its way into the press, and was published in 150?. In the latter part of his life, the adversaries of Capnio had too much reason to exult over him; for notwithstanding all his learning and celebrity, he was scarcely able, by teaching the Greek and Hebrew languages (which he did in several different schools) to preserve himself from absolute want; nor must it be forgot that he was the preceptor of Melancthon. He spent his last days at Trebingen, where he died in 1522. His faculties, which were naturally vigorous, were cultivated with great industry. His mind was richly stored with various erudition, and his character was eminently distinguished by probity and urbanity. His principal works were, “An Epitome of the History of the four Empires;” the “Life of Constantino the Great,” from Eusebius; “De Verbo mirifico,” “De Arte Cabalistica,” and “Letters from learned men,” Zurich, 1558. He is also supposed, but unjustly, to have been the chief author of the celebrated work, entitled “Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum.”

In 1746, by the friendship of captain (afterwards lord) Keppel, he had an opportunity to visit the shores of the Mediterranean, and to pass some time at Rome. The sketch he wrote of his feelings when he first contemplated the works of Raphael in the Vatican, so honourable to his modesty and candour, has been presented to the public by Mr. Malone, and is a present on which every artist must set a high value. He returned to London in 1752, and soon rose to the head of his profession; an honour which did not depend so much on those he eclipsed, as on his retaining that situation for the whole of a long life, by powers unrivalled in his own or any other country. Soon, after his return from Italy, his acquaintance with Dr. Johnson commenced. Mr. Boswell has furnished us with abundant proofs of their mutual esteem and congenial spirit, and Mr. Malone has added the more deliberate opinion of sir Joshua respecting Dr. Johnson, which may be introduced here without impropriety. It reflects indeed as much honour on the writer as on the subject, and was to have formed part of a discourse to the academy, which, from the specimen Mr. Malone has given, it is much to be regretted he did not live to finish.

, a learned French writer, was bora at Toulouse, March 25, 1741, and entered into the congregation of the Christian doctrine, and became a distinguished professor in it. He quitted the society after some years, and took up his residence at Paris, where he employed himself in instructing youth, and in literary pursuits. He was celebrated for his deep knowledge in the Greek language, and engaged in the great task of translating the whole works of Plutarch. Between the years 1783 and 1795 he published his version of that philosopher’s moral works, in 17 vols. 12mo; of the Lives he only published 4 vols. 12mo. He published likewise a poem, entitled <c La Sphere," in eight cantos, 1796, 8vo, which contains a system of astronomy and geography, enriched with notes, and notices of Greek, Latin, and French poems, treating on astronomical subjects. Ricard died in 1803, lamented as a man of most friendly and benevolent disposition.

, a comic actor and writer, born at Modena in 1674, came to France in 1716, and distinguished himself as the best actor at the Theatre Italien. Religious motives induced him to quit the stage in 1729; and he died in 1753, much esteemed for the decency of his manners, and his amiable disposition. He was the anthor of a number of comedies, which had a temporary success, and which contain much comic humour. One of them, entitled “Les Coquets,” was revived a few years since. He also wrote “Pensées sur la Declamation” “Discours sur la Reformation du Theatre” “Observations sur la Comedie et sur le Genie de Moliere” “Rer flexions Historiques et Critiques sur les Theatres de l'jEurope;” and “Histoire du Theatre Italien,” 2 vols. 8vo, which, with his “Reflections Historical and Critical upon all the Theatres of Europe/' which appeared in 17J8, contains many judicious observations relative to the stage in general, and to the lyric theatre in particular. His second wife, Marie Laboras de Meziekes, was also an actress on the Italian theatre, which she quitted with her husband; but her writings are novels, the scenes of which sne frequently laid in England. They are all of the sentimental cast. She also translated Fielding’s” Amelia." Her works were printed collectively in 10 volumes, Neufchatel, 12mo, and Paris, 9 vols. 12 mo, and some of her novels have been translated into English. She died Dec. 6, 17,92, reduced by the troubles of the time to a state approaching to want; and soon after a new edition of her works, with a life, appeared in 18 vols. 12mo.

, Jonathan, a painter, and a writer on the art of painting, was born about 1665. He was intended by his father-in-law, apprentice to a scrivener, with whom he lived six years, but by the death of his master, was enabled to follow the bent of his inclination for painting. He then became the disciple of Riley, with whom he lived four years, and finally connected himself by marrying his niece. The degree of skill which he attained, by no means corresponded with the ideas he entertained of the art, which were certainly of a just and elevated kind. There are, however, great strength, roundness, and boldness in the colouring of his heads, which are drawn and marked in the manner of Kneller, with freedom and firmness; though the attitudes in which they and his figures are placed, the draperies which clothe the latter, and the back-grounds from which they are relieved, are insipid and tasteless. It is certainly a very curious circumstance, that, when he wrote with so much fire and judgment, dived so deep into the inexhaustible stores of Raphael, and was so smitten with the native lustre of Vandyke, he should so ill apply to his own practice the sagacious rules and hints he gave to others. Full of theory, profound in reflections on the art, and possessed of a numerous and excellent collection of drawings, he appears to have possessed no portion of invention, as applicable to the painter’s art, and drew nothing well below the head; plainly manifesting the peculiarity of taste or feeling which leads to excellence in that profession.

, a celebrated writer of novels, or, as his have been called, moral romance’s, was born in 1689, in Derbyshire, but in what part of that county has not been ascertained. His father descended of a family of middling note in the county of Surrey, and his business was that of a joiner. He intended his son Samuel for the church, but from losses in business-, was unable to support the expence of a learned education, and all our author received was at the grammar school. It appears from his own statement that he had a love for letter-writing, that he was a general favourite of the ladies, and fond of their company, and that when no more than thirteen, three young women, unknown to each other, revealed to him their love secrets, in order to induce him to give them copies to write after, or correct, for answers to their lovers* letters. In this employment some readers may think they can trace the future inventor of the love secrets of Pamela and Clarissa, and letter-writing certainly grew into a habit with him.

His “Pamela,” the first work that procured him a name as a writer, was published in 1741, and arose out of a scheme proposed to him by two reputable booksellers, Mr. Rivington and Mr. Osborne, of writing a volume of “Familiar Letters to and from several persons upon business and other subjects;” which he performed with great readiness; and in the progress of it was soon led to expand his thoughts in* the two volumes of the “History of Pamela,” which appear to have been written in less than three months. Never was a book read with more avidity, for these two volumes went through five editions in one year. It was even recommended from the pulpit, particularly by Dr. Slocock, of Christ church, Surrey, although its defects as to moral tendency are now universally acknowledged to be so obvious, that the wonder is, it ever obtained the approbation of men of any reflection. For this it undoubtedly was indebted to the novelty of the plan, as well as to many individual passages of great beauty, and many interesting traits of character. Its imperfections, however, were not totally undiscovered even during its popularity. The indelicate scenes could not escape observation; and his late biographer, who has given an excellent criticism on the work, informs us that Dr. Watts, to whom Richardson sent the volumes, instead of compliments, writes to him, that “he understands the ladies complain they cannot read them without blushing.” Other inconsistencies in the history of Pamela were admirably ridiculed by Fielding in his “Joseph Andrews,” an injury which Richardson never forgave, and in his correspondence with his flattering friends, predicted that Fielding would soon be no more heard of Fielding, whose popularity has outlived Richardson’s by nearly half a century!

Besides his three great works, his “Pamela, Clarissa, and Grandison,” he published, 1. “The Negotiation of Sir Thomas Roe, in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte, from 1621 to 1628 inclusive,” &c. 1740, folio, inscribed to the King in a short dedication, which does honour to the ingenious writer. 2. An edition of “^sop’s Fables, with Reflections.” And, 3. A volume of “Familiar Letters to and from several persons upon business, and other subjects.” He had also a share in “The Christian Magazine, by Dr. James Mauclerc, 1748;” and in the additions to the sixth edition of De Foe’s “Tour through Great Britain.” “Six original Letters upon Duelling” were printed after his death, in “The Literary Repository, 1765,” p. 227. A letter of his to Mr. Duncombe is in the “Letters of eminent Persons, 1733,” vol. III. p. 71; and some verses in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” p. 160. Mr. Richardson also published a large single sheet, relative to the married state, entitled “The Duties of Wives to Husbands;” and was under the disagreeable necessity of publishing “The Case of Samuel Richardson of London, Printer, on the Invasion of his Property in the History of Sir Charles Grandison, before publication, by certain Booksellers in Dublin,” which bears date Sept. 14, 1753. “A Collection of the moral sentences in Pamela, Clarissa, and Grandison,” was printed in 1755, 12mo.

, a French writer, and noted as the first who published a dictionary almost entirely satirical, was born at Cheminon in Champagne, in 1631. He was the friend of Patru and d'Ablancourt; and, like them, applied himself to the study of the French language with success. He composed a dictionary full of new and useful remarks, which would have been more acceptable if it had not been also full of satirical reflections and indecencies; but these were expunged in the latter editions. It was first published at Geneva, 1680, in one vol. 4to; but, after the death of the author, which happened in 1698, enlarged with a great number of new articles to 2 vols. folio, as is the edition of Lyons in 1721. Another edition, 3 vols. folio, was published at Lyons in 1727; and a very neat one in 2 vols. 4to, at Amsterdam in 1732; and, lastly, in 3 vols. folio, at Lyons, 1759 1763, by the abbe Gouget. The abridgment of it by Galtel, 1797 and 1803, 2 vols. 8vo, is now in most demand in France.

, a learned French writer, was born at Laval, in the province of Perche, about 1571. He wa* brought up in the family of the count de Laval, and for. some time followed the military profession, serving in Italy and in Holland. In 1603, Henry IV. appointed him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber. In 1605 he entered into tSie service of the emperor against the Turks: but ori his return he devoted himself to literary and scientific studies and in 1611 he was appointed preceptor to the young king, Lewis XIII. with a pension of 3000 livres, and the title of counsellor of state. An insult he received from his royal pupil obliged him to quit his office for some time. The king had a favourite dog, who was perpetually jumping on Rivault during his giving lessons, and Rivault one day gave him a kick. The king was so incensed as to strike Riv'lult, who retired; but it appears they were soon reconciled, and by the king’s orders Rivault accompanied ma* dame Elizabeth of France as far as Bayonne, on her way to be married to the king of Spain. On his return from that voyage he died at Tours, Jan. 1616, about the age of forty-five. He is spoken of with high esteem by several of the most celebrated writers of his time, particularly by Casaubon, Scaliger, Vossius, Erpenius, and Menage. His works consist of, 1. “Les Etats,” or “The States, or a discourse concerning the privileges of the prince, the nobles, and the Third Estate, &c.” 2. “Les Elemens d'Artillerie,” Paris, 1608, 8vo, a curious and very scarce work. 3. “Archimedis Opera quae extant, Gr. et Lat. novis detnonstrationibus illdstrata,” &c. Paris, 1615, folio; and ether pieces on education, &c.

, a French writer, chiefly on subjects of bibliography and literary history, was born May 19, 1730, at Apt in Provence, and was bred to the church. He was first professor of philosophy in the seminary of Sh Charles, at Avignon, a situation for which he was not very well qualified. He then became curate of Molleges, in the diocese of Aries, but was not much better satisfied with this than his preceding occupation, as he had more taste for bibliographical researches than for pastoral duties. While here he had the credit of an amour with a married woman, that did not advance him much in the public opinion; and when the husband reproached him, the abbe threw him headlong out of the window, from which, however, he received no great injury. In 1767 he came to Paris, and his turn for books being already known, the duke de Valliere appointed him his librarian, and in allusion to his arrogant manner of deciding on literary points, used to call him his bull-dog. On the revolution breaking out, he became one of the most implacable of the anarchists, and denounced vengeance on the clergy, the nobility, and especially those writers who were his rivals in bibliographical pursuits, particularly William Debure, and the abbe Mercier, to whom he was uncommonly abusive. He afterwards led a life of turbulence and hostility, which at last closed at Marseilles in 1792. Among his numerous publications, the most useful were, 1. “Eclaircissemens sur l'inyention des Cartes a jouer,” Paris, 1780, 8vo. 2. “Prospectus sur Tessai de verifier Page de Miniatures,” such as appear on manuscripts from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century; ibid. 1782, fol. 3. “Notices historiques et critiques sur deux manuscrits de la bibliotheque du due de la Valliere,” ibid. 1779, 4to. 4. “Notices sur le traite manuscrit de Galeotto Martio, intitule De Excelientibus,” ibid. 1785, 8vo. 5. “Histoire critique de la Pyramide de Caius Sestius,” &c. ibid. 1787, foi. 6. La Chasse aux Bibliographes et aux Antiquaires mal avises,“ibid. 1789, 2 vols. a receptacle of almost every kind of abuse and awkward wit against Le Long, Debure, Mercier, &c. 7.”Dictionnaire de critique litteraire," &c. with other works of a similar kind, which are very scarce even in France, as he printed but a small number of each edition.

As a medical writer, Rivinus has the merit of faithful observation and description, in his treatise “de Peste Lipsiensi,” published in 1680. He wrote also on dyspepsia, on intermittent fevers, and various other subjects. He did not scruple to attack whatever practice or opinion he found established on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. In this respect his “Censura Medicamentorum officinalium” ranks very high. His commendable aim, in this work, was to clear the materiamedica of its various disgraceful incumbrances; so many of which originated in error, imposition, or superstition. His attempts have been followed up by various men of ability and authority; and it is to the united labour and good sense of such that the world is indebted for the purified and improved state of our modern pharmacopeias.

, an ingenious young writer and medallist, the third child and second son of Edward Roberts, esq. deputy-clerk of the pells of the exchequer, was born March 13, 1789, in St. Stephen’s court, Westminster. His frame and constitution were delicate, which probably created an aversion to the usual exercises of youth, and his early pursuits evinced vivacity without levity. They were of a nature to exercise, but not to weary the faculties; and, springing from a desire for knowledge, afforded to him a perpetual variety of objects. The first radiments of education, as far as it related to habits, he acquired himself, or perhaps he imbibed them from the situation in which he was placed. In his father’s house at Ealing, the well-ordered ceconomy of time which prevails in a regular family, taught him to appreciate and to profit by the means of tranquillity thus placed within his reach. The salubrity of the air, and the extent of the grounds, which allowed him as much exercise as he wished for, contributed to the health of his body; and he had the advantage of a well-chosen collection of books, which afforded him the opportunity of indulging his taste for reading.

, a learned English divine and miscellaneous writer, was descended from a reputable family, which from time immemorial possessed a considerable estate at Mutter, in tae parish of Appleby, in Westmoreland. His father was an eminent maltster; and his mother, the only daughter of Mr. Edward Stevenson, of Knipe, in the same county, cousin to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. He was born at this latter place, August 28, 1726; but his father soon afterwards removing to Rutter, he was sent, at a proper age, to the free-school at Appleby, where he received the rudiments of classical learning under Mr. Richard Yates, a man of eminent abilities, and distinguished character in his profession. From thence, in 1746, he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, with considerable reputation for his ingenuity and learning. On his receiving orders he was, for some time, curate to the celebrated Dr. Sykes, at Rayleigh in Essex, and in 1758 he was instituted to the vicarage of Herriard in Hampshire; in 1770, to the rectory of Sutton in Essex; and in 1779, to the vicarage of Horucastle in Lincolnshire, to which he wns prcseuteU by his relation, Dr> Edtnund Law, bishop of Carlisle. In 1761 he published a sermon, entitled “The subversion of ancient Kingdoms considered,” preached at St. John’s, Westminster, Feb. 13, the day appointed for a general fast. In 1772, he revised and corrected for the press Dr. Gregory Sharpens posthumous sermons; and the same year completed a new edition of Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government, with historical notes, in one volume quarto, at the persuasion of Thomas Hollis, esq. who highly approved his performance.

With this publication his historical labours closed labours which, for extent and variety, have not been equalled by any writer in our times. All the essential merits of a historian were his; fidelity, the skill of narrative, the combination of philosophy with detail, so seldom attempted, and generally so unsuccessfully executed, and the power of giving an uncommon interest to his personages and events in the mind of the reader. His style has been iSo justly characterized by his biographer, that we may, without hesitation, recommend it as a decision from which it will not be easy to appeal. “The general strain of his composition,” says professor Stewart, “is flowing, equal, and majestic; harmonious beyond that of most English writers, yet seldom deviating, in quest of harmony, into inversion, redundancy, or affectation. If, in some passages, it may be thought that the effect might have been heightened by somewhat more of variety in the structure and cadence of his periods, it must be recollected, that this criticism involves an encomium on the beauty of his style; for it is only when the ear is habitually gratified, that the rhythm of composition becomes an object of the reader’s attention. The same judicious critic has re* marked, that,” perhaps, on the whole, it will be found that of all his performances Charles V. is that which unites the various requisites of good writing in the greatest degree. The style is more natural and flowing than that of the History of Scotland: while, at the same time, idiomatical phrases are introduced with so sparing and timid a hand, that it is easy to perceive the author’s attention to correctness was not sensibly diminished. In the History of America, although it contains many passages equal, if not superior, to anything else in his writings, the composition does not seem to me to be so uniformly polished as that of his former works; nor does it always possess, in the same degree, the recommendations of conciseness and simplicity."

It yet remains to be mentioned, as a part of Dr. Robertson’s literary history, that in 1776, he reviewed, and made considerable alterations, in his “History of Scotland.” He took the same pains, in 1778, with his “History of America;” and these “additions and corrections” were sold separately. His “History of Scotland,” and that of "Charles V.*' were translated into French. The honour conferred upon him by the Royal Academy of History at Madrid has already been noticed. In 1781, he was elected one of the foreign members of the Academy of Sciences at Padua; and in 1783 one of the foreign members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburgh. The late empress Catherine, a warm admirer of his works, sent him a present of a very handsome gold enamelled snuff-box, richly set with diamonds. These honours, however, can scarcely be put in competition with, because they were only the natural consequence of, a higher degree of fame over all Europe, than almost any modern writer has enjoyed, and of fame which no rivalship has been enabled to impair.

, an English mathematician of great genius and eminence, was born at Bath in Somersetshire in 1707. His parents, who were quakers, were of low condition, and consequently neither able, from their circumstances, nor willing from their religious profession, to have him much instructed in that kind of learning which they are taught to despise as human. Yet he made an early and surprising progress in various branches of science and literature, in the mathematics particularly; and his friends, being desirous that he might continue his pursuits, and that his merit might not be buried in obscurity, wished that he could be properly recommended to teach this science in London. Accordingly, a specimen of his abilities was shewn to Dr. Pemberton, the author of the “View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy;” who conceiving a good opinion of the writer, for a farther trial of his proficiency, sent him some problems, which Robins solved very much to his satisfaction. He then came to London, where he confirmed the opinion which had been formed of his abilities and knowledge.

, a modern French writer, was born in 1731, at Lyons. He had an employ ment in the finances at Cette in Languedoc, which he held for ten years; but having more turn for literature than calculations, he went to Paris, and composed three tragedies upon the Greek models, but had no more success than others who have made similar experiments on the public taste. In prose he published a “Refutation du Systeme de la Nature;” a “Critical History of the opinions of the Ancients concerning Happiness, 1778,” 8vo; and a “Complete Translation of the Plays of Sophocles.” The last-named work gained him much credit by the elegance and fidelity of the version, and the judicious notes annexed to it. He undertook also a complete translation of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, of which the preliminary discourses and the notes obtained more applause than the version itself, which, however, he had splendidly printed at the royal press in 1781, in 4to. He was a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, to which he contributed several learned memoirs. He died in 1788, highly esteemed for a temper in which there was nothing unsocial or selfish. He was always, we are told, fonder of talking of other people’s works than of his own, a case, it is added, of some singularity in literary company.

, prince of Marsillac, and governor of Poitou, was born in 1613. He was the son of Francis, the first duke of Rocbefoucault, and was distinguished equally by his courage and his wit. At the instigation of the duchess de Longueville, to whom he had been long attached, he engaged in the civil wars, and signalized himself, particularly at the battle of St. Antoine. After his return his house became the rendezvous of all the wits of Paris, Racine, Boileau, &c. who were captivated by the charms of his conversation. He died at Paris in 1680, aged seventy-seven. As a writer he is chiefly known by a small work, which has often been reprinted in this country, in English, entitled “Maxims,” of which Voltaire has not scrupled so say, that it contributed more than any performance to form the taste of the French nation, and give it a true relish of propriety and correctness. “Though there is,” continues he, “but one truth running through this whole piece, namely, that ‘ selflove is the spring of all our actions and determinations;’ yet this thought presents itself under such a variety of forms as never fail to strike with new surprise. It is not so properly a hook itself, as a set of materials to embellish a book. This little collection was much read and admired; it accustomed our authors to think, and to comprise their thoughts in a lively, correct, and delicate turn of phrase; which was a merit utterly unknown to any European writer before him since the revival of letters.” It has, however, been mostly admired by those who entertain an unfavourable opinion of mankind, and who have been soured by disappointment and misfortune, particularly by disappointed ambition. Chesterfield and Swift are on the side of Rochefoucault. We have also of this noble author “Memoires de la Regence de la Reine Anne d'Autriche,” written with great sense and a deep penetration.

Dr. Rogers was a man of good abilities, and an excellent writer, though no profound scholar, nor ambitious of being thought one. He neither collected nor read many books; being persuaded, that a few well chosen, and read to good purpose, serve infinitely more to edification, if not so much to ostentation and parade. We are told, that the judicious Hooker and the ingenious Mr. Norris were his favourites; and that he was particularly conversant in their writings.

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

, an English historical and miscella* neous writer, was born in 1724 or 1725, it is thought at Shrewsbury, but descended from a family of that name in Bedfordshire. He was first placed under an officer of the excise in the North of England, but having, in 1745, joined the rebel army, he was dismissed from his situation. He then went over to Dublin to visit Ambrose Philips the poet, who was his relation, but, owing to Philips’s death soon after, failed of procuring any establishment in that country. While in Ireland he is said to have published Akenside’s “Pleasures of the Imagination,” as his own, but his biographer has refuted this story. He probably, by more honourable means, recommended himself to persons of distinction, as his poem, entitled “Cambria” was, when first written, intended to have been patronized by sir Watkin Williams Wynne, and when corrected and prepared for the press, as it now stands, was shewn to Frederic prince of Wales, by general Oglethorpe and lord Middlesex; by whose interest he had permission to dedicate it to prince George, his present majesty, when it was printed, in 1749, in 4to. On the 25th of September of the same year, sir Watkin Williams Wynne was killed by a fall from his horse; and in the following month Roft published a poem to his memory, which was highly admired, and very popular among his countrymen.

, an English divine and writer of great popularity, was born at Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Sept. 25, 1714. His father, one of the French protestants who took refuge in England upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz, resided at Hartlepool as a merchant, and particularly as a dealer in corn. He had two sons and three daughters, whom he educated in the strict doctrines and discipline of the church of England, and lived to see well settled in the world before be left it in 1757. His second son, William, gave indication, at a very early age, of considerable talents, and a laudable eagerness to improve them. This induced his father to send him to the grammar-school, at Houghton-le-Spring, a village in the road from Durham to Sunderland. This school was founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, rector of that parish at the memorable acra of the reformation. At this seminary Mr. Romaine remained seven years, and in 1730 or 1731 was sent to Oxford, where he was entered first at Hertford-college, and thence removed to Christchurch. He resided principally at Oxford till he took his degree of master of arts, Oct. 15, 1737, having been ordained a deacon at Hereford, a year before, by Dr. Egerton, bishop of that diocese.

II. Charles IX. and Henry III. had a particular esteem for him, and became his liberal patrons. In 1562 he put himself at the head of some soldiers in Vendomois, and fought against the protestants, which occasioned the publication of some very satirical pieces against him at Orleans, in which he was represented as a priest: but he defended himself in verse, and denied his being an ecclesiastic. He had, however, some benefices in commendam; and, among others, the priory of St. Cosmas near Tours, where he died in 1585. Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, made his funeral oration; and a noble monument was erected there to his memory some years after. He was much afflicted with the gout, which, it is said, was owing to his debauched way of life. His poems consist of odes, hymns, elegies, sonnets, epigrams, and pieces of amatory poetry, not of the most chaste description. He was considered in his day as possessing great talents for poetry; but these are not so visible to the eye of modern criticism. His style is extremely harsh and obscure, which, it is said^ would have been more excusable, had he not been preceded by Marot. What learning he had appears in a pedantic affectation of allusions, examples, and words, drawn from Greek and Latin, which increase the obscurity of his style. Boileau justly says “It is the approbation of posterity alone which must establish the true merit of works. Whatever eclat a writer may make during his life, whatever eloges he may receive, we cannot conclude infallibly from this, that his works are excellent. False beauties, novelty of style, and a particular taste or manner of judging, which happens to prevail at that time, may raise a writer into high credit and esteem; and, in the next age, when the eyes of men are opened, that which was the object of admiration, shall be the object of contempt. We have a fine example of this in Ronsard, and his imitators, Du Bellay, Du Bartas, Desportes, who in the last age were admired by all the world, in this are read by nobody.” The best editions of Ronsard’s works are those by Binet, Paris, 1587, or 1604, 5 vols. 12mo, and by Richelet, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

Few persons have left behind them a more agreeable character than Mr. Rooke, from every person that was acquainted with him, or with his qualifications; and in nothing more than for his veracity: for what he asserted positively, might be fully relied on: but if his opinion was asked concerning any thing that was dubious, his usual answer was, “I have no opinion.” Mr. Hook has given this copious, though concise character of him: “I never was acquainted with any person who knew more, and spoke less, being indeed eminent for the knowledge and improvement of astronomy.” Dr. Wren and Dr. Seth Ward describe him as a man of profound judgment, a vast comprehension, prodigious memory, and solid experience. His skill in the mathematics was reverenced by all the lovers of those studies, and his perfection in many other sorts of learning deserves no less admiration; but above all, as another writer characterizes him, his extensive knowledge had a right influence on the temper of his mind, which had all the humility, calmness, strength, and sincerity of a sound philosopher. For more particulars of his character we may refer to Dr. Isaac Barrow’s oration at Gresham college. The only pieces which were published from his papers consist of “Observationes in Cometam, qui mense Decembri anno 1652 apparuit” printed by Dr. Seth Ward in his “Lectures on Comets,” 1653, 4to. “Directions for Seamen going to the East and West Indies,” which were drawn up at the appointment of the Royal Society, and inserted in their Transactions for 1665; “A Method for observing the Eclipses of the Moon,” in the Philos. Trans, for Feb. 1666. “A Discourse concerning the Observations of the Eclipses of the Satellites of Jupiter,” in the History of the Royal Society, p. 183; and “An Account of an Experiment made with Oil in a long Tube,” read to the Royal Society, April 23, 1662. By this experiment it was found, that the oil sunk when the sun shone out, and rose when he was clouded; the proportions of which are set down in the account.

