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

Some time after this he became much a favourite with queen Caroline, then princess of Wales; and upon the accession of George II. preached the coronation sermon, Oct. 11, 1727, which was afterwards printed by his majesty’s express commands, and is inserted among the