, a painter and entomologist, the descendant of a decayed noble family, was born in 1705 near Arnstadt, and settled at Nuremberg as a miniature-painter, but particularly distinguished himself as one of the greatest insect-painters. The works which he published from his coloured designs will not only, whilst they last, interest the classic entomologist, but every one whose taste for form and colour in animal nature is not confined to men, quadrupeds, or birds. He treated objects which required the minuteness of Denner, with equal truth and better judgment, in a style of energy and animated grandeur which approaches to history. As a writer he is as authentic and faithful as tiresome and prolix; but though he lived in the infancy of the science, the simple and constant characteristics by which he distinguished the classes of the genera he represented and described, have not yet been superseded by the complex and involved systems Of his successors. He died in 1759.

, a voluminous author of the seventeenth century, was born in 1590 in Scotland, and became a divine, but left that country in Charles I.'s reign, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplainsj and master of the free-school at Southampton. He died in 1654, leaving a handsome bequest to the above school, from which it is said he had retired for some time before his death, and passed the remainder of his days in the family of the Henleys of Hampshire, to whom he left a large library and a considerable sum of money, part of which was concealed among his books. Echard says “he was a busy, various, and voluminous writer, who by his pen and ether ways made a considerable noise and figure in these* times, and who so managed his affairs, that in the midst of these storms, he died very rich, as appears from the several benefactions he made.” We have a list before us of thirty pieces by this author, but whether published separately, each forming a volume, we know not. Most of them occur very seldom. Among them are some whose dates we have recovered, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list. 1. “Comment, de Terrae motu refutatum/' Lond. 1634, 4to. 2.” The new Planet no Planet^ or, the earth no wandering star,“ibid. 1640, 4to, reprinted in 1646. 3.” Virgilius Evangelizans;“ibid. 1634, 8vo. This is a cento on the life of Christ, collected entirely from Virgil. Granger says it is ingenious, and was deservedly admired. 4.” Medicus medicatus, or, the physician’s religion cured,“ibid. 1645, 8vo. Th;s was one of the pieces in which he attacked the reputation of sir Thomas Browne in his” ReJigio Medici.“We find him returning to the charge afterwards in a work entitled, 5.” Refutation of Dr. Browne’s Vulgar Errors,“ibid. 1652, 8vo. 6.” Observations upon sir Kenelm Digby’s Discourse on the nature of Bodies,“ibid. 1645, 4to. 7.” The picture of the Conscience,“ibid. 1646, 12mo. 8.” The Muses’ Interpreter,“ibid. 1646, 8vo. 9.” Arcana Microcosmi,“ibid. 1651 and 1652, 12mo and 8vo. 10.” Observations upon Hobbes’s Leviathan,“ibid. 1653, 12mo. 11.” Observations upon sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World,“ibid. 12mo. After this he published” A Continuation“of that history, which Granger calls his” great work;“but adds, that it is like a piece of bad Gothic tacked to a magnificent pile of Roman architecture, which serves to heighten the effect of it, while it exposes its own deficiency in strength and beauty. 12.” An Epitome“of the same history. 13.” A View of all Religions,“the work for which he is best known, and which has passed through variotfs editions, the sixth in 1683. It had the merit of being the first compilation of the kind in our language, and attained a great degree of popularity. 14.” Abridgment and translation of John Wollebius’s Christian divinity,“ibid. 1657, 8vo. 15*” Three Decades of Divine Meditations,“no date. This is one of his poetical works, and valued in the” Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica“at Si. tis. 16.” Mel Helreonium, or, Poetical Honey gathered out of the weeds of Parnassus, &c.“ibid. 1642, 8vo. This, of which an account is given by Mr. Park in the” Censura Literaria,“is an attempt to spiritualize the Greek and Roman mythology. In moral and metre it resembles Quarles. Of the following works we have no dates:” De rebus Judaicis, libri quatuor,“in hexameter verse;” Rasura tonsoris,“prose;” Chymera Pythagoria;“”Meditations upon Predestination;“” Questions upon Genesis;“” Melissomachia;“”Four books of Epigrams,“in Latin elegiacs” Mystagogus poeticus“”ColloquiaPlantina;“” Chronology,“in English” Christiados poematis libri tredecim," with others, which seem of doubtful authority.

, a voluminous French writer, was born at Laon, in Picardy, Aug. 26, 1686. His father and mother were of good families, both protestants, and sutrerers for their religion. His mother’s body was ordered to be drawn upon a hurdle, because she died in the protestant faith, and his father was condemned to be hanged for endeavouring to escape into Holland, but was saved at the intercession of the chancellor Voisin, who prevailed on the Jesuit La Chaise to obtain his pardon. His son was educated first at the college of Laon, and afterwards in that of Du Plessis at Paris, Having finished his philosophical studies, some family discontents, owing to the introduction of a step- mother, determined him to go to Holland, where he entered into the company of the French cadets attached to the regiment of guards belonging to the States-general. He served with reputation until after the battle of Malplaquet, when he returned to his studies, and married. In order to maintain himself and family, he commenced the business of teaching for fourteen or fifteen years at the Hague, and educated in that time above fifty young men of family, who afterwards rose to offices of distinction in the republic. This employment, however, he relinquished in 1723, in order to devote his time to the study of politics and history, and became editor or contributor to various literary and political journals, in which he was assisted by some Frenchmen of talents, who, like himself, had taken refuge in Holland. Political writers are not always safe, even in republics; and Rousset, in 1747, having written some pamphlets against the magistrates, and in favour of the prince of Orange, was arrested at Amsterdam, and confined for some weeks there or at the Hague; but when the prince was made Stadtholder, by the name of William IV. he not only released Rousset, but soon after conferred on him the title of counsellor extraordinary, and appointed him his historiographer. Returning now to Amsterdam, he plunged farther into politics by becoming one of the chiefs of the party known in that country by the name of Doelisten, from Doele, the name of a hotel where they assembled. This party obtained what they demanded, but the stadtholder wishing to unite all parties in the common cause, and the Doelisten having become obnoxious to the public, he dismissed Rousset, in 1749, from the places he had conferred on him, and forbid the publication of a work he had written against the French court. Rousset being at the same time informed that he was in danger of being taken up, went to Brussels, where his pen was his chief resource, and there he died in 1762.

The principal works of this laborious writer were, 1. “Description geographique, historique, et politique, du royaume de Sardaigne, 9 ' Cologn, 1718, 12mo. 2.” Histoire de cardinal Alberoni,“translated from the Spanish, Hague, 1719, 12mo, and in 1720 enlarged to 2 vols. 3.” Mercure historique et politique,“15 vols. from August 1724 to July 1749. 4.” Histoire du prince Eugene, du due de Marl borough, du prince d'Orange,“Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols.; fol. the first volume was by Dumont. The whole is valued chiefly for its fine plates and plans. 5.” Supplement au Corps Diplomatique de J. Dumont,“new arranged with large additions by Rousset, Amst. and Hague, 1739, 5 vois. fol. 6.” Interets des Puissances de TEurope,“founded on the treaties concluded at the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1733, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. four times; but the last edition of Trevoux, 1736, 14 vols. 12mo, is said to have been mutilated. 7.” Recueil Historique d'Actes et de Negociations,“from the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1728, Amst. 1755, 21 vols. 12mo, but with the addition of some other political tracts and collections by our author, is generally to be found in 25 vols. 8.” Relation historique de la grande Revolution arrives dans la republique des Provinces-Unies en 1747,“Amst. 4to, without date. Rousset was also edicor of Mably’s” Droit Public“the abbe Raynal’s history of the Stadholderate, in which he attacks the abbe and his country; St. Manr’s French translation of Milton; Mrs. Manley’s” Atalantis," &c. In all his works, his ambition was to pass for a man of such impartiality that the reader could discover neither his country nor his religion. In this, however, he has not always succeeded, although it is apparent that his attachment to both had been considerably weakened.

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

, an eminent agricultural writer, was born at Lyons, Jan. 24, 1734. His father, who was engaged in commerce, dying while he was young, and without property, he entered into the ecclesiastical order; but he had scarce ended his studies, when the soil, cultivation, &c. of the beautiful country near Lyons, began to occupy his attention, and Columella, Varro, and Olivier de Serres, became his favourite authors. In the study of botany he took La Tourette for his guide, who was his countryman and friend. With him, after being appointed director of the school at Lyons, which he soon left, he published, in 1766, “Elementary Demonstrations of Botany,” a work that passed through many editions. In 1771 he went to Paris, where he began to publish the “Journal de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle,” which was conducted with greater reputation than in the hands of his predecessor Gauthier d‘Agoty. In this work he gave clear and interesting accounts of all new discoveries in physics, chemistry, and natural history. ’ Having been, by the recommendation of the king of Poland, presented to a valuable priory, he had leisure to turn his attention to his favourite project of a complete body, or “Cours d' Agriculture.” As Paris was not the place for an object of this kind, he purchased an estate at Beziers, where his studies and observations enabled him to complete his “Cours,” in 10 vols. 4to, except the last, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In 1788 he went to Lyons, and was admitted a member of the academy, and the government gave him the direction of the public nursery ground. On the revolution Rozier was one of its earliest partizaris, and one of its victims; for in September 1793, during the siege of Lyons, a bomb falling upon his bed, buried his body in the ruins of his house. He was author of several treatises on the method of making wines, and distilling brandy, on the culture of turnip and cole-seed, on oil-mills, and other machinery.

, in Latin Oricellarius, a learned writer of the fifteenth century, was born in 1449. His mother was daughter of the celebrated Pallas Strozzi, one of the most powerful and opulent citizens of Florence, a great patron of literature, and who in his collections of books and antiquities, was the rival of Niccoli, and even of the Medicis themselves. To this last mentioned illustrious family Bernard became allied, in his seventeenth year, by his marriage with the sister of Lorenzo, which joyful occasion his father John Ruccellai is said to have celebrated with princely magnificence, at the expence of 37,000 florins. Bernard after his marriage pursued his studies with the same avidity as before; and after Lorenzo de Medici’s death, the Platonic academy found in him a very generous protector. He built a magnificent palace, with gardens and groves convenient for the philosophic conferences held by the academicians, and ornamented it with the most valuable specimens of the antique, collected at an immense expence.

, a law and miscellaneous writer, was born about 1723 in Piccadilly, where his father was his majesty’s baker, and having bought a lottery ticket for Owen, when in his infancy, which was drawn a prize of 500l. he determined to expend it upon his education for the profession of the law. He was accordingly entered of the Middle Temple, and by studying here, as well as at school, with great diligence, became a good general scholar, and an acute barrister, although he never arrived at great eminence in his profession. He endeavoured, however, to form some political connexions; and when, in 1757, Murphy wrote a periodical paper, in favour of Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards lord Holland, called “The Test,” Ruffhead setup another, in opposition, called “The ConTest.” Dr. Johnson, who then conducted ths “Literary Magazine,” after giving a few of both these papers, adds, “Of these papers of the Test and Con-test, we have given a very copious specimen, and hope that we shall give no more. The debate seems merely personal, no one topic of general import having been yet attempted. Of the motives of the author of the Test, whoever he be, I believe, every man who speaks honestly, speaks with abhorrence. Of the Con-test, which, being defensive, is less blameable, I have yet heard no great commendation. The language is that of a man struggling after elegance, and catching finery in its stead; the author of the Con-test is more knowing of wit neither can boast in the Test it is frequently attempted, but always by mean and despicable imitations, without the least glimmer of intrinsic light, without a single effort of original thought.” Ruffhead wrote other pamphlets on temporary political subjects, the last of which was a defence of the conduct of administration in the affair of Wilkes, entitled “The case of the late Election for the county of Middlesex considered,” in answer to sir William Meredith’s pamphlet on the same subject. Of his law writings, the first was a continuation of Cay’s “Statutes” to the 13 George III. 9 vols. fol. and the second an edition of the Statutes, which goes under his own name, which he did not live to publish, as it appeared in 1771, but which has been since regularly continued, making 13 vols. 4to. For this, or his political services, he was about to have been promoted to the place of one of the secretaries of the Treasury, when he died Oct. 25, 1769, in his forty-sixth year.

In 1788, many of his medical papers were collected together, and published under the title of “Medical Inquiries and Observations,” vol. I. These he, from time to time, continued, embracing most of the writings above enumerated, besides observations on the climate of Pennsylvania, and some others, until a fifth volume was completed in 1798. In 1801 he added to his character as a writer, by the publication of six “Introductory Lectures to a course of lectures upon the institutes and practice of Medicine,” delivered in the university of Pennsylvania. In 1804 a new and corrected edition of his “Medical Inquiries,” &c. was printed in four volumes, 8vo. In 1806 he also published a second edition of his “Essays.” In 1809, such was the demand for the “Medical Inquiries and Observations,” he again revised and enlarged the work throughout, for a third edition, in which he continued his several histories of the yellow fever, as it prevailed in Philadelphia from 1793 to 1809. It also contained a “Defence of Bloodletting, as a remedy for certain diseases;” a view of the comparative state of medicine in Philadelphia between 1760 and 1766, and 1809; an “Inquiry into the various sources of the usual forms of summer and autumnal Diseases in the United States,” and the means of preventing them; and the recantation of his opinion of the contagious nature of the yellow fever.

It were no easy task to do adequate justice to the great talents, the useful labours, and the exemplary character of Dr. Rush. From the preceding sketch, it is presumed, some idea may be formed of his incessant devotedness to the improvement of that profession of which he was so bright an ornament- and many additional particulars may be seen in our authority, which we must necessarily omit. In private life, his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary and amiable. His writings are highly estimable, both on account of their extent and their variety. Instead of being a mere collator of the opinions of others, he was constantly making discoveries and improvements of his own; and from the results of his individual experience and observation, added more facts to the science of medicine, than all who had preceded him in his native country. His description of diseases, for minuteness and accuracy of detail cannot be exceeded, and may safely be regarded as models of their kind. In the treatment of gout, dropsy, consumption of the lungs, and the diseases of old age, he enlarged our views of the animal economy, and threw more light upon the peculiar character of these afflicting disorders than is to be derived from the investigations of any other writer. His volume on the diseases of the mind, in as far as it exhibits the infinitely varied forms which those diseases exhibit, is a storehouse of instruction. Had his labours been limited to these subjects alone, his character would deservedly have been cherished by future ages. His reputation, however, will permanently depend upon his several histories of the epidemics of the United States, which have rendered his name familiar wherever medical science is cultivated. The respect and consideration which his publications procured for him among his contemporaries was such, that the highest honours were accumulated upon him in different parts of Europe, as well as in his own country, and he was admitted a member of many of the 'most distinguished literary and philosophical associations.

, a Roman catholic writer, was born in Lancashire, and after being instructed in the classics at school, was admitted of Brazenose college, Oxford, about 1568, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1572. Next year, being a Roman catholic, he left the university, and joined his countrymen of that persuasion at Doway, where he pursued his studies, and took his degrees in divinity. In 1577, he was sent to Rome, and ordained priest, and appointed to go to England as a missionary. Here, however, he was taken up and sentenced to die, but after four years imprisonment, this was commuted for banishment, in 1585. He then went abroad, and was about to receive his academical honours at Lovaine, when he died there of the plague in 1586. He was the first publisher of Sanders’s book, “De schismate Anglicano,” 1585, 8vo, to which he added a third part; and a fourth, by way of appendix, appeared in 1628, which contained from his pen a list of those who suffered for popery in Henry the VHIth’s time. He also published “Synopsis rerurn ecclesiasticarum ad annum Christi 1577,” for the use of the students at Doway, ecclesiastical history being much his study and a “Profession of Faith.”

, a Latin poet, who was advanced to high employments at the Roman court, was a military tribune, and about 414- A. D. was prefect of Rome> and in order to succour his native country, then over-run by the Visigoths, took a journey to Gaul, of which he wrote a description in elegiac verse. It consisted of two books, of which the latter is lost. The work gives a favourable impression of the writer, as a Pagan, though it has been greatly censured by Christian writers, on account of some remarks he makes on the conduct and manners of the Christians. This “Itinerarium” was discovered in 1494 at a monastery, and has been several times printed. The best editions are those of 1582 and 1687. It is inserted in Burmann’s “Poetac Minores,” and in Matlaire’s " Corpus Poetarn m.' 12

, a medical observer and writer of very considerable learning, was born in Ireland, most probably at Dublin, Dec. 26, 16&8. His parents appear to have belonged to the people called Quakers, and were, as he tells 115, among “the more refined professors” of that religion. In his eleventh year, he was sent “to a seminary of the like,” which, he says, was a school not only of learning, but religion. Two years after he was removed to a school where there “was far less religion,” and from this to his eighteenth year he was “at various mixed schools, and among aliens.” In his twentieth year he was again placed in a family of friends; and such were the religious impressions of his youth, that he seems at various times to have considered the acquisition of human learning as a crime. He pursued it, however, and began a course of medical studies in Ireland, which he continued in London, and finished in Holland, probably at Leyden, then the chief medical school in Europe. Even here he cannot help telling us, that “the object was all nature and physic, no grace.” In 1723, having returned to his native country, he began practice, in what place he does not mention, but in the following year he “was transplanted to Dublin by a singular providence,” and attained much reputation. Soon after, he began a scheme for the improvement of the Materia Medica, in which he persevered for upwards of forty years, and which produced a work which we shall shortly notice.

, an antiquary and critic, was born in the North of England, and educated at the grammar-school of Northallerton, whence he was admitted a scholar at Sidney college, Cambridge. On quitting the university, he became a member of Gray’s-inn; and in 1692 succeeded Mr. Shadwell as historiographer to king William III. He rendered himself known first as a writer for the stage, by his production of “Edgar,” a tragedy, in 1673, which excited little approbation or inquiry until he became the author of “A View of the Tragedies of the last age,” which occasioned those admirable remarks by Dryden, preserved in the preface to Mr. Colman’s edition of “Beaumont and Fletcher,” and since by Dr. Johnson in his “Life of Dryden.” Rymer was a man of considerable learning, and a lover of poetry; but had few requisites for the character of a critic; and was indeed almost totally disqualified for it, by want of candour and the liberties he took with Shakspeare, in his “View of the Tragedies of the last age,” drew upon him the severity of every admirer of that poet. His own talents for dramatic poetry were extremely inferior to those of the persons whose writings he has with so much rigour attacked, as appears very evidently by his tragedy of “Edgar.” But, although we cannot subscribe either to his fame or his judgment as a poet or critic, it cannot be denied that he was a very useful compiler of records, and his “Fœdera” will ever entitle his memory to respect. While collecting this great work, he employed himself, like a royal historiographer, as one of his biographers says, in detecting the falsehood, and ascertaining the truth of history. In 1702, he published his first letter to bishop Nicolson, in which he endeavours to free king Robert III. of Scotland, beyond all dispute, from the imputation of bastardy. He soon after published his second letter to bishop Nicolson, “containing an historical deduction of the alliances between France and Scotland; whereby the pretended old league with Charlemagne is disproved, and the true old league is ascertained.”

, a Spanish political and moral writer, was born May 6, 1584, at Algezares, in the kingdom of Murcia, and studied at Salamanca. In 1606, he went to Rome as secretary to the cardinal Gaspar de Borgia, who was appointed Spanish ambassador to the pope, and assisted in the conclaves of 1621 and 1623, held for the election of the popes Gregory XV. and Urban VIII. For these services Saavedra was rewarded with a canonry in the church of St. James, although he had never taken priest’s orders. Some time after he was appointed agent from the court of Spain at Rome, and his conduct in this office acquired him general esteem. In 1636, he assisted at the electoral congress held there, in which Ferdinand III. was chosen king of the Romans. He afterwards was present at eight diets held in Swisserland, and lastly at the general diet of the empire at Ratisbonne, where he appeared in quality of plenipotentiary of the circle and of the house of Burgundy. After being employed in some other diplomatic affairs, he returned to Madrid in 1646, and was appointed master of ceremonies in the introduction of ambassadors; but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died Aug. 24, 1648. In his public character he rendered the state very important services, and, as a writer, is ranked among those who have contributed to polish and enrich the Spanish language. The Spanish critics, who place him among their classics, say he wrote Spanish as Tacitus wrote Latin. He has long been known, even in this country, by his “Emblems,” which were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in the early part of the last century. These politico-moral instructions for a Christian prince, were first printed in 1640, 4to, under the title of “Idea de un Principe Politico* Christiano representada en cien empress,” and reprinted at Milan in 1642; they were afterwards translated into Latin, and published under the title of “Symbola Christiano-Politica,” and have often been reprinted in various sizes in France, Italy, and Holland. He wrote also “Corona Gotica, Castellana, y Austriaca politicamente illustrada,” 1646, 4to, which was to have consisted of three parts, but he lived to complete one only: the rest was by Nunez de Castro; and “Respublica Literaria,” published in 1670, 8vo. Of this work an English translation was published by I. E. in 1727. It is a kind of vision, giving a satirical account of the republic of letters, not unlike the manner of Swift. The French have a translation of it, so late as 1770.

, a learned French writer, was born at Condom, Oct. 31, 1735, and after making great proficiency in his studies among the fathers of the oratory in that city, went to Orleans, where he was employed as a private tutor. In 1762, he was invited to the college of Chalons-sur-Marne, where he taught the third and fourth classes for sixteen years, which gave him a title to the pension of an emeritus. His literary reputation took its rise principally from his essay on the temporal power of the popes, which gained the prize of the academy of Prussia. He was then about twenty-eight years old; but had before this addressed a curious paper on the limits of the empire of Charlemagne to the academy of Belles Lettres at Paris. He was the principal means of founding the academy of Chalons, procured a charter for it, and acted as secretary for thirty years. Such was his reputation that he had the honour to correspond with some of the royal personages of Europe, and was in particular much esteemed by the kings of Prussia and Sweden; nor was he less in favour with Choiseul, the French minister, who encouraged his taste for study. It does not appear, however, that his riches increased with his reputation, and this occasioned his projecting a paper-manufactory in Holland, which ended like some of the schemes of ingenious men; Sabbathier was ruined, and his successors made a fortune. He died in a village near Chalon, March 11, 1807, in his seventysecond year.

, an Italian poet, but better known as a writer of novels, was born at Florence about 1335, of an ancient family, some branches of which had held employments of great trust and dignity in the republic. While young he composed some amatory verses, in imitation of Petrarch, but with a turn of thought and style peculiar to himself, and he was frequently employed in drawing up poetical inscriptions for public monuments, &c. in which sentiments of morality and a love of liberty were expected to be introduced. Some of these are still extant, but are perhaps more to be praised for the subject than the style. Sacchetti, when more advanced in life, filled several offices of the magistracy both at Florence and different parts of Tuscany, and formed an acquaintance with the most eminent men of his time, by whom he was highly respected. He suffered much, however, during the civil contests of his country. He is supposed to have died about the beginning of the fifteenth century. Very little of his poetry has been published. He is principally known by his “Novels,” an excellent edition of which was published at Florence in 1724, 2 vols. 8vo, by Bottari, who has prefixed an account of his life. These tales are in the manner of Boccaccio, but shorter, more lively, and in general more decent.

In 1562, he presided at a national synod at Orleans, and then went to Berne, and finally to Geneva, where he was associated with the ministers of that place. Henry IV. who had a great respect for him, gave him an invitation to his court, which, after some hesitation, from his aversion to public life, he accepted, and was chaplain at the battle of Courtray, and had the charge of a mission to the pro^ testant princes of Germany; but unable at length to bear the fatigues of a military life, which he was obliged to pass with his royal benefactor, he retired to Geneva in 1589, and resumed his functions as a preacher, and undertook the professorship of Hebrew until his death, Feb. 23, 1591, Besides his sermons, which were highly popular and persuasive, he aided the cause of reformation by taking an active part in the controversies which arose out of it, and by writings of the practical kind. One French biographef tells us that Sadeel was an assumed name, but in all other authorities, we find him called by that name only with the addition of Chandæus, which alluded to his ancestors, who were barons of Chandieu. Accordingly his works are entitled “Antonii Sadeelis Chandaei, nobilissimi viri, opera theologica,” Geneva, 1592, folio; reprinted 1593, 4to; and 1599 and 1615, folio. They consist, among others, of the following treatises published sepa-r rately, “De verbo Dei scripto,” Gen, 1592. “De vera peccatorum remissione,” ibid. 1591. “De unico Christi sacerdotio et sacrincio,” ibid. 1692. “De spirituali et sacramentali manducatione Corporis Christi;” two treatises, ibid. 1596. “Posnaniensium assertionum refutatio,” ibid. 1596. “Refutatio libelli Claudii de Sainctes, intitulati, Examen doctrinae Calvinianae et Bezanae de ccena Domini,” ibid. 1592. He wrote also, in French, “Histoire des persecutions et des martyrs de Peglise de Paris, depuis Fan 1557, jusqu'au regne de Charles IX.” printed at Lyons, in 1563, 8vo, under the name of Zamariel. He wrote also “Metamorphose de Ronsard en pretre,” in verse, part of a controversy he had with that writer, who in his work on the troubles during the minority of Charles IX. had attributed them to the reformers. His life, by James Lectius, was prefixed to his works, and published separately at Geneva in 1593, 8vo. The substance of it is given in our first authority.

, an English writer, descended of an ancient family in Shropshire, was born in 1615, and admitted pensioner of Emanuel college, in Cambridge, Nov. I 3, 1630, where he became eminent for his knowledge in the Hebrew and Oriental languages. After having taken his degrees at the usual periods, that of M. A. in 1638, in x which year he was chosen fellow of his college, he removed to Lincoln’s-Inn; where he made a considerable progress in the study of the law, and was admitted one of the masters in ordinary in the court of chancery, June 1, 1644, and was likewise one of the two masters of requests. In 1649, he was chosen town-clerk of London, and published in the same year in 4to, a work with this title, “Rights of the Kingdom: or, Customs of our Ancestors, touching the duty, power, election, or succession, of our kings and parliaments, our true liberty, due allegiance, three estates, their legislative power, original, judicial, and executive, the militia; freely discussed through the British, Saxon, Norman, laws and histories.” It was reprinted in 1682, and has always been valued by lawyers and others. He was greatly esteemed by Oliver Cromwell; who, by a letter from Cork, of Dec. 1, 1649, offered him the place of chief justice of Munster in Ireland, with a salary of 1000l. per annum; but this he excused himself from accepting. In August 1650, he was made master of Magdalen college, in Cambridge, upon the removal of Dr. Rainbow, who again succeeded Sadler after the restoration. In 1653, he was chosen member of parliament for Cambridge. In 1655, by warrant of Cromwell, pursuant to an ordinance for better regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of the high court of chancery, he was continued a master in chancery, when their number was reduced to six only. It was by his interest, that the Jews obtained the privilege of building a synagogue in 'London. In 1658, he was, chosen member of parliament for Yarmouth; and in December of the year following, appointed first commissioner, under the great seal, with Taylor, Whitelock, and others, for the probate of wills. In 1660, he published in 4-to, his “Olbia The New Island lately discovered. With its religion, rites of worship, laws, customs, government, characters, and language with education of their children in their sciences, arts, and manufactures with other things remarkable by a Christian pilgrim driven by tempest from Civita Vecchia, or some other parts about ftome, through the straights into the Atlantic ocean. The first part.” Of this work, which appears to be a kind of fiction, Dr. John Worthiugton, in a letter to Mr. Samuel Hartlib, dated April i, 1661, says, “Is the second part of Olbu like to come out shortly? Jt is said to treat of the religion, worship, laws, customs, manner of education, &c. of that place. The design promiseth much variety.”

, a celebrated Icelandic writer, was the son of a priest named Sigfus, and was born about the middle of the eleventh century, between 1050 and 1060. He travelled at a very early period into Italy and Germany, in order to improve himself in knowledge, and for a considerable time his countrymen were not at all aware ipf what had become of him. At length Jonas, the son of Ogmund, who was afterwards a bishop, found him at Paris, and carried him back to Iceland. Here he took the order of priesthood, and succeeded his father as priest of Odda, He also established a school, and contributed with others to induce the Icelanders to pay tithes, and took a considerable part with regard to the formation of the ecclesiastical code of laws. He died in 1133 or 1135, being about eighty years of age. At the age of seventy he wrote a History of Norway, from the time of Harold Haarfager to that of Magnus the Good. He is generally allowed the merit of having collected the poetical Edda, by which means he preserved these curious and valuable remains of the ancient Scandinavian mythology, poetry, and morality, from being lost. They were printed at Copenhagen, 1787, 4to, with a Latin translation, the editors of which, in their preface, give a full account of the supposed authors, and the claim of Saemund to be considered as the principal collector.

, a bishop of the old episcopal church of Scotland, a man of great learning and worth, and an able controversial writer in defence of the church to which he belonged, was born in 1652. He was the son of captain Sage, a gentleman of Fifeshire in Scotland, and an officer of merit in lord Duffus’s regiment, who fought on the side of the royalists when Monk stormed Dundee in 1651. Although, like many other royalists, he was scantily rewarded for his services, he was able to give his son a liberal education at school, and at the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1672. He passed some years afterwards as schoolmaster of the parishes of Bingry in Fifeshire, and of Tippermoor in Perthshire, and as private tutor to the sons of a gentleman of fortune, whom he attended at school, and accompanied to the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1684, when his pupils left him, he removed from St. Andrew’s, and when uncertain what course to pursue, was recommended to archbishop Rose, who gave him priest’s orders, and advised him to officiate at Glasgow. Here he continued to display his talents till the revolution in 1688, when the presbyterian form of church government was established, and then went to Edinburgh. He preached in this city a while, but refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, was obliged to desist, and found an asylum in the house of sir William Bruce, the sheriff of Kinross, who approved his principles, and admired his virtues. Returning to Edinburgh in 1695, where he appears to have written some defences of the church to which he belonged, he was observed, and obliged again to retire. At length he found a safe retreat with the countess of Callendar, who employed him as chaplain, and tutor to her sons, and afterwards he lived with sir John Steuart of Garntully as chaplain, until Jan. 25, 1705, when he was consecrated a bishop. In the following year his health began to decay, and after trying the waters of Bath, in 1709, and change of air in other places, without much benefit, he died at Edinburgh June 7, 1711.

Some years before the pope had decided in favour of the mendicants, a fanatical book under the title of an “Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel” was published by a Franciscan, who exalted St. Francis above Jesus Christ, and arrogated to his order the glory of reforming mankind by a new gospel. The universal ferment, excited by this impious book, obliged Alexander IV. to suppress it, but he ordered it to be burnt in secret, being willing to spare the reputation of the mendicants. The university of Paris, however, insisted upon a public condemnation of the book; and Alexander, great as he was in power, was obliged to submit. He then took revenge by condemning St. Amour’s work to be burnt, and the author to be banished from France. St. Amour retired to his native place, and was not permitted to return to Paris until the pontificate of Clement IV. He died at Paris in 1272. His works were published there in 1632, 4to. He was a man of learning and correct manners, of great zeal, and, in the opinion of a late writer, wanted only a more favourable soil, in which he might bring to maturity the fruits of those protestant principles, the seeds of which he nourished in his breast.

, an English lawyer and law-writer of the sixteenth century, is supposed to have been born at Skilton, near Coventry, in Warwickshire, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he removed to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. After being admitted to the bar, he became an eminent counsellor, and we should suppose a very popular one, as he frequently refused or returned his fees. What he got by honourable practice and some paternal estate, he expended in the purchase of books, and gathered a very fine library, which was all the property he left to his heirs. Besides his legal knowledge, he was conversant in philosophy and the divinity of the times, and wrote on the latter subject with so much freedom as to render his sentiments suspected, for which reason Bale has given him a very advantageous character. He is commended too for his piety, and pious ordering of his family, to whom he read every night a chapter in the Bible, and expounded it. He died Sept. 28, 1540, and not 1539, as Bale states. He was buried in the church of St. Alphage, within CrL'pp legate, London. It appears by his will that he was a considerable benefactor to Skiiton church, where his father sir Henry St. German, knt. and his mother lie buried, and to that of Laleford. St. German has immortalized his name by his valuable and well-known work, which bears the title of “The Doctor and Student, or Dialogues between a doctor of divinity, and a student in the laws of England, concerning the grounds of those laws,” first printed by Rastell, in Latin, 1523, 12mo, and reprinted in 1528. Mr. Bridgman enumerates above twenty editions which followed, the last in 1787, 8vo, with questions and cases concerning the equity of the law, corrected and improved by William Muchall, or Murchall. On the subject of this celebrated work, Mr. Hargrave (in his Law Tracts, 32 I), has published from a ms. in the Cotton library, “A Replication of a Serjaunte at the Laws of England, to certayne pointes alleaged by a student of the said lawes of England, in a Dialogue in Englishe, between a doctor of divinity and the said student;” and a little “Treatise concerning writs of Subpoena.” Two other tracts are attributed by Ames to St. German, though they bear the name of Thomas Godfrey, viz. “A Treatise concerning the power of the Clergy and of the lawes of the Realme,” 12mo, no date and “A Treatise concernynge divers of the Constitucyons provyncyall and legantines,” 12mo, no date. Tanner attributes to him “A Treatise concerning the division between the Spiritualitie and the Temporaltie,” printed by Redman without date; and this seems to be the same work as “The Pacyfyer of the division between the Spiritualitie aod Temporaltie,” printed by Berthelet, which being remarkable for impartiality and temperate language, was pointed out to sir Thomas More, as an example for him to follow in his controversial writings. This incited sir Thomas to publish “An Apologye made by him, anno 1533, after he had gevhi over th' office of lord chancellor of Englande,” printed by Rastell, 1533, 12mo. St. German was also probably the author of “Newe addicions treating most specially of the power of the Parlyament concernynge the Spiritualitie and the Spiritual Jurisdiction,” 1531, 12mo, now reprinted in all the modern editions of the “Doctor and Student.” He had a controversy with sir Thomas More, which produced “Salem and Bizance, being a dialogue between two Englishmen, one called Salem, and the other Bizance,” 1533, 8vo. This was written in answer to More’s “Apologye” above mentioned and sir Thomas replied in the “Debellation of Salem and Bizance,” by Rastell, in 1533, 8vo.

, lord viscount Bolingbroke, an eminent statesman and writer, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born, as all his biographers say, in 1672, but it appears by the register of Battersea parish that he was baptised Oct. 10, 1678. His father, sir Henry St. John, son of sir Walter St. John, died at Battersea, his family-seat, July 3, 1708, in his eighty- seventh year his mother was lady Mary, second daughter and coheiress of Robert Rich, earl of Warwick. He was bred up, with great care, under the inspection of his grandfather, as well as his father, who neglected no means to cultivate his mind. It was once noticed in parliament that he was educated in dissenting principles, and it is very certain that the first director of his studies was the famous Daniel Burgess, who, with all his oddities (See Burgess) was frequently employed as tutor to the sons of men of rank. Goldsmith seems desirous to impute Bolingbroke’s infidelity to this divine, and to his being obliged to read Manton’s Sermons on the 119th Psalm but such an opinion is as dangerous as it is absurd. From Burgess or Manton, he could have imbibed only a higher reverence for religion than was to be expected from a lively youth; and as to the disgust he felt, to which his biographer seems inclined to trace his infidelity, it is probable that a boy would not have entertained much less dislike to a voluminous history of England, if obliged to read it when he wished to be idle. But, whatever instruction he might receive from his first tutors, it is very certain, that he had a regular and liberal education. He was sent to Eton, where he had for his companion and rival sir Robert Waipole. “The parts of Mr. St. John,” says Coxe, “were more lively and brilliant, those of Walpole more steady and solid. Walpole was industrious and diligent, because his talents required application; St. John was negligent, because his quickness of apprehension rendered labour less necessary.” These characteristics prevailed in both throughout life. From Eton Mr. St. John was removed to Christ-church, Oxford, where he made a shining figure as a polite scholar, and when he left the university, he was considered as a youth highly accomplished for public life. His person was agreeable, and he had a dignity mixed with sweetness in his looks, and a manner very prepossessing, and, as some of his contemporaries said, irresistible. He had much acuteness, great judgment, and a prodigious memory. Whatever he read he retained so as to make it entirely his own; but in youth, he was not in general much given either to reading or reflection. With great parts, he had, as it usually happens, great passions which hurried him into those indiscretions and follies that distinguish the libertine. He does not, however, appear to have been without his serious moments, nor always unwilling to listen to the voice of conscience. “There has been something always,” says he, “ready to whisper in my ear, while I ran the course of pleasure and of business, * Solve senescentem mature sanus equum;‘ < and while ’tis well, release thy aged horse.' But my genius, unlike the demon of Socrates, whispered so softly, that very often I heard him not, in the hurry of those passions with which I was transported. Some calmer hours there were in them I hearkened to him. Reflection had often its turn and the love of study and the desire of knowledge have never quite abandoned me. I am not, therefore, entirely unprepared for the life I will lead; and it is not without reason that I promise myself more satisfaction in the latter part of it than I ever knew in the former.”

Persevering steadily in the same tory-connections, to which he adhered against the whig principles of his family, his father and grandfather being both of that party, he gained such an influence in the house, that on April 10, 1704, he was appointed secretary of war, and of the marines. As this post required a constant correspondence with the duke of Marlborough, it appears to have been the principal foundation of the rumours raised many years after, that he was in a particular manner attached to the duke. It is certain, that he knew his worth, and was a sincere admirer of him but he always denied any particular connection nor was he ever charged by the duke or duchess with ingratitude or breach of engagement to them. In all political measures, Mr. St. John acted with Mr. Harley: and, therefore, when this minister was removed from the seals in 1707, Mr. St. John chose to follow his fortune, and the next day resigned his place. He was not returned in the subsequent parliament; but, upon the dissolution of it in 1710, Harley being made chancellor and tinder-treasurer of the Exchequer, the post of secretary of state was given to St. John. About the same time he wrote the famous “Letter to the Examiner,” to be found among the first of those papers: it was then universally ascribed to him, and gave no inconsiderable proofs of his abilities as a writer; for in this single shost paper are comprehended the outlines of that design on which Swift employed himself for near a twelvemonth.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Auxerre in 1697. The only information we have of his earlv life is restricted to a notice of the affection which subsisted between him and his twin-brother M. de la Curne. It appears that he devoted himself to researches into the language and antiquities of his country, and was admitted a member of the French academy, and that of inscriptions. In all his labours he was assisted by his brother, who lived with him, and was his inseparable associate in his studies, and even in his amusements. St. Palaye died in 1781. La Harpe has published some spirited verses which he addressed in his eightieth year to a lady who had embroidered a waistcoat for him; but he is chiefly known as an author by “Memoires sur PAncienne Chevalerie,” 3 vols. 12mo, in which he paints in very lively colours the manners and customs of that institution. Mrs. Dobson published an English translation of this in 1784. After his decease the abbe Millot drew up, from his papers, “L'Histoire des Troubadours,” in 3 vols. 12mo. St. Palaye had meditated on an “Universal French Glossary,” which was to be more copious than that of Du Cange, and left two works in manuscript, one a history of the variations that have taken place in the French language, the other a Dictionary of French antiquities.

, a French moral and political writer, was born in 1658, of a noble family, at Saint-Pierre in Normandy. He studied at the college of Caen, and was brought up to the church, and obtained some preferment; but was more distinguished for his political knowledge. Previous to his appearing in political life, he wrote some observations on philosophical grammar, in consequence of which he was admitted a member of the academy in 1695. His political fame induced the cardinal Polignac to take him with him to the conferences for the peace of Utrecht; and here he appears to have announced one of his favourite projects, the establishment of a kind of European diet, in order to secure a perpetual peace, which cardinal Fleury received with good humour, but saw at once its practical difficulties. Such indeed was the case with most of the schemes he published in his works, which are now nearly forgotten. He certainly, however, had the merit of discovering the defects of the government of Louis XIV. and pleaded the cause of a more free constitution with much boldness. One of his best works was “A Memorial on the establishment of a proportional Taille,” which is said to have meliorated the state of taxation in France. He d,ied in 1743, aged eightyfive. After the death of Louis XIV. he published some of his spirited sentiments of that monarch in a pamphlet entitled “La Polysvnodie,” or the plurality of councils, for which he was excelled the French academy, Fontenelle only giving a vote in his favour. An edition of his works was published in H-.li md, 1744. 18 vols. 12mo.

, a polite French writer, was the son of a counsellor to the senate of Chamberri in Savoy, where he was born, but it is not mentioned in what year. He came very young to France, was some time a disciple of Jvi. de Varillas, and afterwards distinguished himself at Paris by several ingenious productions. In 1675, he returned to Chamrberri, and went thence to England with the duchess of Mazarin; but soon after came back to Paris, where he lived a long time, without title or dignity, intent upon literary pursuits. He returned a second time to Charnberri in 1692, and died there the same year, advanced in years, but not in the best circumstances. He was a man of great parts and penetration, a lover of the sciences, and particularly fond of history, which he wished to have studied, not as a bare recital of facts and speeches, but as a picture of human nature philosophically contemplated. He wrote a piece, with this view, “De l‘Usage de l’Histoire,” Paris, 1672, 12mo, which is full of sensible and judicious reflections. In 1674, he published “Conjuration des Espagnols contre la Republique de Venise en 1618,” 12mo, in a style which Voltaire compares to that of Sallust; but what he gained in reputation by this, he is said to have lost by his “La Vie de Jésus Christ,” published four years after. He wrote many other things: some to illustrate the Roman history, which he had made his particular study some upon subjects of philosophy, politics, and morals and notes upon the first two books of Tully’s “Letters to Atticus,” of which he made a French translation. A neat edition of his works was published at the Hague in 1722, in 5 vols. 12mo, without the letters to Atticus; which, however, were printed in the edition of Paris, 1745, in 3 vols. 4to, and six 12ino.

, a French writer of memoirs, was the son of a duke of the same title, born June 16, 1675, and was introduced at the court of Louis XIV. in his fifteenth year, but had been educated in virtuous principles, and never departed from them, either at court or in the army, in which he served till 1697. In 1721 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of Spain, for the purpose of soliciting the infanta in marriage for Louis XV. After being for some time confidential adviser to the regent, duke of Orleans, he retired to his estate, and passed most of his time in his library, where he read incessantly and forgot nothing. The marshal de Belle-Isle used to say that he was the most interesting and agreeable dictionary he had ever consulted. At fourscore he enjoyed all his faculties as perfect as at forty: the precise time of his death is not mentioned, but it appears to have taken place about 1757. He composed “Memoirs of the reign of Louis XIV. and the Regency,” which consist of a variety of anecdotes relative to the courts of Louis XIV. and XV. which are told in an elegant style, but his manner is often sarcastic, although his justice has never been called in question. M. Anquetil has made this nobleman’s memoirs the basis of his history of “Louis XIV. his Court and the Regent.” Some of the editions of these Memoirs have been mutilated, but the most complete was printed at Strasburg, in 1791, iS vols. 8vo.

, a learned writer in the sixteenth century, born at Utrecht, was successively minister of several churches in Holland, and lastly at the Hague, where he died in 1694. His most known and valuable works are, “Otia Theologica,” 4to, containing dissertations on different subjects, from the Old and New Testament “Concionator Sacer,” 12mo; and <c De Libris varioque eorum usu et abusu," Amsterdam, 1668, 12mo.

, an ingenious and laborious writer, was born at the Hague in 1694. His father was receiver-general of Walloon Flanders, and of an ancient and considerable family. He was educated with great care, and sent at a proper age to Leyden; where he studied history under Perizonius, philosophy under Bernard, and law under Voetius and Noodt. Having finished his academical studies with honour, he returned to his parents at the Hague, and was admitted an advocate in the court of Holland. After the peace of Utrecht in 1713 r he went to France; and spent some time at Paris in visiting libraries, and in cultivating friendships with learned men. In 1716, he was made counsellor to the princess of Nassau; and, the year after, commissary of the finances of the States General. He went again to France in 1717; and two years after to England, where he was elected fellow of the Royal Society, in the list of which he is called “Auditor-Surveyor of the Bank of Holland.” He was author of several publications, which shewed parts, learning, and industry; and without doubt would, if he had lived, have been of great use and ornament to the republic of letters; but, catching the small-pox, he died in 1723, in his thirtieth year.

, a French writer, the first projector of literary journals, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born at Paris in 1626. During his education, he gave no proofs of precocious talent, and afforded little hope of much progress in letters or science. But this seems to have been the effect rather of indolence than incapacity, for he afterwards became an accomplished Greek and Latin scholar, and maintained public theses in philosophy with the greatest a'pplause. He then studied the law, and was admitted a counsellor in the parliament of Paris in 1652. This, however, did not seem so much to his taste as general inquiries into literary history and knowledge, and desultory reading. It is said that he occasionally perused all kinds of books, made curious researches, and kept a person always near him to take down his reflections, and to make abstracts. In 1664, he formed the project of the “Journal des Scavans;” and, the year following, began to publish it under the name of Sieur de Hedouviile, which was that of his valet de chambre; but the severity of his censures gave offence to many who were able to make reprisals. Menage’s “Amcenitates Juris Civilis” was one of the first of those works which fell under Sallo’s cognizance, and his mode of treating it provoked Menage to return his abuse with equal severity in his preface to the works of Malherbe, printed in 1666. Charles Patin’s “Introduction a la connoissance des M^dailles” was another work with which he made free, and incurred a severe retaliation. This warfare soon proved too much for his courage; and therefore, after having published his third journal, he turned the work over to the Abbé Gallois, who dropped all criticism, and merely gave titles and extracts. The plan, however, in one shape or other, was soon adopted in most parts of Europe, and continues until this day, whether with real advantage to literature, has never been fully discussed. Voltaire, after mentioning Sallo as the inventor of this kind of writing, says, with a justice applicable in our own days, that Sallo’s attempt “was afterwards dishonoured by other journals, which were published at the desire of avaricious booksellers, and written by obscure men. who filled them with erroneous extracts, follies, and lies. Things,” he adds, “are come to that pass, that praise and censure are all made a public traffic, especially in periodical papers; and letters have fallen into disgrace by the management and conduct of these infamous scribblers.” On the other hand, the advantages arising from such journals, when under the management of men of candour and independence, will scarcely admit of a doubt. Sallo died in 1669; and, although he published a piece or two of his own, yet is now remembered only for his plan of a literary journal, or review.

Upon the death of his father, in 1640, he returned for a time into France; and, on going to Paris, was much caressed by cardinal Richelieu, who used all possible means to detain him, and even offered him his own terms; but could not prevail. The obligation he had to the States of Holland, the love of freedom and independence, and the necessity of a privileged place, in order to publish such things as he was then meditating, were the reasons which enabled him to withstand the cardinal. Salmasius also refused the large pension, which the cardinal offered him, to write his history, because in such a work he thought he must either give offence, or advance many things contrary to his own principles, and to truth, While he was in Burgundy to settle family affairs, the cardinal died, and was succeeded by Mazarin, who, upon our author’s return to Paris, honoured him with the same solicitations as his predecessor had done. Salmasius, however, declined his offers, and after about three years absence, returned to Holland: whence, though attempts were afterwards made to draw him back to France, it does not appear that he ever entertained the least thought of removing. In the summer of 1650, he went to Sweden, to pay queen Christina a visit, with whom he continued till the summer following. The reception and treatment he met with, as it is described by the writer of his life, is very characteristic of that extraordinary patroness of learned men. “She performed for him all offices,” says he, “which could have been expected even from an equal. She ordered him to choose apartments in her palace, for the sake of having him with her, * ut lateri adhaereret,' whenever she would But Sal^ masius was almost always ill while he stayed in Sweden, the climate being more than his constitution could bear: at which seasons the queen would come to the side of his bed, hold long discourses with him upon subjects of the highest concern, and, without any soul present, but with the doors all shut, would mend his fire, and do other necessary offices for him.” She soon, however, changed her mind with regard to Salmasius, and praised his antagonist Milton, with whom his celebrated controversy had now begun. After the murder of Charles I Charles II., now in Holland, employed Salmasius to write a defence of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius, says Johnson, was at this time a man of skill in languages, knowledge of antiquity, and sagacity of emendatory criticism, almost exceeding all hope of human attainment; and having, by excessive praises, been confirmed in great confidence of himself, though he probably had not much considered the principles of society or the rights of government, undertook the employment without distrust of his own qualifications, and, as his expedition in writing was wonderful, produced in 1649 his “Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Serenissimum Magnae Britannise Regem Carolum II. filium natu majorem, hseredem et successorem legitimum. Sumptibus Regiis, anno 1649.” Milton, as we have noticed in his life, was employed, by the Powers then prevailing, to answer this book of Salmasius, and to obviate the prejudices which the reputation of his great abilities and learning might raise against their cause; and he accordingly published in 1651, a Latin work, entitled “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano contra Claudii Salmasii Defensionem Regiam.” Of these two works Hobbes declared himself unable to decide whose language was best, or whose arguments were worst, he might have added, or who was most to blame for scurrility and personal abuse. Dr. Johnson remarks, that Salmasius had been so long not only the monarch, but the tyrant of literature, that almost all mankind were delighted to find him defied and insulted by a new name, not yet considered as any one’s rival. There is no proof, however, that Salrnasius’s general reputation suffered much from a contest in which he had not employed the powers which he was acknowledged to possess. His misfortune was to treat of subjects which he had not much studied, and any repulse to a man so accustomed to admiration, must have been very galling. He therefore prepared reply to Milton, but did not live to finish' it, nor did it appear until published by his son in the year of the restoration, when the subject, in England at least, was no longer fit for discussion. He died at the Spa, Sept. 3, 1653, in consequence of an imprudent use of the waters; but as he had reproached Milton with losing his eyes in their contest, Milton delighted himself with the belief that he had shortened Salmasius’s life. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, if any credit is to be given to the account which Salmasius’s biographer, Clement, gives of his feeble constitution, and long illness.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

, a Roman catholic writer of considerable fame, and one of the principal champions of popery in the sixteenth century, was born about 1527, at Charlewood in Surrey, and educated at Winchester school, whence he removed to New college, Oxford. Here he studied chiefly canon law, and was made fellow of his college in 1548, and in 1550, or 1551, took the degree of bachelor of laws. When queen Mary came to the throne, he had the offer of being Latin secretary to her majesty, which he declined for the sake of a studious, academical life, and remained at Oxford during the whole of her reign. In 1557 he was one of the professors of canon law, and read what were called the “shaggling lectures,” i. e. lectures not endowed, until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when his principles induced him to quit England. He arrived at Rome about the latter end of 1560, and studying divinity, became doctor in that faculty, and was ordained priest by Dr. Thomas Goldwell, bishop of St. Asaph, who at that time resided in the English hospital at Rome. Soon after, cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent, hearing of his abilities, took him into his family, and made use of him, as his theologal, in the council. When the council broke up, Dr. Sanders accompanied the cardinal to Poland, Prussia, and Lithuania, where he was instrumental in settling the discipline of the Romish church; but his zeal disposing him to think most of his native country, he returned to Flanders, and was kindly entertained by sir Francis Englefield, formerly privy-counsellor to queen Mary, and then in great favour with the court of Spain; through whose hands a great part of those charitable collections passed, which his catholic majesty ordered for the subsistence of the English popish exiles. Sanders was appointed his assistant, and being settled at Louvaine, together with his mother and sister, he lived there twelve years, and performed many charitable offices to his indigent countrymen. Much of this time he employed in writing in defence of popery against Jewell, Nowell, and other eminent protestant divines.

, an English writer, whose history may not be unuseful, was a native of Scotland, and born in, or near, Breadalbane, about 1727. He was by business a comb-maker; but not being successful in trade, and having some talents, some education, and a good memory, he commenced a hackney writer, and in that capacity produced some works which have been relished by the lower class of readers. When he came to London is uncertain; but, having travelled over most of the northern parts of these kingdoms, he compiled, from his own survey and the information of books, an itinerary, entitled “The Complete English Traveller,” folio. It was published in numbers, with the fictitious name of Spencer, professedly on the plan of Fuller’s Worthies, with biographical notices of the most eminent men of each county. As the dealers in this kind of publications thought it too good a thing to be lost, it has been republished, depriving Mr. Spencer of his rights, and giving them to three fictitious gentlemen, Mr. Burlington for England, Mr. Murray for Scotland, and Mr. Llewellyn for Wales. He also compiled, about 1764, a work in 5 or 6 vols. 8vo, with cuts, entitled “The Newgate Calendar, or Memoirs of those unfortunate culprits who fall a sacrifice to the injured laws of their country, and thereby make their exit at Tyburn.” He was some time engaged with lord Lyttelton, in assisting his lordship to compile his “History of Henry II.;” and Dr. Johnson, in his life of that poetical nobleman, introduces this circumstance in no very honourable manner. “When time,” says he, “brought the history to a third edition, Reid (the former corrector) was either dead or discharged; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a conjb-maker, but then known by the style of Doctor Sanders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the doctor’s edition is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages. 7 ' His most considerable work was his” Gaffer Greybeard,“an illiberal piece, in 4 vols. 12mo, in which the characters of the most eminent dissenting divines, his contemporaries, are very freely handled. He had, perhaps suffered either by the contempt or the reproof of some of that persuasion, and therefore endeavoured to revenge himself on the whole, ridiculing, in particular, Dr. Gill under the name of Dr. Half-pint, and Dr. Gibbons under that of Dr. Hymn-maker. He was also the author of the notes to a Bible published weekly under the name of the rev. Henry Southwell: for this he received about twentyfive or twenty-six shillings per week, while Dr. Southwell, the pseudo-commentator, received one hundred guineas for the use of his name, he having no other recommendation to the public, by which he might merit a posthumous memory, than his livings. Dr. Sanders also compiled” Letter-writers,“” Histories of England,“and other works of the paste and scissors kind but his” Roman History," written in a series of letters from a nobleman to his son, in 2 vols. 12mo, has some merit. Towards the latter end of his days he projected a general chronology of all nations, and had already printed some sheets of the work, under the patronage of lord Hawke, when a disorder upon his lungs put a period to his existence, March 19, 1783. He was much indebted to the munificence of Mr. Granville Sharp. More particulars of this man’s history and of the secrets of Bible-making may be seen in our authority.

, a herald and heraldic writer, descended from a very ancient and respectable family, still seated at Sandford, in the county of Salop, was the third son of Francis Sandford, *of that place, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Calcot Chambre, of Williamscot in Oxfordshire, and of Carnow in Wicklow in Ireland. He was born in 1630, in the castle of Carnow in the province of Wicklow, part of the half barony of Shelelak, purchased of James I., by his maternal grandfather, Chalcot Chambre. He partook in an eminent degree the miseries of the period which marked his youth. At eleven years of age he sought an asylum in Sandford, being driven by the rebellion from Ireland. No sooner had his pitying relatives determined to educate him to some profession, than they were proscribed for adhering to the cause of their sovereign; he received, therefore, only that learning which a grammar school could give. As some recompence for the hardships he and his family had experienced, he was admitted, at the restoration, as pursuivant in the college of arms; but conscientiously attached to James II., he obtained leave to resign his tabard to Mr. King, rougedragon, who paid him 220l. for his office. He retired to Bloomsbury, or its vicinity, where he died, January 16, 1693, and was buried in St. Bride’s upper church yard. The last days of this valuable man corresponded too unhappily with the first, for he died “advanced in years, neglected, and poor.' 7 He married Margaret, daughter of William Jokes, of Bottington, in the county of Montgomery, relict of William Kerry, by whom he had issue. His literary works are, 1.” A genealogical History of the Kings of Portugal,“&c. London, 1664, fol. partly a translation, published in compliment to Catherine of Braganza, consort to Charles II. It is become scarce. 2.” The Order and Ceremonies used at the Funeral of his Grace, George Duke of Albemarle,“Savoy, 1670. This is a thin folio, the whole represented in engraving. 3.” A genealogical History of the Kings of England, and Monarchs of Great Britain, from the Norman Conquest, Anno 1066, to the year 1677, in seven Parts or Books, containing a Discourse of their several Lives, Marriages, and Issues, Times of Birth, Death, Places of Burial, and monumental Inscriptions, with their Effigies, Seals, Tombs, Cenotaphs, Devices, Arms,“&c. Savoy, 1677, fol. dedicated to Charles II., by whose command the work was undertaken. It is his best and most estimable performance. The plan is excellent, the fineness of the numerous engravings greatly enrich and adorn it: many are by Hollar, others by the best artists of that period, inferior to him, but not contemptible, even when seen at this age of improvement in graphic art. The original notes are not the least valuable part of the work, conveying great information, relative to the heraldic history of our monarchs, princes, and nobility. Mr. Stebbing, Somerset herald, reprinted it in 1707, continuing it until that year, giving some additional information to the original works; but the plates being worn out, or ill touched, this edition is far inferior to the first.” The Coronation of K. James II. and Q. Mary," &c. illustrated with sculptures, Savoy, 1687, a most superb work. When James declared he would have the account of his coronation printed, Mr. Sandford and Mr. King, then rouge-dragon, obtained the earl marshal’s consent to execute it; the latter says, the greatest part passed through his hands, as well as the whole management and economy of it, though he declined having his name appear in the title-page, contenting himself with one third part of the property, leaving the honour, and two remaining shares of it, to Mr. Sandford well foreseeing, he says, that they would be maligned for it by others of their office and he was not mistaken, for Sandford, with all the honour, had all the malice, for having opposed the earl marshal’sappointing Mr. Burghill to be receiver of fees of honour for the heralds, and endeavouring to vest it in the king; so that the affair was taken and argued at the council table. The earl marshal, at the insinuation of some of the heraids, suspended him, under pretence that he had not finished the history of the coronation; but he submitting, the suspension was soon taken off. The book at last was not successful, for the publication being delayed until 1687, and the revolution following, which threw a damp on such an undertaking, Messrs. Sandford and King gained no more than their expences, amounting to 600l.

, or, Van Den Sand, a Socinian writer, was born at Konigsburg in the year 1644. After becoming an ecclesiastic, he went to Amsterdam, where he died in 1680, aged only thirty-six. He published various works, among which are, 1. “Nucleus Historiae Ecclesiasticae,” 1669, in 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Cologne, in 1676: and in London in 1681. 2. “Tractatus de Origine Animae, 167 1.” 3. “Notae et Observationes in G. J. Vossium de Historicis Latinis,” 1677, a work of considerable learning. 4. “Centuria Epigrammatum” 5. “Interpretation es paracloxae IV. Evangeliorum” 6. “Confessio Fidei de Deo Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Saricto, secunduia Scripturam;” “Scriptura Sacrac Trinitatis Revelatrix.” But the only work now much known, which was publibhed after his death, is his “Bibliotheca Anti-Trinitariorum,” Freistadt, 1684, 12mo, containing an account of the lives and writings of Socinian authors, and some tracts giving many particulars of the history of the Polish Socinians.

Years were now coming upon him, and a numerous family demanded a provision; but as it was a new and unpopular thing to see the prelates of the church abandoning their cathedrals and palaces, and retiring to obscure manor-houses on their estates, in order to accumulate fortunes for their children, an abundant portion of obloquy fell upon Sandys, who seldom lived at York, and not very magnificently at Southwell. Yet he visited his diocese regularly, and preached occasionally in his cathedral with great energy and effect. In 1577, during a metropolitical visitation, he came in his progress to Durham, the bishopric of which was then vacant, but was refused admittance by Whittingham, the puritan dean. The archbishop, however, with his wonted firmness proceeded to excommunication. The issue of this contest will come to be noticed in our account of Whittingham. In the month of May 1582, being once more in a progress through his dipcese, a diar bolical attempt was made to blast his character. He happened to lie at an inn in Doncaster; whertf, through the contrivance of sir Robert Stapleton, and other enemies, the inn-keeper’s wife was put to bed to him at midnight when he was asleep. On this, according to agreement, the inn-keeper rushed into the room, waked the archbishop with his noise, and offered a drawn dagger to his breast, pretending to avenge the injury. Immediately sir Robert Stapleton came in, as if called from his chamber by the inn-keeper; and putting on the appearance of a friend, as indeed he had formerly been, and as the archbishop then thought him, advised his grace to make the matter up, laying before him many perils and dangers to his name and the credit of religion that might ensue, if, being one against so many, he should offer to stir in such a cause; and persuading him, that, notwithstanding his innocency, which the archbishop earnestly protested, and Stapleton then acknowledged, it were better to stop the mouths of needy persons than to bring his name into doubtful question. With this advice, Sandys unwarily complied; but, afterwards discovering sir Robert’s malice and treacherous dissimulation, he ventured, in confidence of his own innocency, to be the means himself of bringing the whole cause to examination before the council in the star-chamber. The result of this was, that he was declared entirely innocent of the wicked slanders and imputations raised against him; and that sir Robert Stapleton and his accomplices were first imprisoned, and then fined in a most severe manner. This affair is related at large by sir John Harrington, a contemporary writer; and by Le Neve, who gives a fuller account of it, from an exemplification of the decree, made in the star-chamber, 8 May, 25 Eliz. preserved in the Harieian library.

, usually called in England, Father Paul, in Italian, Fra Paolo, a very illustrious writer, was born at Venice Aug. 14, 1552, and was the son of Francis Sarpi, a merchant, whose ancestors came from Friuli, and of Isabella Morelli, a native of Venice. He was baptized by the name of Peter, which he afterwards, upon entering into his order, changed for Paul. His father followed merchandize, but with so little success, that at his death, he left his family very ill provided for, but under the care of a mother whose wise conduct supplied the want of fortune by advantages of greater value. Happily for young Sarpi, she had a brother, Ambrosio Morelli, priest of the collegiate church of St. Hermagoras, who took him under his care. Ambrosio was well skilled in polite literature, which he taught to several children of the noble Venetians: and he took particular care of the education of his nephew, whose abilities were extraordinary, though his constitution was very delicate. Paul had a great memory, and much strength of judgment; so that he made uncommon advance* in every branch of education. He studied philosophy and divinity under Capella, a father belonging to the monastery of the Servites in Venice; and when only in his tender years, made great progress in the mathematics, and the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Capelia, though a celebrated master, confessed in a little time that he could give his pupil no farther instructions, and with this opinion of his talents, prevailed with him to assume the religious habit of the Servites, notwithstanding his mother and uncle represented to him the hardships and austerities of that kind of life, and advised him with great zeal against it. But he was steady in his resolutions, and on Nov. 24, 1566, took the habit, and two years after made his tacit profession, which he solemnly renewed May 10, 1572.

Saurin’s mathematical and philosophical papers printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, which are numerous, are to be found in the volumes for the years following; viz. 1709, 1710, 1713, 1716, 1718, 1720, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727. He left a son, who acquired some reputation as a dramatic writer and lyric poet.

The works of this original writer, after having long lain dispersed in magazines and fugitive publications, were collected and published by T. Evans, bookseller, in the Strand, in an elegant edition in two volumes, octavo, to which are prefixed the admirable “Memoirs of Savage,” written by Dr. Samuel Johnson. They have since been incorporated in the “English Poets.”

, an useful French writer upon the Subject of trade, was born at Doue in Anjou Sept. 22, 1622. He was sent to Paris, and put apprentice to a merchant; and carried on trade till 1658, when he left off the practice, to apply with more attention to the theory. It is said, that he had acquired a very competent fortune; but, in 1667, when the king rewarded with certain privileges and pensions such of his subjects as had twelve children alive, Savary was not too rich to put in his claim. He was afterwards admitted of the council for the reformation of commerce; and the orders, which passed in 1670, were drawn up from his instructions and advice. Being requested by the commissioners to digest his principles into a volume, he published at Paris, in 1675, 4to, “Le Parfait Negociant, ou, Instruction generate pour ce qui regarde le Commerce des Merchandises de France et des Pays Etrangers.” This went through many editions, the best of which is that of 1777, 2 vols. 4to; and has been translated into almost all European languages. In 1688, he published “Avis et Conseils sur les plus importantes matieres du Commerce,” in 4to; which has been considered as a second volume to the former work, and often re-printed. He died in 1690; and, out of seventeen children which he had by one wife, left eleven.

In that assembly of the lords which met after king James’s withdrawing himself the first time from Whitehall, the marquis was chosen their president; and, upon the king’s return from Feversham, he was sent, together with the earl of Shrewsbury and lord Delamere, from the prince of Orange, ordering his majesty to quit his palace at Whitehall, and retire to Hull. In the convention-parliament, he was chosen speaker of the House of Lords; and strenuously supported the motion for the vacancy of the throne, and the conjunctive sovereignty of the prince and princess, upon whose accession he was again made privy-seal. But, in the session of 1689, upon the inquiry into the authors of the prosecutions against lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, &c. the marquis, having concurred in these councils in 1683, now quitted the court, and became a zealous opposer of the measures of the government till his death, which happened in April 1695, and was occasioned by a gangrene in a rupture he had long neglected. There seems little in his conduct that is steady, or in his character that is amiable. Towards his end he showed some signs of repentance, which, according to Burnet, were transient. “He was,” says that writer, “a man of great and ready wit, full of life and very pleasant, much turned to satire be let his wit turn upon matters of religion so that he passed for a bold and determined atheist, though he often protested to me, that he was not one, and said, he believed there was not one in the world. He confessed he could not swallow down all that divines imposed on the world; he was a Christian in submission; he believed as much as he could; and hoped, that God would not lay it to his charge, if he could not digest iron as an ostrich did, nor take into his belief things that must burst him. If he had any scruples, they were not sought for nor cherished by him; for he never read an atheistical book in his life. In sickness, I knew him very much affected with a sense of religion I was then often with him, he seemed full of good purposes, but they went off with his sickness he was continually talking of morality and friendship. He was punctual in his payments, and just in all private dealings; but, with relation to the public, he went backward and forward and changed sides so often, that in the conclusion no side trusted him; he seemed full of commonwealth notions, yet he went into the worst part of king Charles’s reign. The liveliness of his imagination was always too hard for his judgment. His severe jest was preferred by him to all arguments whatever; and he was endless in council; for, when after much discourse a point was settled, if he could find a new jest, whereby he could make that which was digested by himself seem ridiculous, he could not hold, but would study to raise the credit of his wit, though it made others call his judgment in question. When he talked to me, as a philosopher, of the contempt of the world, I asked him what he meant by getting so many new titles, which I callecl the hanging himself about with bells and tinsel; he had no other excuse for it but this, that, if the world were such fools as to value those matters, a man must be a fool for company he considered them but as rattles, yet rattles please children so these might be of use to his family.”

, an eminent burlesque French writer, was the son of Paul Scarron, a counsellor in parliament, and born at Pari’s in 1610. Although deformed, and of very irregular manners, his lather designed him for an ecclesiastic, and he went to Italy for that purpose, in his twenty-fourth year, whence he returned equally unfit for his intended profession, and continued his irregularities until he lost the use of his limbs, and could only use his hands and tongue. This happened in his twenty-seventh year but, melancholy as his condition was, his burlesque humour never forsook him he was continually talking and writing in this strain and his house became the rendezvous of all the men of wit. Afterwards, a fresh misfortune overtook him: his father, who had hitherto supplied his wants, incurred the displeasure of cardinal Richelieu, and was banished, and although Scarron presented an humble request to Richelieu, which from its humour pleased that minister, no answer appears to have been returned, and both Richelieu and his father died soon after. Scarron at length, helpless, and deformed as he was, conceived thoughts of marriage; and, in 1651, was actually married to mademoiselle d'Aubigne, afterwards the celebrated madam de Maintenon, who lodged near him, and was about sixteen years of age. Unequal as this match was, she, had influence enough to produce some salutary change in his manners and habits, and her wit and beauty served to increase the good company which frequented his house. Scarron died in 1660, and within a few minutes of his death, when his acquaintance were about him all in tears, “Ah! my good friends, 7 ' said he,” you will never cry for me so much as I have made you laugh."

, a German writer, principally known in this country as a dramatist, was born Nov. 10, 1759, at Marbach, in the duchy jf Wurtemberg, where his father was lieutenant in the service of the duke. While a boy, he was distinguished by uncommon ardour of imagination, which he never sought to limit or controul. When young, he was placed in the military school at Stuttgard, but disliked the necessary subordination. He was intended for the profession of surgery, and which he studied for some time; but from the freedom of his opinions, he was obliged to withdraw himself through apprehension of the consequences, and it is said that, at this time, he produced his first play, “The Robbers.” This tragedy, though full of faults and pernicious extravagancies, was the admiration of all the youth of enthusiastic sentiments in Germany, and several students at Leipsic deserted their college, with the avowed purpose of forming a troop of banditti in the forests of Bohemia; but their first disorders brought on them a summary punishment, which restored them to their senses, and Schiller’s biographer gravely tells us, that this circumstance added to his reputation. The tragedy certainly was quite adapted to the taste of Germany, was soon translated into several foreign languages, and the author appointed to the office of dramatic composer to the theatre of Mauheim. For this he now wrote his ' Cabal and Love,“the” Conspiracy of Fiesco,“and” Don Carlos,“and published a volume of poems, which procured him a wife of good family and fortune. This lady fell in love with him from reading his works, and is said to have roused him from those habits of dissipation in which he had in* dulged, and to which he was in great danger of falling a victim. He was now patronized by the duke of Saxe- Weimar, who conferred on him the title of aulic counsellor, and nominated him to the professorship of history and philosophy at the university of Jena. He had previously written an account of the” Revolt of the Netherlands from the Spanish government,“and he now set about composing his 4< History of the thirty Years’ War in Germany,” a work which has been much admired in his own country. At length he removed to Weimar, where the pension, as honorary professor from the duke, was continued to him; and produced the “History of the most memorable Conspira cies,” and the “Ghost-Seer,” which displayed the peculiar turn of his mind, and were much read. In the latter part of his life he conducted a monthly work published at Tubingen, and an annual poetical almanac, and composed a tragedy entitled “The Maid of Orleans.” He was the author of other dramatic pieces, some of which are known, though imperfectly, in this country, through the medium of translation. He died at Weimar, May 9, 1805, and he was interred with great funeral solemnity. In his private character Schiller was friendly, candid, and sincere. In his youth he affected eccentricity in his manners and appearance, and a degree of singularity seems always to have adhered to him. In his works, brilliant strokes of genius are unquestionably to be found, but more instances of extravagant representation of passion, and violation of truth and nature. They enjoyed some degree of popularity here, during the rage for translating and adapting German plays for our theatres; and although this be abated, they have contributed to the degeneracy of dramatic taste, and have not produced the happiest effects on our poetry.

Burnet tells us, that he was “a calm man, of great application and conduct, and thought much better than he spoke; of true judgment, of exact probity, and of an humble and obliging temper.” And another writer observes, that he had a thorough experience of the world; knew men and things better than any man of his profession evet clicl; and was as great in council as at the head of an army. He appeared courteous and affable to every person, and yet had an air of grandeur that commanded respect from all. In king William’s cabinet are the dispatches of the duke of Schomberg in Ireland to king William, which sir John Dalrymple has printed in the second volume of his memoirs “because,” he remarks, " they paint in lively colours the state of the army in that country clear Schoinberg of inactivity, which has been unjustly thrown upon him; and do honour to the talents of a man, who wrote with the elegant simplicity of Caesar, and to whose reputation and conduct, next to those of king William, the English nation owes the revolution.

, a learned and very laborious writer, was born April 1, 1614, at Utrecht, and was successively professor of languages, rhetoric, history, natural philosophy, logic, and experimental philosophy in that city, at Deventer, Groningen, and lastly, at Francfort upon Oder, where he died in 1665, aged fifty-one. Schoockius delighted in singular subjects, and has left a prodigious number of works. Burman says he never knew a man who published so much and acquired so little fame in the learned world. Some of his works are critical, others on philosophy, divinity, history, and literature, chiefly ia 12 mo or 8vo, &c. The most known are, tracts on turfs, “De Turffis, seu de cespitibus Bituminosis” “On Butter;” “On Antipathy to Cheese” “On Eggs and Chickens;” “On Inundations” “De Harengis, seu Halecibus” “De Signaturis foetus” “De Ciconiis” “De Nihilo” “De Sternutatione” “De figmento legis Regies” “De Bonis Ecclesiasticis et Canouicis,” 4toj “De Statu Reipublicse faederati Belgii,” &c. c. He wrote also against Des Cartes, at the request of the famous Voetius, with whom he was much connected. Some other pieces on singular subjects are in his “Exercitationes variae,” 1663, 4to, reprinted under the title of “Martini Themidis exercitationes,” 1688, 4to, &C.

, 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.

Mrs. Scott, his widow, survived him about fifteen years, and died at Catton, near Norwich, in Nov. 1795. She was sister to the late celebrated Mrs. Montagu, of Portmansquare. From the pen of a very intelligent and equally candid writer, we have the following account of this lady “She was an excellent historian, of great acquirements, extraordinary memory, and strong sense; and constantly employed in literary labours; yet careless of fame, and tree from vanity and ostentation. Owing to a disagreement of tempers, she soon separated from her husband; but in every other relation of life she was, with some peculiarities, a woman of exemplary conduct, of sound principles, enlivened by the warmest sense of religion, and of a charity so unbounded, so totally regardless of - herself, as to be almost excessive and indiscriminate. Her talents were not so brilliant, nor her genius so predominant, as those of her sister, Mrs. Montagu: but in some departments of literature she was by no means her inferior. When she left her husband she united her income with that of her intimate friend, lady Bab Montagu, the sister of lord Halifax, and they continued to live together to the death of the latter. From that period Mrs. Scott continually changed her habitation, for restlessness was one of her foibles. Her intercourse with the world was various and extensive; and there were few literary people of her day with whom she had not either an acquaintance or a correspondence. Yet when she died, not one of her contemporaries who knew her literary habits came forward to preserve the slightest memorial of her; and she went to her grave as unnoticed as the most obscure of those who have done nothing worthy of remembrance. Under these circumstances, the writer of this article trusts to a candid reception of this imperfect memoir, while he laments that Mrs. Scott herself shut out some of the best materials, by ordering all her papers and voluminous correspondence, which came into the hands of her executrix, to be burnt; an order much to be lamented, because there is reason to believe, from the fragments which remain in other hands, that her letters abounded with literary anecdote, and acute observations on character and life. Her style was easy, unaffected, and perspicuous; her remarks sound, and her sagacity striking. Though her fancy was not sufficiently powerful to give the highest attraction to a novel, she excelled in ethical remarks, and the annals of the actual scenes of human nature. In dramatic effect, in high-wrought passion, and splendid imagery, perhaps she was deficient.”

, a French writer of eminence in his day, was descended from an ancient and noble family of Apt in Provence, and born at Havre-de-Grace in 1603. He spent part of his youth at Apt, and afterwards came and settled at Paris, where at first he subsisted by the efforts of his pen, particularly in poetry, and dramatic pieces, none of which are now in any estimation, and we may, therefore, be spared the trouble of giving their titles. In 1627 he published observations upon the “Cid” of Corneille, with a view of making his court to cardinal Richelieu, who was absurdly envious of that great poet, and did every thing he could to oppose the vast reputation and success of the “Cid:” and by his influence alone enabled even such a man as Scuderi “to balance,” as Voltaire says, “for some time, the reputation of Corneille.” Scuderi was received a member of the academy in 1650. He had before been made governor of the castle of Notre-Dame de la Garde, in Provence; and although this was a situation of very little profit, Scuderi, who was still more vain than indigent, gave a pompous description of it in a poem, which drew upon him the raillery of Chapelle and Bachaumont. Scuderi died at Paris, May 14, 1667, leaving a name now better known than his works.

, sister of the preceding, and his superior in talents, was born at Havre-de-Grace in 1607, and became very eminent for her wit and her writings. She went earty to Paris, where she gained admission into the assemblies of learning and fashion. Having recourse, like her brother, to the pen, she gratified the taste of the age for romances, by various productions of that kind, which were very eagerly read, and even procured her literary honours. The celebrated academy of the Ricovrati at Padua complimented her with a place in their society; and some great personages showed their regard by presents, and other marks of esteem. The prince of Paderborn, bishop of Munster, sent her his works and a medal; and Christina of Sweden often wrote to her, settled on her a pension, and sent her her picture. Cardinal Mazarin left her an annuity by his will: and Lewis XIV. in 1683, at the solicitation of M. de Maintenon, settled a good pension upon her, which was punctually paid. His majesty also appointed her a special audience to receive her acknowledgments, and paid her some very flattering compliments. She had an extensive correspondence with men of learning and wit: and her house at Paris was the rendezvous of all who would be thought to patronize genius. She died in 1701, aged 94; and two churches contended for the honour of possessing her remains, which was thought a point of so much consequence, that nothing less than the authority of the cardinal de Noailles, to whom the affair was referred, *was sufficient to decide it. She was a very voluminous writer as well as her brother, but of more merit; and it is remarkable of this lady, that she obtained the first prize of eloquence founded by the academy. There is much common-place panegyric upon her in the “Menagiana,” from the personal regard Menage had for her but her merits are better settled by Boileau, in the “Discours” prefixed to his dialogue entitled “Les Hero des Roman.” Her principal works are, “Artamene, ou le Grand Cyrus,” 1650, 10 vols. 8 vo; “Clelie,” 1660, 10 vols. 8vo; “Celanire, ou la Promenade de Versailles,” 1693, 12mo; “Ibrahim, ou l'Illustre Bassa,” 1641, 4 vols. 8vo “Almahide, ou PEsclave Reine,” 1660, 8 vols. 8vo Celine,“1661, 8vo” Mathilde d'Aguiiar,“1667, 8vo;” Conversations et Entretiens," 10 vols. c. These last conversations are thought the best of Mad Scuderi’s wo^ks, but there was a time when English translations of her prolix romances were read. What recommended them to the French public was the traits of living characters which she occasionally introduced.

, a French dramatic writer, was born at Paris, June 4, 1719. Abandoned by his friends, he was, at the age of thirteen, obliged to quit his studies, in which he was little advanced, and to practise a trade for his subsistence. He was first a journeyman, and then a master mason* and architect; which businesses he conducted with uncommon probity. Natural inclination led him to cultivate literature, and particularly the drama, for which he wrote various small pieces and comic operas, the most popular of which were, “Le Deserteur;” and “Richard Coeur de Lion.”“All of them met with great success, and still continue to be performed, but the French critics think that his poetry is not written in the purest and most correct style, and that his pieces appear to more advantage on the stage than in the closet. He possessed, however, a quality of greater consequence to a dramatic writer the talent of producing stage effect. He was elected into the French academy, in consequence of the success of his” Richard Coeur de Lion," and was intimately connected with all the men of letters, and all the artists of his time. He died in May 1797, aged seventy-eight.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of sir John Sedley, of Aylesford in Kent, by a daughter of sir Henry Savile, and was born about 1639. At seventeen, he became a fellowcommoner of Wadham college in Oxford; but, taking no degree, retired to his own country, without either traveling, or going to the inns of court. At the restoration he came to London, and commenced wit, courtier, poet, and man of gallantry. As a critic, he was so much admired, tfiat he became a kind of oracle among the poets; and no performance was approved or condemned, till sir Charles Sedley had given judgment. This made king Charles jestingly say to him, that Nature had given him a patent to be Apollo’s viceroy; and lord Rochester placed him in the first rank of poetical critics. With these accomplishments, he impaired his estate by profligate pleasures, and was one of that party of debauchees whom we have already mentioned in our account of Sackville lord Buckhurst, who having insulted public decency, were indicted for a riot, and all severely fined; sir Charles in 500l. The day for payment being appointed, sir Charles desired Mr. Henry Killigrew and another gentleman, both his friends, to apply to the king to get it remitted; which they undertook to do; but at the same time varied the application so far as to beg it for themselves, and they made Sedley pay the full sum.

, a priest and poet, either Irish or Scotch, of the fifth century, is recorded as the writer of an heroic poem, called “Carmen Paschale,” divided into five books. The first begins with the creation of the world, and comprehends the more remarkable passages of the Old Testament. The next three describe the life of Jesus Christ. This performance has been highly commended by Cassiodorus, Gregorius Turrinensis, and others. Sedulius afterwards wrote a piece on the same subjects in prose. The poem was printed by Aldus in the collection of sacred poets, in 1502. It is also in Maittaire’s “Corp. Poet.” and has since been published by itself, with learned notes, by Arntzenius, 1761, 8vo, and by Arevale at Rome, 1794, 4-to.

, an English divine, who was born at Clifton, near Penrith, in Cumberland, of which place his father was rector, had his school-education at Lowther, and his academical at Queen’s college, in Oxford. Of this society he was chosen fellow in 1732. The greatest part of his life was spent at Twickenham, where he was assistant or curate to Dr. Waterland. In 1741, he was presented by his college to the living of Enham in Hampshire, at which place he died in 1747, without ever having obtained any higher preferment, which he amply deserved. He was exemplary in his morals, orthodox in his opinions, had an able head, and a most amiable heart. A late romantic writer against the Athanasian doctrines, whose testimony we choose to give, as it is truth extorted from an adversary, speaks of him in the following terms: “Notwithstanding this gentleman’s being a contender for the Trinity, yet he was a benevolent man, an upright Christian, and a beautiful writer; exclusive of his zeal for the Trinity, he was in every thing else an excellent clergyman, and an admirable scholar. 1 knew him well, and on account of his amiable qualities very highly honour his memory; though no two ever differed more in religious sentiments.” He published in his life-time, “Discourses on several important Subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo and his “Posthumous Works, consisting of sermons, letters, essays, &c.” in 2 vols. 8vo, were published from his original manuscripts by Jos. Hall, M. A. fellow of Queen’s college, Oxford, 1750. They are all very ingenious, and full of good matter, but abound too much in antithesis and point.

, an early Italian writer, was born at Florence about the close of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Padua, where he became an accomplished classical scholar, but appears afterwards to have gone into public life, and was employed in various embassies and iiegociations by duke Cosmo, of Florence. He wrote an excellent history of Florence from 1527 to 1555, which, however, remained in ms. until 1723, when it appeared, together with a life of Niccolo Capponi, gonfalonier of Florence, Segni’s uncle. He likewise translated Aristotle’s Ethics. “L‘Etica d’Aristotele, tradotta in volga Fiorentino,” Florence, 1550, 4to, a very elegant book; and “DelP Anima d'Aristotele,” 1583, also the Rhetoric and Poetics of the same author, &c. He died in 1559.

Sennertus was a voluminous writer, and has been characterized, by some critics, as a mere compiler from the works of the ancients. It is true that his writings contain an epitome, but, it must be added, a most comprehensive, clear, and judicious epitome, of the learning of the Greeks and Arabians, which renders them, eyen at this day, of considerable value as books of reference, and is highly creditable, considering the age in which they were composed, to his learning and discrimination. It must not be forgot that he also attained some fame as a philosopher, and was the first restorer of the Epicurean system among the moderns. In a distinct chapter of his “Hypomnemata Physica,” or “Heads of Physics,” trrating of atoms and mixture, he embraces the atomic system, which- he derives from Mochus the Phoenician. He supposes that the primary corpuscles not' only unite in the formation of bodies, but that in their mutual action and passion they undergo such modifications, that they cease to be what they were before their union; and maintains, that by their combination all material forms are produced. Sennertus, however, confounded the corpuscles of the more ancient philosophers with the atoms of Democritus and Epictetus, and held that each element has primary particles peculiar to itself. His works have often been printed in France and Italy. The last edition is that of Lyons, 1676, in 6 vols. folio, to which his life is prefixed.

, a Spanish writer of no good fame, was born at Cordova in 1491, and became historiographer to the Emperor Charles V. He is memorable for writing a “Vindication of the Cruelties of the Spaniards against the Incliana,” in opposition to the benevolent pen of Barthelemi de la Casas. Sepulveda affirmed, that such cruelties were justifiable both by human and divine laws, as well as by the rights of war. It is an act of justice to Charles V. to mention that he suppressed the publication of Sepulveda’s book in his dominions; but it was published at Rome. This advocate for the greatest barbarities that ever disgraced human nature, died at Salamanca in 1572. He was author of various works besides that above mentioned; in particular, of some Latin letters, a translation from Aristotle, with notes, a life of Charles V. &c. printed together at Madrid in 1780, 4 vols. 4to. under the care of the royal academy of history, a proof that he still holds his rank among Spanish authors.

, or John the son of Serapion, an Arabian physician, lived between the time of Mesne and Rhazes, and was probably the first writer on physic in the Arabic language. Haly Abbas, when giving an account of the works of his countrymen, describes the writings of Ser.ipion, as containing only an account of the cure of diseases, without any precepts concerning the preservation of health, or relating to surgery; and he makes many critical observations, which, Dr. Freind observes, are sufficient proofs of the genuine existence of the works ascribed to Serapion, from their truth and correctness. Rhazes also quotes them frequently in his “Continent.” Serapion must have lived towards the middle of the ninth century, and not in the reign of Leo Isaurus, about the year 730, as some have stated. One circumstance remarkable in Serapion, Dr. Freind observes, is, that he often transcribes the writings of Alexander Trailian, an author with whom few of the other Arabians appear to be much acquainted. This work of Serapion has been published, in translations, by Gerard of Cremona, under the title of “Practica, Dicta Breviarum;” and by Torinus, under that of “Therapeutica Methodus.” There is another Serapion, whom Sprengel calls the younger, and places 180 years later than the former, and who was probably the author of a work on the materia medica, entitled “De Medicamentis tarn simplicibus, quam compositis.” This work hears intrinsic evidence of being produced at a much later period, since authors are quoted who lived much posterior to Rhazes.

In the end, he obtained admission into the Charter-house, and died there Feb. 12, 1723-4. The writer of a periodical paper, called The Briton,“Feb. 19, 1724, speaks of him as then just dead, and adds,” he was a man of tall stature, red face, short black hair, lived in the city, and had a numerous poetical issue, but shared the misfortune of several other gentlemen, to survive them all."

, a biographical writer, was the son of Mr. Seward, partner in the brewhouse under the firm of Calvert and Seward, and was born in January 1747. He first went to a small seminary in the neighbourhood of Cripplegate, and afterwards to the Charter-house school, where he acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin, which he improved at Oxford. Having no inclination to engage in business, he relinquished his concern in the brewhouse at his father’s death; and being possessed of an easy fortune, did not apply to any profession, but devoted his time to learned leisure, and, among other pursuits, amus,ed himself with collecting the materials for what he called “Drossiana,” in the European Magazine, which he began in October 17 89, and continued without intermission to the end of his life* After he had published in this manner for some time, he was advised to make a selection, which, in 1794, he began with two volumes, and these were followed in the three succeeding years by three more, under the title of “Anecdotes of some distinguished Persons, chiefly of the present and two preceding Centuries;” a work which met with, general approbation, and has been since reprinted. In 1799 he published two volumes more on the plan of the former work, which he entitled “Biographiana.” These were finished a very short time before his death.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Windsor, where his father was treasurer and chapter-clerk of the college; received his education at Eton-school, and Peter-house, Cambridge; where having taken the degree of B. M. he went to Leyden, to study under Boerhaave, and on his return practised physic in the metropolis with reputation. In the latter part of his life he retired to Hampstead, where he pursued his profession with some degree of success, till three other physicians came to settle at the same place, when his practice so far declined as to yield him very little advantage. He kept no house, but was a boarder. He was much esteemed, and so frequently invited to the tables of gentlemen in the neighbourhood., that he had seldom occasion to dine at home. He died Feb. 8, 1726; and was supposed to be very indigent at the time of his death, as he was interred on the 12th of the same month in the meanest manner, his coffin being little better than those allotted by the parish to the poor who are buried from the workhouse; neither did a single friend or relation attend him to the grave. No memorial was placed over his remains; but they lie just under a hollow tree which formed a part of a hedge-row that was once the boundary of the church-yard. He was greatly esteemed for his amiable disposition; and is represented by some writers as a Tory in his political principles, but of this there is no other proof given than his writing some pamphlets against bishop Burnet. It is certain, that a true spirit of liberty breathes in many of his works; and he expresses, on many occasions, a warm attachment to the Hanover succession. Besides seven controversial pamphlets, he wrote, 1. “The Life of John Philips.” 2, “A vindication of the English Stage, exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison, 1716;” 3. “Sir Walter Raleigh, a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn-fields, 1719;” and part of another play, intended to be called “Richard the First,” the fragments of which were published in 1718, with “Two moral Essays on the Government of the Thoughts, and on Death,” and a collection of “Several poems published in his life-time^” Dr. Sewell was an occasional assistant to Harrison in the fifth volume of “The Tatler; was a, principal writer in the ninth volume of” The Spectator; and published a translation of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses, in opposition to the edition of Garth and an edition of Shakspeare’s Poems. Jacob and Gibber have enumerated a considerable number of his single poems; and in Mr. Nichols’s” Collection" are some valuable ones, unnoticed by these writers.

which certainly was unjust, for though as a poet Shadwell is not to be mentioned with Dryden, as a writer of comedy he had no superior in that age. His comedies abound in original characters, strongly marked and well sustained, and the manners of the time are more faithfully and minutely delineated than in any author we are acquainted with. Shadwell is said to have written rapidly, and in the preface to his “Psyche” he tells us that that tragedy, by no means, however, his best performance, was written by him in five weeks.

There was a Charles Shadwell, a dramatic writer, who, Jacob tells us, was nephew to the poet-laureat, but Chetwood, in his “British Theatre,” says he was his younger son. He had served in Portugal, and enjoyed a post in the revenue in Dublin, in which city he died August 12, 1726. He wrote seven dramatic pieces, all which, excepting the “Fair Quaker of Deal,” and the “Humours of the Army,” made their appearance on the Irish stage only, and are printed together in one volume, 1720, 12m.

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.

Mr. Rowe regrets that he cannot inform us which was the first play he wrote. More skilful research has since found that Romeo and Juliet, and Richard II. and III. were printed in 1597, when he was thirty-three years old; there is also some reason to think that he commenced a dramatic writer in 1592, and Mr. Malone even places his first, play, “First part of Henry VI.” in 1589. His plays, however, must have been not only popular, but approved by persons of the higher order, as we are certain that he enjoyed the gracious favour of Queen Elizabeth, who was very fond of the stage, and the particular and affectionate patronage of the earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated his poems of “Venus and Adonis,” and his “Rape of Lucrece.” On sir William Davenant’s authority, it has been asserted that this nobleman at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to complete a purchase. At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to Lintot*s edition of Shakspeare’s Poems, it is said, “That most learned prince and great patron of learning, king James the first, was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakspeare: which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of sir William D'Avenant, as a credible person now living can testify.” Dr. Farmer with great probability supposes, that this letter was written by king James, in return for the compliment paid to him in Macbeth. The relator of the anecdote was Sheffield, duke of Buckingham. These brief notices, meagre as they are, may show that our author enjoyed high favour in his day. Whatever we may think of king James as a “learned prince,” his patronage, as well as that of his predecessor, was sufficient to give celebrhy to the founder of a new stage. It may be added, that Shakspeare’s uncommon merit, his candour, and good-nature, are supposed to have procured him the admiration and acquaintance of every person distinguished for such qualities. It is not difficult, indeed, to suppose that Shakspeare was a man of humour, and a social companion, and probably excelled in that species of minor wit, not ill adapted to conversation, of which it could have been wished he had been more sparing in his writings.

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre , which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it occurs in his will. His connexion with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said, that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal; but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favourable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candour he was repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare’s incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and as he was a remarkably slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, of seldom altering or blotting out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, that “not long after the year 1600, a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, which, however he may talk of his almost idolatrous affection, produced on his part, from that time to the death of our author, and for many years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm, and many malevolent reflections.” But from these, which are the commonly received opinions on this subject, Dr. Farmer is inclined to depart, and to think Jonson’s hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless; so uncertain is every circumstance we attempt to recover of our great poet’s life . Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might in certain situations be of some importance, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education, and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects .

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

It is usually said that the life of an author can be little else than a history of his works; but this opinion is liable to many exceptions. If an author, indeed, has passed his days in retirement, his life can afford little more variety than that of any other man who has lived in retirement; but if, as is generally the case with writers of great celebrity, he has acquired a pre-eminence over his contemporaries, if he has excited rival contentions, and defeated the attacks of criticism or of malignity, or if he has plunged into the controversies of his age, and performed the part cither of a tyrant or a hero in literature, his history may be rendered as interesting as that of any other public character. But whatever weight may be allowed to this remark, the decision will not be of much consequence in the case of Shakspeare. Unfortunately we know as little of the progress of his writings, as of his personal history. The industry of his illustrators for the last thirty years has been such as probably never was surpassed in the annals of literary investigation, yet so far are we from information of the conclusive or satisfactory kind, that even the order in which his plays were written, rests principally on conjecture, and of some plays usually printed among his works, it is not yet determined whether he wrote the whole, or any part. Much of our ignorance of every thing which it would be desirable to know respecting Shakspeare’s works, must be imputed to the author himself. If we look merely at the state in which he left his productions, we should be apt to conclude, either that he was insensible of their value, or that while he was the greatest, he was at the same time the humblest writer the world ever produced; “that he thought his works unworthy of posterity, that he levied no ideal tribute upon future times, nor had any further prospect, than that of present popularity and present profit.” And such an opinion, although it apparently partakes of the ease and looseness of conjecture, may not be far from probability. But before we allow it any higher merit, or attempt to decide upon the affection or neglect with which he reviewed his labours, it may be necessary to consider their precise nature, and certain circumstances in his situation which affected them; and, above all, we must take into our account the character and predominant occupations of the times in which he lived, and of those which followed his decease.

Shakspeare died in 1616, and seven years afterwards appeared the first edition of his plays, published at the charges of four booksellers, a circumstance from which Mr. Malone infers, “that no single publisher was at that time willing to risk his money on a complete collection of our author’s plays.” This edition was printed from the copies in the hands of his fellow-managers, Heminge and Condell, which had been in a series of years frequently altered through convenience, caprice, or ignorance. Heminge and Condell had now retired from the stage, and, we may suppose, were guilty of no injury to their successors, in printing what their own interest only had formerly withheld. Of this, although we have no documents amounting t^ demonstration, we may be convinced, by adverting to a circumstance which will, in our days, appear very extraordinary, namely, the declension of Shakspeare’s popularity. We have seen that the publication of his works was accounted a doubtful speculation, and it is yet more certain that so much had the public taste turned from him in quest of variety, that for several years after his death the plays of Fletcher were more frequently acted than his, and during the whole of the seventeenth century, they were made to give place to performances, the greater part of which cannot now be endured. During the same period only four editions of his works were published, all in folio; and perhaps this unwieldy size of volume may be an additional proof that they were not popular; nor is it thought that the impressions were numerous. These circumstances which attach to our author and to his works, must be allowed a plausible weight in accounting for onr deficiencies in his biography and literary career; but there were circumstances enough in the history of the times to suspend the progress of that more regular drama, of which he had set the example, and may be considered as the founder. If we wonder why we know so much less of Shakspeare than of his contemporaries, let us recollect that his genius, however highly and justly we now rate it, took a direction which was not calculated for permanent admiration, either in the age in which he lived, or in that which followed. Shakspeare was a writer of plays, a promoter of an amusement just emerging from barbarism; and an amusement which, although it has been classed among the schools of morality, has ever had such a strong tendency to deviate from moral purposes, that the force of law has in all ages been called in to preserve it within the bounds of common decency. The church has ever been unfriendly to the stage. A part of the injunctions of queen Elizabeth is particularly directed against the printing of plays; and, according to an entry in the books of the Stationers’ Company, in the 4 1 st year of her reign, it is ordered that no plays be printed, except allowed by persons in authority. Dr. Farmer also remarks, that in that age, poetry and novels were destroyed publicly by the bishops, and privately by the puritans. The main transactions, indeed, of that period could not admit of much attention to matters of amusement. The reformation required all the circumspection and policy of a long reign to render it so firmly established in popular favour as to brave the caprice of any succeeding sovereign. This was effected in a great measure by the diffusion of religious controversy, which was encouraged by the church, and especially by the puritans, who were the immediate teachers of the lower classes, were listened to with veneration, and usually inveighed against all public amusements, as inconsistent with the Christian profession. These controversies continued during the reign of James I. and were in a considerable degree promoted by him, although he, like Elizabeth, was a favourer of the stage as an appemiage to the grandeur and pleasures of the court. But the commotions which followed in the unhappy reign of Charles I. when the stage was totally abolished, are sufficient to account for the oblivion thrown on the history and works of our great bard. From this time no inquiry was made, until it was too late to obtain any information more satisfactory than the few hearsay scraps and contested traditions above detailed. “How little,” says Mr. Steevens, “Shakspeare was once read, may be understood from Tate, who, in his dedication to the altered play of king Lear, speaks of the original as an obscure piece, recommended to his notice by a friend; and the author of the Tatler having occasion to quote a few lines out of Macbeth, was con^ tent to receive them from D'Avenant’s alteration of that celebrated drama, in which almost every original beauty is either aukwardly disguised, or arbitrarily omitted.”

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 London his first employment was as a writer for the newspapers. In the spring of 1760 he was at St. Edmond’s Bury, probably a member of the Norwich company of comedians, and published under the name of W. Seymour, “Odes on the Four Seasons,” 4to, a performance which had been one of his youthful productions. In the summer of that year he joined the hasty raised troop with which Mr. Foote opened the Hay market with the “Minor,” in. which Shaw performed the part of Sir George Wealthy. The winter of that year he passed either in Ireland or in some country company, and afterwards performed on both the London theatres; but about 1762 abandoned a pursuit from which he was likely to derive neither profit nor credit. In the same year he resumed the pen, and the poetical war kindled up by Churchill raging at that juncture with great violence, he wrote a satire, called cc The Four Farthing Candles,“4to. in which he attacked Messrs. Lloyd, Churchill, Colman, and Shirley. This performance was executed with some spirit and success, and obtained so much notice, as to encourage him to proceed as an author. In 1766, he published” The Race, a poem," 4to, in which he characterized the chief poets of that period, and some of them with great severity. This poem was re-published and enlarged in the next year. It appears from it, that he had, by this time, no want of confidence in his powers. He had learnt to deal his satire about with no unsparing hand; and if it was not felt by the parties against whom it was directed, it was owing to no lenity or forbearance in the satirist.

As few men have left behind them a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public service, his name will be transmitted to posterity among those who give lustre to their age and country, who do honour to human nature by their virtues, and who contribute to the advancement of science and the interests of literature by their superior talents. Endued by nature with considerable intellectual parts, and those improved by assiduous cultivation, he acquired a vast stock of general knowledge. His extensive information was treasured up without confusion, applied in his works with discernment, and communicated to every inquirer with cheerfulness and freedom. At an early period of life he became an excellent scholar. He wrote Latin with facility, with elegance, and with great purity, Upon most subjects of polite literature he manifested in his conversations a critical taste, and a high relish for the productions of genius. Among the relaxations from graver studies, poetical compositions occasionally employed his talents, and the productions of this kind, which are dispersed in his General Zoology, and in Dr. Thornton’s “Temple of Flora,” are equally creditable to his taste and his imagination. He had a prodigious and a most tenacious memory: to such a perfection did he enjoy this faculty, that he could refer persons correctly to almost every author he had read, for any fact that they needed. In trials that have been made upon him in the earlier part of his life, he could repeat the preceding or following line of any one recited from Milton’s Paradise Lost, or the works of Horace. Dr. Shaw’s reputation was great in botany, but still greater in Zoology. Herein posterity will be ever indebted for the services he has rendered this branch of natural history, especially that portion of it which relates to arrangement and description. A clear and correct account of the generic and specific character of animals, the essentials of this science, is the remarkable feature and meritorious character of all his works. Having in the first place strictly attended to these, he then proceeded to give his subjects all the suitable embellishments that extensive erudition, good taste, and a correct memory could bestow. His descriptions, if they were minute, yet they were never trifling; if enlivened by anecdote, and rich in information, it was done with propriety, and without being tedious; they were too, always popular, and at the same time possessing all that the dignity of science required. His hours of amusement were frequently employed upon mechanical contrivances, connected with his philosophical pursuits, or his domestic comforts, in which he shewed great ingenuity in invention, and a delicate neatness in execution. His behaviour was remarkably polite. In his person he was neat, gentlemanlike in his dress, methodical in his habits, in the disposition of his library, his papers, and in the order of every thing that belonged to him. His natural temper was lively, good-humoured, sociable. His conversation was precise, full of information, always amusing, frequently smart and witty. He was universally esteemed by men of science, beloved by a large circle of his friends, and had it not been for a few sarcastic expressions which he had, without any malicious intention, suffered to escape him, he had lived without an enemy. None of those passions which produce so much disquietude and misery amongst mankind, seem ever to have found a place in his bosom. He was frugal in his expences, moderate in his wishes, temperate to an uncommon degree in eating and drinking, and so chaste in his desires, that no one could reproach him with the commission of an indecent action, or the use of an immodest word; nay, such was the delicacy and purity of his mind, that the writer of this memoir has repeatedly heard him assert, thnt he had scrupulously endeavoured to avoid in his writings every expression which a woman would blush to read. Sincerity of heart, innocence of mind, and simplicity of manners, eminent!/ and uniformly marked his whole character. Of his religious sentiments little is known, as he was remarkably reserved upon all subjects connected with his personal conduct and opinions. He however sufficiently shewed in his conversation, and by performing the public duties of religion in his attendance upon the service of the Church of England, that his notions were, in this respect, serious and pious.

, a notorious political writer, was born at Biddeford in Devonshire in 1709. His father was an attorney, but having small practice and little fortune, he carried on also the business of a corn-factor. Of his children, John was the eldest, and was educated at the free-school of Exeter, then conducted by the learned Mr. Zachary Mudge. Of his progress at school, it is recorded that he had a tenacious memory, much application, some wit, and a temper quarrelsome, dissatisfied, and irritable. In his fifteenth or sixteenth year he was bound apprentice to a surgeon in his native town, and acquired a considerable share of medical knowledge. To this situation he brought the unamiable disposition of his earlier years; no one could give him the slightest offence with impunity, and almost every person avoided his acquaintance. When out of his time he set up in trade for himself, and then shewed a taste for chemistry; but having little business, removed in 1736 to Bristol.

In 1739 he attracted the attention of the public, we are told, by an epitaph to the memory of Thomas Coster, esq. member for Bristol; in which it has been observed, “that he has contrived to raise emotions of pity, grief, and indignation, to a very high degree.” How far these lines are calculated to produce such an effect the reader may judge. The next year he published a pamphlet on the Bristol waters; but from this period we hear no more of him until 1752, when he was at Paris, and there obtained the title of Doctor, if he obtained it at all. Until this time he appears to have lived in obscurity, but at an age when vigorous exertion usually subsides, he seems to have resolved to place himself in a conspicuous situation whatever hazard might attend it, and commenced a public writer with a high degree of intrepidity and virulence. In 1754 he began this career with “The Marriage Act,” a political novel, in which he treated the legislature with such freedom, that it occasioned his being taken into custody, from whence, however, he was soon released. This was followed by “Letters on the English Nation, by Battista Angeloni, a Jesuit, who resided many years in London. Translated from the original Italian by the author of the Marriage Act,” 1755, 2 vols. 8vo. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the author and translator were the same person, and that the imposition was immediately detected by the similarity of language, and virulent abuse of the establishment in church and state to that which pervades the “Marriage Act.” But his most celebrated performances were a series of “Letters to the People of England,” written in a style vigorous and energetic, though slovenly and careless, yet well calculated to make an impression on common readers; and they were accordingly read with avidity, and circulated with diligence. They had a very considerable effect on the minds of the people, and galled the ministry, who seem to have been at first too eager to punish the author. On the publication of the “Third Letter,” we find warrants dated March 4th and 8th, 1756, issued by lord Holdernesse, to take up both Scott the publisher and the author. This prosecution, however, seems to have been dropped and the culprit proceeded for some time unmolested, “having declared (says one of his answerers) that he would write himself into a post or into the pillory, in the last of which he at length succeeded.” On Jan. 12, 1758, a general warrant was signed by lord Holdernesse, to search for the author, printer, and publishers of a wicked, audacious, and treasonable libel, entitled “A sixth Letter to the People of England.” At this juncture government seems to have been effectually roused: for having received information that a seventh letter was printing, by virtue of another warrant dated Jan. 23, all the copies were seized and entirely suppressed. In Easter Term an information was filed against him by Mr. Pratt, then attorney-genera], afterwards lord Camden; and on June 17th, the information was tried, and the author found guilty. On Nov. 28th following, he received sentence, by which he was fined five pounds, ordered to stand in the pillory Dec. 5, at Charing Cross, to be confined three years, and to give security for his good behaviour for seven years, himself in 500l. and two others in 150l. each.

On the day appointed he was exhibited on the pillory; but the under sheriff, a Mr. Beardmore, himself a political writer, and Shebbeare’s coadjutor in the “Monitor,” a paper of the same tendency with the “Letters,” &c. permitted him merely to stand on the platform of the pillory, tmconfined and at his ease, with a servant in livery (an Irish chairman equipped for the occasion) holding an umbrella over his head. For this wilful perversion of the sentence, Mr. Beardmore was fined 50l. and suffered two months imprisonment. Some time before Shebbeare was tried for the publication already mentioned, the duchess of Queensbury as heir of Lord Clarendon, obtained an injunction to stop the publication of the continuation of that nobleman’s history; a copy of which had got into the hands of Francis Gwyn, esq. between whom and the doctor there had been an agreement to publish it and equally divide the profits. The care and expences attending the publication were to be wholly Dr. Shebbeare' s, who caused it to be handsomely printed in 4to, with a Tory preface, containing frequent reflections on, and allusions to, recent events, and living characters, which gave it the appearance rather of a temporary pamphlet than of a work calculated for posterity. On the injunction being obtained, Dr. Shebbeare was under the necessity of applying to the aid of law to recover the money expended by him in printing, amounting to more than 500l., of which more than half had been wasted on his side in the courts of law and equity*.

, a learned English clergyman, was born in the village of Linton in Craven, Yorkshire, March 18, 1740. His father, who, having no trade or profession, lived upon and farmed his own estate, was a rery sensible and intelligent man, so far superior to those among whom he lived, and so disinterested in the application of his talents, that he was highly popular and useful in his native village. His mother was a woman of very superior understanding. He was educated at the grammarschool of the parish; and in 176 1 was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where his singular facility in the acquirement of philosophical knowledge quickly became so conspicuous, that, at a time when other under-graduates find sufficient employment in preparing for their own exercises and examinations, he had no less than six pupils. At this time also he laid the foundation of a lasting friendship with two young men of great promise in the university, John Law and William Paley, both of Christ’s college; the one afterwards bishop of Elphin, the other the late celebrated writer. In St. John’s he lived upon terms of almost equal intimacy with Mr. Arnald, the senior wrangler of his year, whose genius, always eccentric, after a short career of court ambition, sunk in incurable lunacy. His academical exercises also connected him more or less with the late lord Aivanley, the present Mr. baron Graham, and the learned and pious Joseph Milner, afterwards of Hull; all of whom, as well as Law, took their first degrees at the same time with himself. Such a constellation of talent has scarcely been assembled in any single year from that time to the present.

As a poet, if we credit the testimony of his contemporaries, he was one of no vulgar rank; but modern criticism represents him as a writer that sometimes glimmers, but rarely shines, feebly laborious, and at best but pretty. His songs are upon common topics; he hopes, and grieves, and repents, and despairs, and rejoices, like any other maker of little stanzas; to be great, he hardly tries; to be gay, is hardly in his power.

Upon this piece he appears to have set a high value; for he was all his life-time improving it by successive revisals, so that there is scarcely any poem to be found of which the last edition differs more from the first. “The coldness and neglect,” says Warton, "with which this writer, formed only on the French critics, speaks of Milton, must he considered as proofs of his want of critical discernment, or of critical courage. I can recollect no performance of Buckingham that stamps him a true genius; his reputation was owing to his rank. In reading his poems, one is apt to exclaim with our author:—

His “Works” were collected by Mr. Dodsley, in S vols. 8vo, and still retain a good share of popularity. The first consists of elegies (of which there are twenty-six) t odes, songs, and ballads, levities, or pieces of humour, and moral pieces; many of which are distinguished by elegance and simplicity. The second contains his prose works, and consists of several detached observations on men, manners’, and things, thrown together in small chapters, without any order or connection. His sentiments and reflections are for the most part natural and just; many of them new, lively, and entertaining, a few of them rather paradoxical, and some that are false and ill-supported, though, upon the whole, they seem to have been the genuine fruits of a good understanding and an amiable disposition. The third volume consists of “Letters to his Friends.” On his general merits as a writer, Mr. Greaves says, that Shenstone, “through indolence and ill-health, and perhaps too great a fondness for amusement, lavished and exhausted the talents given him by nature on a few topics which presented themselves to his imagination; but in those few he generally excelled.”

Botany was ever the prominent pursuit of Sherard in all his journeys. He cultivated the friendship and correspondence of the most able men on the continent, such as Boerhaave, Hermann, Tournefort, Vaillant, Micheli, *&c. He is universally believed to have been the author of a 12mo volume, entitled “Schola Botanica,” published at Amsterdam in 1689, and reprinted in 1691 and 1699. This is a systematic catalogue of the Paris garden. Its preface, dated London, Nov. 1688, is signed S.W. A., which the French writers have interpreted Samuel Wharton, Anglus, under which name the book occurs in Haller’s “Bibliotheca Botanica,” v. I. 643. But as no one ever heard of such a botanist as Wharton, and the preface in question displays the objects and acquisitions of one of the first rank, who could certainly not long remain in obscurity, the above initials are presumed to mean William Sherard, to whom alone indeed, with or without a signature, that preface could belong. Its writer is described as having attended three courses of Tourne fort’s botanical lectures, in 1686, 87, and 88, all which years, he says, he spent at Paris. In the summer of 1688 he describes himself as having passed some time in Holland, collecting specimens of plants from the rich gardens of that country, and getting them named by professor Hermann himself, who allowed him to peruse the manuscript rudiments of his “Paradisus Batavus,” to examine his herbarium, and to compose a Prodromus of that work, which is subjoined to the little volume now under our consideration. All this can apply to Sherard only, who became the editor of Hermann’s book itself, and who in Hs preface, dated from Geneva in 1697, appears under his own name, and speaks of himself as having long enjoyed the friendship and the communications of that eminer>t man, whose judgment and talents he justly commemorates, and of whose various literary performances, as well as of his botanical principles, he gives an account. Dr. Pulteney cpnceives this preface to have been written during a third tour of its author to the continent; but we presume him to have then been with the young lord Rowland, and consequently on his second tour only.

During the commotions excited by the popish plot, attempts were made to remove him from his place in the ordnance, as a suspected papist, but these were ineffectual; and his majesty, who appears to have been satisfied with his character and conduct, conferred on him the honour of knighthood, Jan. 6, 1682, As, however, he could not take the oaths on the revolution, he quitted his public employment, and by this step sacrificed his property to his principles. For some time he lived a retired and probably a comfortable life, but poverty at length induced him to seek relief. In 1696, he presented a supplicatory memorial to the earl of Romney, then master general of the ordnance, and another to the king. In both, he represented, in very earnest but modest language, his long and faithful services, his total loss of fortune in the cause of royalty, his extreme indigence, and his advanced age (he being then upwards of eighty-two years old), and concluded with an humble request that an annual stipend for his support might be granted upon the quarter books of the office. The writer to whom we are indebted for this account has not been able to discover that this request was ever complied with. He adds, that sir Edward was well acquainted with the duties of his station, to the discharge of which he dedicated a long life, and was the principal person concerned in drawing up the “Rules, orders, and instructions” given to the office of ordnance in 1683, which with very few alterations, have been confirmed at the beginning of every reign since, and are those by which the office is now governed.

The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica, concludes it with lamenting the misfortune of Anthony Wood’s carrying on his history no longer than the year 1700, and thus leaving it doubtful when sir Edward Sherburne died; but this is one of the many instances of carelessness which occur in those latter volumes of the Biographia that were principally intrusted to Dr. Nichols. Collier, whose Dictionary is in less reputation than it deserves, and which contains many curious facts not easily to be found elsewhere, ascertains Sherburne’s death from his epitaph, part of which he wrote for himself. He died Nov. 4, 1702, and was interred on the 8th in the chapel belonging to the Tower of London.

, a learned English divine, was born in South wark about 1641, and educated at Eton 1 school, where he distinguished himself by the vigour of his genius and application to his studies. Thence he removed to Peter-house in Cambridge in May 1657, where he took a bachelor of arts degree in 1660, and a master’s in 1665. He now went into holy orders, and officiated as a curate until 1669, when he was preferred to the rectory of St. George’s, Botolph-lane, in London. In this parish he discharged the duties of his function with great zeal, and was esteemed an excellent preacher. In 1673, he.published “A discourse concerning the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him,” which involved him in a controversy with the celebrated nonconformist Dr. John Owen, and with Mr. Vincent Alsop. In 1680, he took the degree of D. D. and about the same time published some pieces against the nonconformists. Soon after he was collated to a prebend of St. Paul’s, was appointed master of the Temple, and had the rectory of Therfield in Hertfordshire. In 1684 he published a pamphlet, entitled “The case of Resistance to the Supreme Powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures;” and continued to preach the same opinion after the accession of James II. when it was put to the test. He engaged also in the controversy with the papists, which shews that he was not a servile adherent to the king, but conscientious in his notions of regal power. This likewise he shewed at the Revolution, when he refused to take the oaths to William and Mary, and was therefore suspended from all his preferments. During his suspension, he published his celebrated treatise, entitled “A practical discourse on Death,” 1690, which has passed through at least forty editions, and is indeed the only one of his works now read. But before the expiration of that year, he thought proper to comply with the new government, and taking the oaths, was reinstated in all his preferments, of which, though forfeited, he had not been deprived. Being much censured for this step by those who could not yield a like compliance, he endeavoured to vindicate himself in a piece entitled “The Case of the Allegiance due to the Sovereign Princes stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the principles of the Church of England, with a more particular respect to the Oath lately enjoined of Allegiance to their present Majesties king William and queen Mary, 1690,” quarto. This was followed by twelve answers. His design was to lay down such principles as would prove the allegiance due to William and Mary, even supposing them to have no legal right, which the celebrated Mr. Kettlewell could by no means agree with, and therefore wrote, upon another principle, “The duty of Allegiance settled upon its true grounds.” The dispute is perhaps now of little consequence; but Sherlock persisted in preaching his doctrine of non-resistance in the new reign, and had undoubtedly some merit in this kind of consistency, and in rendering that plausible in any degree, which the other nonjurors thought contradictory in every degree. In 1691, he published his “Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity;” but his attempt to explain this mystery was not satisfactory, and involved him in a controversy with Dr. South. What was more mortifying, a fellow of University-college, Oxford, having preached his doctrine in a sermon at St. Mary’s, the university issued a decree, censuring that doctrine as false, impious, and heretical, and warned all persons under their jurisdiction not to preach or maintain any such notions. The controversy being exasperated by this indignity, the king at last interposed, and issued directions “to the archbishops and bishops,” ordaining, that “all preachers should carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of explanation as have been commonly used in the church.” After this, it is but fair to state Dr. Sherlock’s notion: he thought that there were three eternal minds 9 two of these issuing from the father, but that these three were one by a mutual consciousness in the three to every one of their thoughts. Dr. Sherlock was promoied to the deanery of St. Paul’s in 1691. He died at Hampstead June 19, 1707, in his 67th year; and was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul. He left two sons and two daughters; the eldest of his sons was Dr. Thomas SherLck, bishop of London. Burnet says, that “he was a clear, polite, and a strong writer, but apt to assume too much to himself, and to treat his adversaries with contempt. This created him many enemies, and made him pass for an insolent haughty man.” He was, however, a man of considerable learning and abilities, and conscientious, however mistaken, in those peculiar opinions which engaged him in such frequent controversies with his brethren.

In 1716 he obtained the deanery of Chichester, and soon after this promotion appeared as an author, for the first time, in the memorable Bangorian controversy, during the course of which he published several tracts. One of the principal is entitled “A Vindication of the Corporation and Test Acts: in answer to the Bishop of Bangor’s Reasons for the Repeal of them. To which is added a second part, concerning the Religion of Oaths,” 1718, 8vo. The bishop of Bangor answered him in a piece entitled “The common Rights of Subjects defended, and the Nature of the Sacramental Test considered,” 1719, 8vo: yet, while he opposed strenuously the principles of his antagonist, he gave the strongest testimony that could be of his abilities; for, in the beginning of his preface, he calls his own book “An Answer to the most plausible and ingenious Defence, that, he thinks, has ever yet been published, of excluding men from their acknowledged civil Rights, upon the account of their differences in Religion, or in the circumstances of Religion.” Sherlock replied to the bishop, in a small pamphlet, in which he sets forth “The true Meaning and Intention of the Corporation and Test Acts asserted, &c.” 1719, 8vo. It has been said, by the writer of his life in the Biog. Brit, that in his latter days, Dr. Sherlock did not approve of these writings against bishop Hoadly, and that he told a friend, “that he was a young man when he wrote them,” and he would never have them collected into a volume. That Dr. Sherlock might have changed his sentiments in his latter days is not improbable, but it could not be asserted that he was at this time a young man, for he had passed his fortieth year*. Some part, however, which he took in this controversy, before he published on it, seems to have given offence at court, for in 1717, he and Dr. Snape were removed from the list of king’s chaplains.

Dr. Shipley gave an early and decided opinion against the coercive measures adopted towards America, to which his friends imputed his receiving no further advancement. In the year 1774 he published “A speech intended to have been spoken on the bill for altering the charters of the Colony of Massachusetts-bay,” 8vo the style of which was much admired even by those who disliked the sentiments. Mr. Mainvvaring, in the introduction to his “Sermons,” p. 28, 8vo, speaks of it in the following terms “If it were allowable for a moment to adopt the poetical creed of the antients, one would almost imagine, that the thoughts of a truly elegant writer were formed by Apollo, and attired by the Graces. It would seem, indeed, that language was at a loss to furnish a garb adapted to their rank and worth; that judgment, fancy, taste, had all combined to adorn them, yet without impairing that divine simplicity for the want of which nothing can compensate.” And in a note on this passage, he says, “Amongst all the productions, antient or modern, it would be difficult to find an instance of more consummate elegance than in a printed Speech intended to be spoken in the House of Lords.” Besides this effort, his lordship during the whole American war, continued to be an opponent of Government; but his character, talents, and manners were always highly respected by men of all parties. His works, consisting of sermons, charges, and parliamentary speeches, were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1792.

, an English dramatic writer and poet, was of an antient family, and born about 1594, in the parish of St. Mar) Wool-church, London. He was educated at Merchant-Taylors school, and thence removed to St. John’s college in Oxford; where Laud, then president of that college, had a good opinion of his talents, yet would often tell him, as Wood relates, that “he was an unfit person to take the sacred function upon him, and should never have his consent;” 'because Shirley had then a large mole upon his left cheek, which appeared a great deformity. Afterwards, leaving Oxford without a degree, he went to Katherine-hall, Cambridge, where he formed a close attachment with Bancroft, the epigrammatist, who has recorded their friendship in one of his epigrams. At Cambridge, Wood supposes he took the degree in arts, as he soon after entered into orders, and took a cure at or near St. Alban’s, in Hertfordshire; but, becoming unsettled in his principles, changed his religion for that of Rome, left his living, and taught a grammar school in the town of St. Alban’s. This employment being after some time uneasy to him, he retired to London, lived in Gray’s-inn, and commenced dramatic writer, which recommended him to the patronage of various persons of rank, especially Henrietta Maria, Charles the First’s queen, who made him her servant. His first comedy is dated 1629, after which he wrote nine or ten, between that year and 1637, when he went to Ireland, under the patronage of George earl of Kildare, to whom he dedicated his tragi-comedy of the “Royal Master,” and by whose influence that comedy was acted in the castle at Dublin, before the lord deputy. From Ireland he returned to England in 1638; but Wood says, that when the rebellion broke out, he was obliged to leave London and his family (for he had a wife and children), and, being invited by his patron, William earl of Newcastle, to accompany him in the wars, he attended his lordship. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to London; where, among other of his friends, he found Thomas Stanley, esq. author of the “Lives of Philosophers,” who supported him for the present. The acting of plays being now prohibited, he returned to his old occupation of teaching school, which he carried on in White Friars; and educated many youths, who afterwards proved eminent men. At the Restoration, several of his plays were brought upon the theatre again; and it is probable he subsisted very well, though it does not appear how. In 1666 he was forced, with his second wife Frances, by the great fire in September, from his house near Fleet-street, in the parish of St. Giles’s in the fields, where, being extremely affected with the loss and terror that fire occasioned, they both died within the space of twentv-four hours, and were both interred in the same grave, Oct. the 29th.

He left behind him “Discourses upon Government;” the first edition of which was in 1698, the second in 1704, folio. To the second is added the paper he delivered to the sheriffs immediately before his death; with an alphabetical table. They also formed one of the publications of Mr. Thomas Hollis, in favour of republicanism in 1763, 4to, with a life, in which the writer or writers declare that they “cannot wish a greater or more extensive blessing to the world, than that it (the volume) may be every where read, and its principles universally received and propagated.”

He was a man learned above the age he lived in, skilled in all parts of literature and science, of a subtle and penetrating wit, and considering that he lived in the decline of Roman literature, not an inelegant writer. Of his works, nine books of epistles, with about four and twenty poems interspersed, are still extant. There are few things in his letters which relate to religion or the church, so that his opinions cannot be ascertained, but they contain many particulars relative to the learning and history of the times. They were published with notes by father Sirmond, at Paris, 1614, in 8vo;and, after his death, reprinted in 1652, with some additions, in 4to.

, 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.

In the Rawlinson collection of Mss. at Oxford, there is a didactic poem, entitled “Ars Mu^ica,” which, though anonymous, contains internal evidence of having been written by Gerbert. It is composed in Latin monkish rhyme, except where such technical terms occurred, as could not possibly be reduced to metre. The last chapter of this work is a separate treatise, of a very few pages, under the title of “Rhythmomachia,” or the battle of numbers and figures, which is universally allowed to have been written by Gerbert. It was composed as a kind of game, soon after the arrival of the Arabian figures or ciphers in Europe, for which the author gives rules resembling those for chess. Hence some of his biographers say, that it is to Gerbert we are indebted for the Arabic numerals. Certainly such attainments were indications ofno common mind, and induced the vulgar to suspect that he was addicted to magic an absurd notion, which Platina had adopted, for he says that he obtained the papacy by ill arts, and that he left his monastery to follow the devil. He allows him, indeed, the merit of a sincere repentance; but mentions some prodigies at his death, which will claim little regard on the testimony of such a writer.

, an Italian annalist, was born in 1613, and was a monk of Parma, where he employed the leisure hours which a monastic life afforded, in writing- the history of his times. The confidence placed in him by political men, and the correspondence to which he had access, enabled him to penetrate into the secret motives and causes of actions and events, and gave an air of authenticity and consequence to his public communications. He is said to have been the first, in Italy at least, who published a kind of political journal under the name of “Memorie recondite,” afterwards collected into volumes. The first two having found their way into France, induced cardinal Mazarine to entertain a very high opinion of the author, and by his persuasion, Louis XIV. invited Siri to Paris. On his arrival, he was preferred to a secular abbey, and quitting his ecclesiastical functions, lived at court in great intimacy and confidence with the king and his ministers, and was made almoner and historiographer to his majesty. There, in 1677, he published the 3d and 4th volumes of his journal, and continued it as far as the eighth, 4to. This, says Baretti, is as valuable a history as any in Italian, though the style and language are but indifferent, and it is very difficult to find all the volumes. The period of time they include is from 1601 to 1640. He published also another work of a similar kind, called “11 Mercurio, owero istoria de' correnti Tempi,” from 1647 to 1682, which extends to fifteen 4to volumes, the two last of which are more difficult to be found than all the rest. The former work, however, is in most estimation on account of the historical documents it contains, which are always useful, whatever colouring an editor may please to give. Siri has not escaped the imputation of venality, especially in his attachment to the French court, yet Le Cierc observes (Bibl. Choisie, vol. IV.) that no French writer dared to speak so freely of the public men of that nation as Siri has done. There is a French translation of the “Memorie recondite,” under the title of “Memoires secrets,” which, Landi says, might have been much improved from Siri’s extensive correspondence with almost all the ministers of Europe, now extant in the Benedictine library of Parma, and among the private archives of Modena. Siri died in 1683, in the seventieth year of his age.

When a favourite author betrays grossnessand indecency, it is usual to inquire how much of this is his own, and how much may be referred 19 the licentiousness of his age? Warton observes, that it is in vain to apologize for the coarseness, obscenity, and scurrility of Skelton, by saying-, that his poetry is tinctured with the manners of his age, and adds, that Skelton would have been a writer without decorum at any period. This decision, however, is not more justly passed on Skelton than it ought to be on others, whom it has been the fashion to vindicate by an appeal to the manners of their age. The manners of no age can apologize for the licentiousness of the writer who descends to copy them. There are always enough in an age that has a court, a clergy, and a people, to support the dignity of virtue, and to assert the respect due to public decency. If we knew more minutely of the manners of our country in these remote periods, it would probably be found that licentiousness has, upon the whole, been more discouraged than patronized by the public voice.

His fame, however, both as a preacher and writer, his extraordinary care as an instructor of a parish, and his wonderful acts of charity and goodness, began, about 1737, to be the subject of conversation, not only in the diocese of Clogher, and other parts of the North, but also in the metropolis; but still no notice was taken of him in the way of preferment. Dr. Sterne, the bishop of Clogher, usually sent for him, after he had bestowed a good preferment upon another, and gave him, “by way of a sop,” ten guineas, which Mr. Skelton frequently presented to a Mr. Arbuthnot, a poor cast-off curate, who was unable to serve through age and infirmity. At length Dr. Delany, who had been his tutor at college, perceiving him thus neglected, procured for him an appointment to the curacy of St. Werburgh’s in Dublin. This would have been highly acceptable to Mr. Skelton, and Dr. Delany would have been much gratified to place such a man in a situation where his merits were likely to be duly appreciated: it is painful to relate in what manner both were disappointed. When he was on the point of leaving the diocese of Clogher, bishop Sterne perceiving that it would be to his discredit if a person of such abilities should leave his diocese for want of due encouragement, sent a clergyman to inform him, “that if he staid in his diocese he would give him the first living that should fall.” Relying on this, he wrote to Dr. Delany, and the curacy of St. Werburgh’s was otherwise disposed of. The first living that fell vacant was Monaghan, where he had so long officiated, which the bishop immediately gave to his nephew Mr. Hawkshaw, a young gentleman that had lately entered into orders! It would even appear that he had made his promise with a determination to break it, for when he bestowed the preferment on his nephew, he is reported to have said, “I give you now a living worth 300l. a year, and have kept the best curate in the diocese for you, who was going to leave it: be sure take his advice, and follow his directions, for he is a man of worth and sense.” But Skelton, with all his “worth and sense,” was not superior to the infirmities of his nature. He felt this treacherous indignity very acutely, and never attended a visitation during the remainder of the bishop’s life, which continued for a series of years; nor did the bishop ever ask for him, or express any surprize at his absence. Under Mr. Hawkshaw, however, he Jived not unhappily. Mr. Hawkshaw submitted to his instructions, and followed his example, and there was often an amicable contest in the performance of their acts of duty and charity.

He was a learned man, and an excellent writer. In 1555, came out in folio, his “De Statu Religionis & lleipublicie, Carolo Quinto Cajsaie, Commentarii,” in twenty-five books, from 1517, when Luther began to preach, to 1555. This history was quickly translated into almost all the languages of Europe, and has been generally thought to be well and faithfully written, notwithstanding the attempts of Varillas and other popish authors to discredit it. It did not stand solely upon Sleidan’s own authority, which, however, must be of great weight, considering that he wrote of times in which he lived, and of transactions in which he had some concern; but was extracted from public acts and original records, which were in the archives of the town of Strasburg, and with which he was furnished by James Sturmius. Besides this history, which is his principal work, he wrote “De quatuor summis Imperils libri tres,” a compendious chronological account of the four great empires, which, on account of its singular utility, has been often printed. He epitomized and translated into Latin the Histories of Froissart and Philip de Comines, and was the author of some other works relating to history and politics, the principal of which are printed in a volume of “Opuscula,” Hanover, 1608, 8vo.

Of Dr. Stnalridge bishop Newton says, he was “truly ft worthy prelate, an excellent scholar, a sound divine, an eloquent preacher, and a good writer both in Latin and English, of great gravity and dignity in his whole deportment, and at the same time of as great complacency and sweetness of manners, a character at once both amiable and venerable. He was so noted for his good temper, that succeeding Dr. Atterbury in the deaneries of Carlisle and Christ-church, he was said to carry die bucket wherewith to extinguish the fires which the other had kindled.”

The publication alluded to, was the “Universal Visitor and Memorialist,” published by Gardner, a bookseller in the Strand. Smart, and Holt, a political writer, are said to have entered into an engagement to write for this magazine, and for no other work whatever; for this they were to have a third of the profits, and the contract was to be binding for ninety-nine years. In Boswt-Il’s Life of Johnson, we find this contract discussed with more gravity than it seems to deserve. It was probably a contrivance of Gardner’s to secure the services of two irregular men for a certain period. Johnson, however, wrote a few papers for our poet, “not then,” he added, “knowing the terms on which Smart was engaged to write, and thinking I was doing him good. I hoped his wits would soon return to him. Mine returned to me, and I wrote in the Universal Visitor no longer.” The publication ceased in about two years from its commencement.

In 1754 he visited Holland, and travelling on foot, or in the trechschuyts, made himself acquainted with most of the works of art in the Low Countries. In December 1752 the Eddystone lighthouse was burned down, and Mr. Smeaton was recommended to the proprietor, by lord Macclesfield, then president of the Royal Society, as the person best qualified to rebuild it. This great work he undertook immediately, and completed it in the summer of 1759. An ample and most interesting account is given of the whole transaction in a folio volume, published by himself, in 1791, entitled “A narrative of the building and a description of the construction of the Eddystone Lighthouse with stone, to which is subjoined an Appendix, giving some account of the Lighthouse on the Spurn Point, built upon a sand. By John Smeaton, civil engineer, F. R. S.” This publication may be considered as containing an accurate history of four years of his life, in which the originality of his genius, with his great alacrity, industry, and perseverance, are fully displayed. It contains also an account of the former edifices constructed in that place, and is made, by the ingenuity of the writer, an entertaining, as well as an instructive work.

, M. D. an eminent accoucheur, was a native of Scotland, and after some practice in his country, settled in the early part of the last century in London. He was principally celebrated as a teacher, having instructed, as he informs us in his practice, nearly a thousand pupils, who assisted, whilst attending his lectures, eleven hundred and fifty poor women. The women were supported, by a subscription among the pupils, during their lying-in. Dr. Smellie was the first writer who considered the shape and size of the female pelvis, as adapted to the head of the foetus, and who ascertained the position of the latter during the period of gestation; and his opinion has been confirmed by later writers, particularly by Dr. Hunter, who had several opportunities of dissecting women who died undelivered, at different periods of their pregnancy. He also introduced many improvements in delivery and in the use of instruments, and abolished many superstitious notions, and erroneous customs, that prevailed in the management of women in labour, and of the children; and he had the satisfaction to see the greater part of his maxims adopted, not only in this island, but by the most respectable practitioners in the greater part of Europe.

It does not appear that he made any public trial of his powers as a writer before the year 1755, when he furnished some criticisms on Johnson’s Dictionary, to a periodical work called “The Edinburgh Review,” which was then begun, but was not carried on beyond two numbers. In 1759 he first published his “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” to which he afterwards subjoined “a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages, and on the different Genius of those which are original and compounded.”

, an able writer on the subject of the corn-trade, was horn at Stepney, in 1713. His father was Charles Smith, who occupied several mills by descent, and erected those great establishments of the kind at Barking in Essex, from which he retired to Croydon, where he died in 1761. Our author succeeded, on his father’s retirement, to the occupation of his predecessors: but, having a competent fortune, left the active management to his partner and relation, while he found leisure to pursue his inquiries at Barking, and discharge the duties of a country magistrate. In 1748, he married Judith, daughter of Isaac Lefevre, brother to Peter Lefevre, who had established the largest malt-distillery in England; and from henceforth he resided among his wife’s relations at Stratford in Essex. Here, inquisitive and industrious, he turned his attention to the operations of the corn-trade, and policy of the corn-laws, and was induced by the scarcity of 1757, to lay the result of his labours on this subject before the public, in three valuable tracts published in 1758 and 1759. These were well received, and the author lived to see an edition of them published by the city of London; to hear his work quoted with approbation by Dr. Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations;” and to observe his recommendations adopted by parliament. But in the midst of these enjoyments he died by a fall from his horse, Feb. 8, 1777, aged sixtythree. His only son, Charles Smith, esq. was lately member of parliament for Westbury in Wiltshire. Mr. Smith’s tracts on corn had become very scarce, when in 1804 they were re-published by George Chalmers, esq. with a memoir of the author.

During this long period of constant literary exertion, which alone seemed sufficient to have occupied all her time, Mrs. Smith had both family griefs and family business of the most perplexing and overwhelming nature to contend with. Her eldest son had been many years absent as a writer in Bengal; her second surviving son died of a rapid and violent fever; her third son lost his leg at Dunkirk, as an ensign in the 24th regiment, and her eldest daughter expired within two years after her marriage. The grandfather of her children had left his property, which lay in the West Indies, in the hands of trustees and agents, and it was long unproductive to her family. Some arrangements are said to have been attempted before her death which promised success, but it does not appear that these were completed. Her husband, who seems never to have conquered his habits of imprudence, died, it is said, in legal confinement, in March 1806; and on Oct. 28 following, Mrs. Smith died at Telford, nearFarnham, in Surrey, after a lingering and painful illness, which she bore with the utmost patience.

, a very learned writer and statesman, in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, was born ^larch 28, 1514, at Saffron-Walden in Essex. He was the son of John Smith, a gentleman of that place, who was much inclined to the principles of the reformation, which had then made but a very small progress. After attending a grammar-school, Thomas was sent about 1528 to Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he greatly distinguished himself, and had a king’s scholarship at the same time with the celebrated John Cheke. Queen’s college was one of those which favoured the opinions of Erasmus and Luther, and many of the members used to confer privately together about religion, in which they learned to detect the abuses of the schools, and the superstitions of popery. In such conferences Mr. Smith probably took his share, when of sufficient standing to be admitted, which was very soon, for in 1531 he was chosen a fellow of the college. In the mean time he had formed a strict friendship with Cheke, and they pursued their classical studies together, reading Cicero, Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristotle: and such was Smith’s proficiency, that about 1533 he was appointed Greek professor in the university.

, a learned English writer and divine, was born in the parish of Allhallows Barking, in London, June 3, 1638, and admitted of Queen’s college in Oxford at nineteen, where he took the degrees in arts. In 1663 he was made master of the free school joining to Magdalen college; and, in 1666, elected fellow of that college, being then famous for his skill in the oriental languages. In June 1668, he went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador to Constantinople; and returned thence in 1671. In 1676, he travelled into France; and, returning after a short stay, became chaplain to sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state. In 1679 he was designed to collate and publish the Alexandrian manuscript in St. James’s library, and to have for his reward (as Charles II. promised) a canonry of Windsor or Westminster; but that design was reserved for the industry and abilities of Mr. Woide, at a far distant period (1784). Mr. Smith published a great many works, and had an established reputation among the learned. So high an opinion was conceived of him, that he was solicited Ijr the bishops Pearson, Fell, and Lloyd, to return into the east, in order to collect ancient manuscripts of the Greek fathers. It was designed that be should visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was said to be extant a great number of Mss. reposited there before the decline of the Greek empire. He was then to proceed to ^Smyrna, Nice, Nicornedia, Ancyra, and at last to Egypt; and to employ two or three years in this voyage; but he could not prevail on himself to undertake it, both on account of the dangers inevitably to be encountered, and of the just expectations he had from his patron Williamson of preferment in the church. These expectations, however, were disappointed; for Wood says, that, after living several years with him, and performing a great deal of drudgery for him, he was at length dismissed without any reward . In 1683, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and, the year after, was nominated by his college to the rectory of Stanlake in the diocese of Oxford, but upon some dislike resigned it in a month. In 1687, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Heytesbury in Wilts. In August 3688, he was deprived of his fellowship by Dr. GilTard, the Popish president of Magdalen college, because he refused to live among the new Popish fellows of that college. He had before resisted the intrusion of Antony Farmer into the office of president, and presented a petition to the earl of Sunderland, beseeching the king either to leave the college to a free election, or recommend a qualified person. This being refused, he was for presenting a second address, before they proceeded to the election, and at last he and Mr. Chernock were the only two fellows that submitted to the authority of the royal commissioners, yet this did not avail him when he refused to associate with the new popish fellows under GilTard. He was, however, restored in Octoher following; but, afterwards refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, his fellowship was pronounced void, July 25, 1692. From this time he lived chiefly in sir John Cotton’s family. He died at London, May 11, 1710, and was buried in St. Anne’s church, Soho, privately, according to his desire.

The success of his “History” encouraged him to write a continuation of it from 1748 to 1764. The volume for 1765, his biographer seems not to have known, was written by Guthrie, during Smollett’s absence on the Continent. By the History and Continuation he is said to have cleared 2000l. He is also supposed to have written the accounts of France, Italy, and Germany, for the Universal History, when published in octavo volumes. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine states that he received fifteen hundred guineas for preparing a new edition of the same history, but this must be a mistake, as he was dead some years before that edition was undertaken.

The publication of this work, while it proclaimed that his sincerity as a political writer was not much to be depended on, afforded another instance of that imprudence which his biographer has ingeniously carried over to the account of independence. His health again requiring the genial influences of a milder climate, the expence of which he was unable to bear, his friends solicited the very persons whom he had just satirized, to obtain for him the office of consul at Nice, Naples, or Leghorn. Dr. Moore informs us, with more acrimony than truth, that “these applications were fruitless. Dr. Smollett had never spanitlled ministers; he could not endure the insolence of office, or stoop to cultivate the favour of any person merely on account of his power, and besides, he was a man of genius.”

He set out, however, for Italy early in 1770, with a debilitated body, and a mind probably irritated by his recent disappointment, but not without much of the ease which argues firmness, since, during this journey he could so pleasantly divert his sorrows by writing “The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker.” This novel, if it may be so called, for it has no regular fable, in point of genuine humour, knowledge of life and manners, and delineation of character, is inferior only to his “Roderick Random” and “Peregrine Pickle.” It has already been noticed that Matthew Bramble, the principal character, displays the cynical temper and humane feelings of the author on his tour on the continent; and it may now be added that he has given another sketch of himself in the character of Serle in the first volume. This account of the ingratitude of Paunceford to Smollett is strictly true, and as his biographers seem unacquainted with the circumstances, the following may not be uninteresting, as related to the writer of this article by the late intimate friend of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton, the printer and proprietor of the Critical Review.

As an author, Dr. Smollett is universally allowed the praise of original genius displayed with an ease and variety which are rarely found. Yet this character belongs chiefly to his m.vels. In correct delineation of life and manners, and in drawing characters of the humourous class, he has few equals. But when this praise is bestowed, every critic who vu; nos what is more important than genius itself, the interest of moralsuid decency, must surely stop. It can be of no use to analyze each individual scene, incident, or character in works, which, after all, must be pronounced unfit to be read. But if the morals of the reader were in no danger, his taste can hardly escape being insulted or perverted. Smollett’s humour is of so low a cast, and his practical jokes so frequently end in what is vulgar, mean, and filthy, that it would be impossible to acquire a relish for them, without injury done to the chaster feelings, and to the just respect due to genuine wit. No novel-writer seems to take more delight in assembling images and incidents that are gross and disgusting; nor has he scrupled to introduce, with more than slight notice, those vices which are not fit even to be named. If this be a just representation of his most favourite novels, it is in vain to oppose it by pointing out passages which do credit to his genius, and jnore vain to attempt to prove that virtue and taste are not directly injured by such productions. As a historian, Smollett’s reputation has certainly not been preserved. When he published his History, something of the kind was wanted, and it was executed in a manner not unworthy of his talents. But the writings of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon have introduced a taste for a higher species of historical composition; and, if we are not mistaken, there has been no complete edition of Smollett’s history but that which he published. Had he been allowed the proper time for revision and reflection, it cannot be doubted that he might have produced a work deserving of more lasting fame. His history, even as we have it, when we advert to the short time he took fur its completion, is a very extraordinary efTort, and instead of blaming him for occasionally following his authorities too servilely, the wonder ought to be that he found leisure to depart from them so frequently, and to assign reasons, which are not those of a superficial thinker. It is impossible, however, to quit this subject without adverting to the mode of publication which dispersed the work among a class of persons, the purchasers of sixpenny numbers, whom Smollett too easily took for the learned and discerning part of the public. This fallacious encouragement afforded fuel to his irritable temper, by inciting him, not only to the arts of puffing, by which the literary character is degraded, but to those vulgar and splenetic recriminations, of which a specimen has been given, and which must have lowered him yet more, in the opinion of the eminent characters of his day.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

* The able writer of this tract, Mr. by a passage in Plutarch’s Essr,

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

His distresses, says Dr. Johnson, need not be much pitied: his estate is?aid to have been fifteen hundred a year, which by his death devolved to lord Somervile, of Scotland. His mother, indeed, who lived till ninety, had a jointure of six hundred. Dr. Johnson regrets his not being better enabled to exhibit memorials of a writer, who at least must be allowed to have set a good example to men of his own class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge; and who has shewn by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, thn it is practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters. He tried many modes of poetry; and though perhaps he has not in any reached such excellence as to raise much envy, it may commonly be said at least, that “he writes very well for a gentleman.” His serious pieces are sometimes elevated, and his trifles are sometimes elegant. His subjects are commonly such as require no great depth of thought or energy of expression. His fables are generally stale, and therefore excite no curiosity. Of his favourite, The Two Springs, the fiction is unnatural, and the moral inconsequential. In his Tales there is too much coarseness, with too little care of language, and not sufficient rapidity of narration. As a poet, however, he is chiefly known by his “Chace,” which is entitled to great praise as a descriptive poem.

, a good medical writer, a native of Hainaut, was physician to the imperial court, and professor of medicine at Vienna for twenty-four years. He died in 1691, at an advanced age. He has left, 1. “Commentaries on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates,” in Latin, 1680, 4to. 2. “Medicina universalis, theoretica et practica,” 1701, fol. Though this work has been much esteemed, as solid and useful, it contains some things which at present appear rather strange. 3. “Consilium medicutn, sive dialogus loimicus, de peste Viennensi,” 1679, 12mo. He says here, that the plague of that year carried off 76,921 persons. 4. Several discourses in a periodical paper entitled “Ephemerides of the Curious in Nature.”

, a French writer, was born of Protestant parents Sept. 7, 1615. His father was a tradesman; his mother Louisa was the sister of the learned Samuel Petit, minister of Nismes. These dying when he was young, his uncle Petit educated hioi as his own child. Having laid a proper foundation in languages and polite literature, he went to Paris, where he studied divinity; but, being presently disgusted with this, he applied himself to physic, and soon made such a progress, as to form an abridged system for his own use, which was afterwards printed on one sheet of paper. He went into Holland in 1642, back to France in 1645, and then again to Holland in 1616, in which year he married. He now intended to practise, and with that view went to Leyden, but again changing his mind, was scarcely settled at Leyden, when he returned to France, and was made principal of the college of Orange in 1650.

, a French writer who died in 1746, at the age of fifty-nine, was born at Saint-Amand, near Vendome, and educated by an uncle. Removing to Paris, he gained the applause and esteem of all the learned; and in 1720 was elected into the academy of inscriptions, in whose memoirs his dissertations make a distinguished figure. He was not without preferment also, being canon ofRodez, counsellor to the king, and reader and professor of eloquence in the college royal. The abbe Souchai is said to have formed in himself the rare union of profound knowledge and elegant manners. He wrote, 1. a French translation of Brown’s Vulgar Errors, entitled “Essais sur les Erreurs Populaires,” 2 vols. 12mo. 2. An edition of the works of Peiisson, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. Remarks on d'Audilly’s Josephus, in the edition of Paris, 1744. 4. An edition of Boileau’s works, 1740, 2 vols. 4 to. 5. An edition of the “Astrea” of Honore d'Urfe, in which the language is modernized, and the conversations abridged, 1733, 10 vols. 12mo. 6. An edition of “Ausonius,” in 4to, with copious notes. 7. The dissertations above-mentioned in the Memoirs of the Academy.

, 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:

, a very learned writer, as well as excellent statesman, the eldest son of the preceding, was born at Geneva in 1625). He distinguished himself so much in his earliest youth by his progress in literature, that, on a visit to Leyden with his father in 1642, he gained immediately the friendship of Daniel Heinsius and Salmasius, and preserved it with both, notwithstanding the mutual animosity of these two celebrated scholars. Like his father he was not satisfied with making himself master of Greek and Latin, but also applied himself with great vigour to the oriental languages. Ludovicus Capellus had published, at Amsterdam, in 1645, a dissertation upon the ancient Hebrew letters against John Buxtorf; in which he maintains, that the true characters of the ancient Hebrews were preserved among the Samaritans, and lost among the Jews. Spanheim undertook to refute Capellus in, certain theses, which he maintained and published at sixteen years of age; but which afterwards, out of his great candour and modesty, he called “unripe fruit;” and frankly owned, that Bochart, to whom he had sent them, had declared himself for Capellus against Buxtorf.

While here employed in investigating “the grounds of the law from original records,” which engaged him in a perusal of the fathers, councils, and ancient historians, he was for some time diverted from this pursuit by a conversation with his uncle, Mr. Francis Sanders, who complained to him of the many crosses and disappointments he had met with in a building he had then in hand upon the glebe of his appropriated parsonage at Congham. Sir Henry, who had a profound veneration for church-property, told his uncle that this was a judgment upon him for defrauding the church, and that it was utterly unlawful to keep appropriated parsonages in lay hands; and finding him somewhat impressed with what he had said, he expatiated more fully on the subject in a written paper, which, owing to Mr. Sanders’s death, never reached him. It was, however, published under the title “De non temerandis Ecclesiis,” or, “Churches not to be violated.” He reprinted it in 1615, 8vo, and about the same time a defence of it against an anonymous writer, with a Latin epistle to Mr. Richard Carew, who had made some objections to his treatise. The effect of sir Henry’s arguments was very extraordinary; for several persons actually parted with their impropriations. That he was sincere himself is sufficiently obvious, for being possessed of the impropriation of Middleton in Norfolk, he disposed of it for the augmentation of the vicarage, and also some additions to Congham which lies near it. It is said likewise that during the whole of his life, almost at every law-term in London, he was consulted by various lay-impropriators as to the mode by which they might restore their unlawful possessions of this kind; and some are reported to have thanked him for his book, declaring that they would never purchase any appropriate parsonages to augment their estates.

, 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

, an eminent medical writer, was born at Brussels in 1578, and studied at Louvain and Padua. He was afterwards appointed state-physician in Moravia, which, in 1616, he quitted for the professorship of anatomy and surgery at Padua. There he acquired a high refutation, was made a knight of St. Mark, and decorated with a collar of gold. He died April 7, 1625. His most valuable works are “De formato Fosiu, liber singularis” and “De Humani Cor­ poris Fabrica,” fol. It appears from the collected edition of his works by Vander Linden, 1645, 2 vols. fol. that he was well acquainted with every branch of the medical science.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

In 1655, was published at London, in folio, his “History of the Church of Scotland, beginning the year of our Lord 203, and continued to the end of the reign of king James VI.” In his dedication of this history to Charles I. dated Nov. 15, 1639, only eleven days before his death, he observes, that “there is not among men a greater help for the attaining unto wisdom, than is the reading of history. We call Experience a good mistress,” says he, “and so she is; but, as it is in our Scottish proverb, ‘ she seldom quits the cost.’ History is not so: it teacheth us at other men’s cost, and carrieth this advantage more, that in a few hours reading a man may gather more instructions out of the same, than twenty men living successively one after another can possibly learn by their own experience.” This history was begun at. the influence and command of king James, who, as already observed, had a high opinion of the author’s abilities. It is a work composed from scanty materials, but with great impartiality. There is throughout the whole an air of probity and candour, which is said to have been the peculiar character of the writer. Upon expressing a diffidence to king James about that part of it which relates to his mother, and which had been the stumbling-block of former historians, he replied, “Speak the truth, man, and spare not.” With regard to the archbishop’s political conduct and principles, historians have given very opposite accounts. We shall refer to two of the most recent and most candid.

, known first by the name of mademoiselle de Launai, was thedaughter of a painter of Paris, who being obliged to quit the kingdom, left her exposed to poverty while yet a child. Chance occasioned her receiving a distinguished education in the priory of St. Louis, at Rouen; but on the death of the superior of that monastery, who was her friend, she was again reduced to extreme indigence, and finding no other resource, engaged herself as a waiting-woman to the duchess of Maine. Unfit, however, for the duties of such an office, she lived in obscurity and sorrow, till a singular event, in which she seemed totally unconcerned, made her known much to her honour. A beautiful young lady of Paris., named Tetard, was persuaded by her mother to counterfeit being possessed. All Pans flocked to see this pretended wonder, not excepting the court; and this becoming the universal topic of conversation, mademoiselle de Launai wrote a very witty letter on the- occasion to M, de Fontenelle, which was universally admired. The duchess having discovered the writer in the person of her waiting-woman, employed he:­from that time in all the entertainments given at Sceaux, and made her her confidant. M. de Launai wrote verses for some of the pieces acted at Sceaux, drew up the plans of others, and was consulted in all. She soon also acquired the esteem of mess, de Fontenelie, de Tourreii, de Valincourt, de Chaulieu, de Malezieu, and other persons of merit, who frequented the court. This lady was involved in the duchess of Maine’s disgrace, during the regency of the duke of Orleans, and confined in the Bastile near two years; but being set at liberty, the duchess married her to M. de Staal, lieutenant of the Swiss guards, afterwards captain and marechal de camp. It is said she had refused to marry the celebrated M. Dacier. She died in 1750, and some “Memoirs of her Life,” written by herself, were soon after published in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain nothing very important, but are very amusing, and very well written, their style being pure and elegant. A fourth volume has since appeared, consisting of two pleasing plays, one entitled L'Engouement, the other La Mode, which were acted at Sceaux.

The mild and friendly temper of dean Stanhope rendered him the delight of all. To the misfortunes of others he was remarkably attentive, and that concern which he expressed, conveyed at once consolation to the heart, and improvement to the understanding. His care as a parish priest, and as a dean, was exemplary. That advice which he gave to others, was the rule of his own practice. In an excellent letter from him to a young clergyman, printed in the Gent. Mag. 1792, he says, “You will do well to demean yourself in all the offices of your function, that people may think you are in very good earnest, and so to order your whole conversation *, that they may be sure you are so.” While he benefited mankind, as a writer, he was no less edifying as a preacher. To a plain and clear style he added the most becoming action, and his manner was peculiarly his own. In his will, among other benevolent legacies, he left the sum of 250l. to found an exhibition for a king’s scholar of Canterbury school. He had been twice married, first to Olivia, daughter of Charles Cotton of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. by whom he had one sun and five daughters; and secondly to Miss Parker, half-sister of sir Charles Wager, who survived him, dying in 1730, aged about fifty-four. He was buried in the church of Lewisham, where is a memorial on a grave-stone, within the rails of the communion-table.

Stanyhurst had a son William, born at Brussels in 1601. He became a Jesuit, and a writer of reputation among persons of his communion. He died in 1663. Sojwell has given a list of his works, of which we shall mention only “Album Marianum, in quo prosa et carmine Dei in Austriacos beneficia, et Austriacornm erga Deum obsequia recensentur.” Louvaine, 1641, folio,

, secretary and historian of an embassy to China, was son of a gentleman of small fortune in the county of Galway, in Ireland; and sent early to study physic at Montpelier, where he proceeded M. D. On his return to London, he translated Dr. Stb'rck’s treatise on hemlock, and drew up for the “Journal Etranger” in France a comparison between the literature of England and France. About the year 1762, Dr. Staunton embarked for the West Indies, as we find from a farewell letter written to him by Dr. Johnson, given by Mr. Boswell in his life of that great man. This epistle is replete with excellent advice, and does equal credit to the writer, and the person to whom it is addressed. Dr. Staunton resided, for several years, in the West Indies, where he acquired some addition to his fortune by the practice of physic purchased an estate in Grenada which he cultivated; and had the good fortune to obtain the friendship of the late lord Macartney, governor of that island, to whom he acted as secretary, and continued in that capacity until the capture of it by the French, when they both embarked for Europe. Having studied the law, while in Grenada, Dr. Staunton filled the office of attorney-general of the island. Soon after lord Macartney’s arrival in England, he was appointed governor of Madras, and took Mr. Staunton with him (for he seems now to have lost the appellation of doctor) as his secretary. In this capacity, Mr. Staunton had several opportunities of displaying his abilities and intrepidity, particularly as one of the commissioners sent to treat of peace with Tippoo Sultaun, and in the seizure of general Stuart, who seemed to have been preparing to act by lord Macartney as had been before done by the unfortunate lord Pigot. The secretary was sent with a small party of seapoys to arrest the general, which he effected with great spirit and prudence, and without bloodshed. On his return to England, the India Company, as a reward for his services, settled on him a pension of 500l. per annum; the king soon after created him a baronet of Ireland, and the University of Oxford conferred on him the degree of LL.D. It having been resolved to send an embassy to China, lord Macartney was selected for that purpose, and he took his old friend and countryman along with him, who was not only appointed secretary of legation, but had also the title of envoy-extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary bestowed on him, in order to be able to supply the place of the ambassador in case of auy unfortunate accident. The events of this embassy, which, on the whole, proved rather unpropitious, are well known, and were given to the public in two quarto volumes, written by sir George. This account is rather to be considered as a proof of learning and observation than of genius and reflection. The subject itself was highly interesting, but it is certainly not rendered very much so in the relation. However, it is on the whole a valuable work, and creditable to his character for knowledge and diligence. And when we consider the short time he took to compile these volumes^ added to the severe illness he actually laboured under, and with which he was attacked soon after his return, we cannot withhold our praise and approbation. As a proof of tha esteem in which the India Company held sir George Staunton, they appointed his son, who accompanied him in the former voyage, a writer to China; and had the father’s health permitted, he would, probably, again have attended lord Macartney in some honourable and confidential station to his government at the Cape of Good Hope. The memoirs of sir George, if drawn up at full length, would exhibit many instances of a strong and ardent mind, labouring occasionally under difficulties, and surmounting dangers by patience, talents, and intrepidity. His conduct in the seizure of general Stuart, demonstrated his resolution and presence of mind; and when treating with Tippoo, he had the address to induce M. Suffrein to suspend hostilities, even before he had received advice from his court of the treaty of peace being signed between Great Britain and France.

, the first of a class of writers called the British Essayists, which is peculiar to this country, was born at Dublin in 1671. Mis family, of English extraction, was genteel. His father, who was a counsellor at law, and private secretary to James, the first duke of Ormond, sent his son, then very young, to London, where he was placed in the Charter-house by the duke, who was one of the governors of that seminary. From thence he was removed to Merton college, Oxford, and admitted a postmaster in 1691. In 1695 he wrote a poem on the funeral of queen Mary, entitled the “Procession.” His inclination leading him to the army, he rode for some time privately in the guards. He became an author first, as he tells us himself, when an ensign of the guards, a way of life exposed to much irregularity; and, emg thoroughly convinced of many things, of which he often repented, and which he more often repeated, he wrote for his own private use a little book called “The Christian Hero,” with a design principally to fix upon his own mind a strong impression of virtue and religion, in opposition to a stronger propensity towards unwarrantable pleasures. This secret admonition was too weak; and therefore, in 1701, he printed the book with his name, in hopes that a standing testimony against himself, and the eyes of the world upon him in a new light, might curb his desires, and make him ashamed of understanding and seeming to feel what was virtuous, and yet of living so contrary a life. This, he tells us, had no other effect, but that, from being thought a good companion, he was soou reckoned a disagreeable fellow. One or two of his acquaintance thought fit to misuse him, and try their valour upon him; and every body, he knew, measured the least levity in his words or actions with the character of “The Christian Hero.” Thus he found himself slighted, instead of being encouraged, for his declarations as to religion; so that he thought it incumbent upon him to enliven his character. For this purpose he wrote the comedy, called u The Funeral, or Grief a- la- Mode,“which was acted in 1702; and as nothing at that time made a man more a favourite with the public than a successful play, this, with some other particulars enlarged upon to -advantage, obtained the notice of the king; and his name, to be proTided for, was, he says, in the last table-book ever worn by the glorious and immortal William the Third. He had before this obtained a captain’s commission in lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, by the interest of lord Cutts, to whom he had dedicated his” Christian Hero,“and who likewise appointed him his secretary. His next appearance as a writer, as he himself informs us, was in the office of Gazetteer; where he worked faithfully, according to order, without ever erring, he says, against the rule observed by all ministries, to keep that paper very innocent and very insipid. He received this appointment in consequence of being introduced by Addison to the acquaintance of the earls of Halifax and Sunderland. With Addison he had become acquainted at the Charter-house. His next productions were comedies;” The Tender Husband“being acted in 1703, and” The Lying Lover“in 1704. In 1709 he began” The Taller;“the first number of which was published April 12, 1709, and the last Jan. 2, 1711. This paper greatly increased his reputation and interest; and he was soon after made one of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Upon laying down” The Tatler,“he b'egan, in concert with Addison,” The Spectator,“which began to be published March 1, 1711 after that,” The Guardian,“the first paper of which came out March 12, 1713; and then,” The Englishman,“the first number of which appeared Oct. 6, the same year. Besides these works, he wrote several political pieces, which were afterwards collected, and published under the title of” Political Writings," 1715, 12mo. Oneofthes6 will require to be mentioned particularly, because it was attended with remarkable consequences relating to himself.

Some years before his death, he retired to his seat at Llangunnor, near Caermarthen, in Wales, with a view to (economise for the benefit of his creditors. Here he was seized with a paralytic disorder, of which he died Sept. I, 1729, and was privately interred according to his own desire. He had been twice married: his first wife was a lady of Barbadoes, with whom he had a valuable plantation upon the death of her brother; his second was the daughter of Jonathan Scurlock, of Llangunnor, esq. by whom he had one daughter and two sons; the latter both died young, but the daughter, Elizabeth, was in 1732 married to the hon. John Trevor, afterwards baron Trevor of Bromham. Steele was a man of quick and excellent parts, accomplished in all branches of polite literature; -and would have passed for a better writer than he does, though he is allowed to be a very good one, if he had not been so connected in literary productions, as well as in friendship, with Addison. He speaks himself of their friendship in the following terms: “There never was a more strict friendship than between these gentlemen; nor had they ever any difference, but what proceeded from their different way of pursuing the same thing. The one with patience, foresight, and temperate address, always waited and stemmed the torrent f while the other often plunged himself into it, and was as often taken out by the temper of him who stood weeping on the bank for his safety, whom he could not dissuade from leaping into it. Thus these two men lived for some years last past, shunning each other, but still preserving the most passionate concern for their mutual welfare. But when they met, they were as unreserved as boys, and talked of the greatest affairs; upon which they saw where they differed, without pressing (what they knew impossible) to convert each other.”

“Though Mr. Steevens,” says an eulogist, " is known rather as a commentator, than as an original writer, yet, when the works which he illustrated, the learning, sagacity, taste, and general knowledge which he brought to the task, and the success which crowned his labours, are considered, it would be an act of injustice to refuse him a place among the first literary characters of the age. Mr. Steevens possessed that knowledge which qualified him, in a superior degree, for the illustration of Shakspeare; and without which the utmost critical acumen would have proved abortive. He had, in short, studied the age of Shakspeare, and had employed his persevering industry in becoming acquainted with the writings, manners, and laws of that period, as well as the provincial peculiarities, whether of language or custom, which prevailed in different parts of the kingdom, but more particularly in those where Shakspeare passed the early years of his life. This store of knowledge he was continually encreasing, by the acquisition of the rare and obsolete publications of a former age, which he spared no expence to obtain; while his critical sagacity and acute observation were employed incessantly in calling forth the hidden meanings of the great dramatic bard, from their covert; and consequently enlarging the display of his beauti

The most valued of his own works, original or compiled, are, 1. “Ciceronianum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” Paris, 1557, 8vo. 2. “In Ciceronis quamplurimos locos castigationes,” ibid. 1557, 8vo; this is usually printed with th former. 3. “Admonitio de abusu linguae Graecae in quibusdam vocibus quas Latina usurpat,” 1563, 8vo; of this there was a new edition by Koloff and Kromayer, Berlin, 1736, 8vo. 4. “Fragmenta poetarum veterum Latinorum, quorum opera non extant,” 1564, 8vo. 5. “Dictionarium medicum,” 1564, 8vo. 6. “Introduction au traite de la conformite des merveilles anciennes avec les modernes, ou Traite preparatif a l'apologie pour Herodote,” 1566, 8vo, of great rarity and value, and the only edition in which the text was not altered, as was the case in the subsequent ones, of which there were about twelve before 1607. Duchet published a new edition at the Hague in 1733, 3 vols. 8vo. We have mentioned the author’s fears respecting his being known to have written it, but in fact he never was discovered, nor is there any truth in the story of his having been obliged to fly from the city, and take refuge in the mountains of Auvergne. 7. “Traite de la conformite du langage Francois avec le Grec,” 8vo, without date. The second edition, of Paris, 1569, was cancelled in some places, which makes the other the more valuable. 8. “Artis typographicae querimonia de illiteratis quibusdam typographis,” 1569, 4to. This little poem, for such it is, has been added to those published by Almeloveen and Maittaire, and there is a recent edition by Lottin, printed at Paris in 1785, 4to, with a French translation, and the genealogy of the Stephani, from 1500. 9. “Epistola qua ad multas multorum amicorum respondet de suas typographic statu, nominatimque de suo Thesauro linguae Graecoe,” 1569, 8vo, reprinted also by Almeloveen and Maittaire. 10. “Comicoruin Graecorum sententiae,” 1569, 12mo. 11. “Epigrammata Graeca selectaex Anthologia interpretata ad verbum et carmina,” 1570, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Grsecae linguae,” 1572, 4 vols. fol. with which is connected the “Glossariaduo,” &C.1573, fol. Of this celebrated work it is unnecessary to say much, as it is so well known to the learned in Europe, and to others information vvoxild be unnecessary. Maittaire was of opinion that Henry published a second edition, but has not discovered the date. Niceron thinks he only printed a new title for the unsold copies, with an epigram on Scapula. But Brunet, after examining a great many copies, both with the first and second titles, inclines to the existence of a second edition. Of late a spirited invitation has been held out to public taste and liberality by Messrs. Valpy, who have undertaken a nevr edition, with improvements and every lover of literature, every scholar anxious for the honour of his country must wish them success. 13. “Virtutum encomia, sive gnomas de virtutibus,” 1575, 12mo. 14. “Francofordiense emporium, sive Francofordienses nundinse,” 1574, 8vo. This collection of prose and verse pieces, which he calls “merchandize,” is but little known. 15. “Discours merveilleux de la vie et deportments de la reine Catherine de Medecis,” 1575, 8vo. This satire, translated in 1575, by a protestant writer, into Latin, with the title of “Legenda sanctae Catharinae JMediceas,” is attributed to Henry Stephens, and has been often reprinted. 16. “De Latinitate falso suspecta expostulatio, necnon de Plauti Latinitate dissertatio,” 1576, 8vo. This is a hit at the Ciceronians, or those who undervalue all Latin that is not borrowed from Cicero. 17. “Pseudo-Cicero, dialogus in quo de multis ad Ciceronis sermonem pertinentibus, de delectu editionum ejus, et cautione in eo legendo,” 1577, 8vo. 18. “Schediasmatum variorum, id est, observationum, &c. libri tres,” 1578, 8vo. These three books of critical remarks bear the names of the first three months of the year, and three others were added in 1589, but this second part is very rare. Gruter, however, has inserted it in the supplement to vol. V. of his “Thesaurus criticus.” 19. “ Nizolio-Didascalus, sive monitor Ciceronianorum-Nizoliandrum dialogus,” 1578, 8vo. (See Nizolius). 20. “Deux dialogues du nouveau Frangois Italianize” et autrement deguise entre les courtesans de ce temps,“3vo, no date, but printed, as Brunet thinks, in 1579, by Patisson, and reprinted at Antwerp the same year in 12mo. 21.” Projet de livre intitule de la precellence du langage Frangois,“1579, 8vo, a curious and very rare work, for which, as we have noticed, the king rewarded him. 22.” Paralipojnena grammaticarum GrEecae linguae institutionum,“1581, 8vo. 23.” Hypomneses de Gallica lingua,“1582, 8vo, and inserted also in his father’s French grammar. 24.” De criticis veteribus Grsecis et Latinis, eorumque variis apud poetas potissimurn reprehensionibus dissertatio,“1587, 4to. 25.” Les premices, ou le premier livre des proverbes epigrammatises, ou des epigrammes proverbiales rangees ea lieux communs,“1593, 8vo. 26.” De Lipsii Latinitate palestra," Francfort, 1595, 8vo.

As an original writer, Sterne’s merit has been lately disputed in an article which originally appeared in the Manchester memoirs, and has since b^en published in a separate form by Dr. Ferriar. This ingenious writer has incontestabiy traced many very striking sentiments and passages from our author’s works, to Burton’s “/in atomy qf Melancholy,” bishop Hall’s works, and other books not generally read. Yet with these exceptions, for exceptions they certainly are, enough will remain the exclusive property of Sterne, to prove that both in the language of sentiment and the delineation of character, he was in a very high degree original, and altogether so in those indecencies which displace his most popular writings.

His leisure time, during the whole of his life, he dedicated to study, to intercourse with learned men, and to the duties of benevolence and devotion. His reading was extensive, and his taste may be understood from the plan of his studies. He was well versed in the writings of the fathers of the church of the first three centuries, generally called the Apostolic fathers; he had twice read through Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Body of Divinity, in three large folios; a divine for whose writings bishop Home always expressed the highest respect. The works of bishops Andrews, Jeremy Taylor, and dean Hickes, were quite familiar to Mr. Stevens; and there was hardiy a writer of modern days, at all celebrated for orthodox opinions, who was unknown to him. Such was the esteem in which he was held, as a theologian, that Dr. Douglas, bishop of Salisbury, once said of him, “Here is a man, who, though not a bishop, yet would have been thought worthy of that character in the first and purest ages of the Christian church;” and the late bishop Horsley, who was not given to flattery, when on one occasion Mr. Stevens paid him a compliment on account of his sermon, said, “Mr. Stevens, a compliment from you upon such a subject is of no inconsiderable value.” Mr. Stevens was also, like bishop Home, a great admirer of the works of Mr. John Hutchinson.

In 1773 Mr. Stevens first appeared as an author, if we may say so of one who never put his name to his writings, by publishing “An Essay on the nature and constitution of the Christian church, wherein are set forth the form of its government, the extent of its powers, and the limits of our obedience, by a layman.” This was published at a time (the preface says) “when the press teemed with the most scurrilous invectives against the fundamental doctrines of our religion: and even the newspapers were converted into trumpets of sedition by the enemies of the church.” Thirty years after the appearance of this tract the society for promoting Christian knowledge placed it on the catalogue of their publications with the name of the author, one of whose primary motives for writing it was the effort making in 1773 to get rid of subscription to the Thirty-nine articles. With the same view, and about the same time, Mr. Woliaston, rector of Chislehurstin Kent, having published “An address to the Clergy of the church of England in particular, and to all Christians in general,” Mr. Stevens printed “Cursory Observations” on this pamphlet, with a mixture of playfulness and argument, censuring him for being friendly to the scheme then in view. In 1776 he published “A discourse on the English Constitution, extracted from a late eminent writer, and applicable to the present times,” which were, it may be remembered, times of great political turbulence. In the following year he published two distinct works: the one, “Strictures on a sermon entitled, The Principles of the Revolution vindicated — preached before the university of Cambridge, on Wednesday, May 29, 1776, by Richard Watson, D.I). F II. S. Regius professor of divinity in that university” an<1, the other, “The Revolution vindicated, and constitutional liberty asserted in answer to the Rev. Dr. Watson’s Accession Sermon, preached before the university of Cambridge on Oct. 25, 1776.” In both these works, he contends that the preacher and his friends deavouf to support doctrines which, if followed, would destroy, and not preserve the constitution, grounding all authority in the power of the people: that the revolution (in 1688) intended to preserve, and did preserve, the constitution, in its pristine state and vigour: and that this is manifest from the convention, founding the revolution entirely on the abdication and vacancy of the throne.

, an eminent political writer, was born at Edinburgh, Oct. 10, 1713. His father was sir James Stewart of Goostrees, bart. solicitorgeneral for Scotland, and his mother was Anne, daughter of sir Hugh Dalrymple of North Berwick, bart. president of the college of justice in Scotland. After some classical education at the school of North Berwick, in East Lothian, he was removed to the university of Edinburgh, where, in addition to the other sciences usually taught there, he made himself well acquainted with the Roman law and history, and the municipal law of Scotland. He then went to the bar as an advocate, and published an acute and ingenious thesis on that occasion, having before submitted himself, as is usual, to a public examination by the fac'ilty of advocates.

, an ancient Greek writer, lived in the fifth century, as is generally supposed. What remains of him is a collection of extracts from ancient poets and philosophers, which has not come down to us entire; and even what we have of it appears to be intermixed with the additions of those who lived after him. These extracts, though they give us no greater idea of Stobaeus than that of a common-place transcriber, present us with many things which are to be found no where else; and therefore have always been highly valued by the learned. It appears beyond dispute, in Fabricius’s opinion, that Stobaeus was not a Christian, because he never meddled with Christian writers, nor made the least use of them in any of his collections. The “Excerpta of Stobseus,” were first published in Greek at Venice in 1536, 4to, and dedicated to Bembus, who was the curator of St. Mark’s library there, and furnished the manuscript. They were republished since by Canter, 1609, folio, under the title of “Sententiae,” under that of “Eclogae,” by Heern, 1792, 4 vols. 8vo. Grotius published an excellent edition of the “Dicta Poetarum,” at Paris in 1623, 4to.

, a miscellaneous writer of some learning, was born Oct. 26, 1736, in the village of Branxton, of which parish his father, the Rev. Thomas Stockdale, was vicar, and also perpetual curate of Cornhill near the Tweed. He was educated for six years at the grammar-school of Alnwick, and afterwards at that of Berwick, where he studied the Greek and Latin classics, and acquired some taste, which it was his misfortune afterwards to consider as equivalent to a great genius for poetry. The world and he however were never agreed as to the merit of his poetical efforts; and this proved a constant subject for chagrin. He left school in his eighteenth year, and resided for some time with his father at Cornhill. He was then sent to the university of St. Andrews, but the year after, 1755, was recalled home, in consequence of the death of his father. Returning to St. Andrews, he pursued his studies for some time, until a friend procured him a second-lieutenancy in the army, in which he served at Gibraltar, and in the memorable expedition commanded by admirals Byng and West, for the relief of the besieged garrison of St. Philip, in the island of Minorca. In 1756, he returned to England, and about a year after quitted the army altogether, which produced what he calls “many rude interruptions, many wide and unideal intervals” in his literary pursuits.

To this account, as given in the last edition of this work, we may add that when Stone had obtained the duke of Argyle’s patronage, he probably was enabled to come to London, as we find he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1725, a year before the publication of his “Mathematical Dictionary,” and his subsequent works were all published in London: but in what capacity he lived or how supported, we know not. Io 1742 or 1743 his name was withdrawn from the list of the Royal Society. In 1758 he published “The Construction and Principal Uses of Mathematical Instruments, translated from the French of M. Bion, chief instrument -maker to the French king. To which are added, the construction and uses of such instruments as are omitted by M. Bion, particularly of those invented or improved by the English. By Edmund Stone,” folio. Here he omits the title of F. R S. which appeared to his former publications. From the introductory part of an account of this work in the Critical Review, it would appear that he was known to the writer of that article, and that he was now old and neglected. “Since the commencement of our periodical labours,” says the critic, “none of Mr. Stone’s works have passed through our hands. It is with pleasure we now behold this ingenious gentleman breaking a silence, for the service of the publick, which we were ready to attribute to his sense of its ingratitude. There is hardly a person the least tinctured with letters in the British dominions, who is unacquainted with the extraordinary merit of our author. Untutored, and self-taught, he ascended from the grossest ignorance, by mere dint of genius, to the sublimest paths of geometry. His abilities are universally acknowledged, his reputation unblemished, his services to the public uncontested, and yet he lives to an advanced age unrewarded, except by a mean employment that reflects dishonour on the donors.” What this employment was, we know not, but the work itself is said to be a second edition, and that the first had a rapid sale. In 1767, was published a pamphlet entitled “Some reflections on the the uncertainty of many astronomical and geographical positions, with regard to the figure and magnitude of the earth, &c. &c. By Edmund Stone,” 8vo. We have not seen this production, but from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, it must have been written either by a Mr. Edmund Stone of far inferior abilities and good sense to our author, or by our author in his dotage.

In 1598 appeared the first edition in 4to, of that valuable work which he entitled “A Survey of London.” What induced him hrst to compile this work, was a passage he met with in William Lambard’s “Perambulation,” in which he calls upon all who had ability and opportunity, to do the like service for the shires and counties wherein they were born or dwelt, as he had done for that of Kent. Such an invitation was not lost upon a writer of Stow’s zeal and disposition, and he immediately resolved upon the description of the metropolis, the place both of his habitation and birth. It was dedicated by him to the lord mayor, commonalty, and citizens; and at the end of it were the names of the mayors and sheriffs, as far as 1598. He was sensible something ought to have been added concerning the political government of the city; but he declined touching upon it, as he at first intended, because he was informed that Mr. James Dalton, a learned gentleman and citizen, purposed to treat of it.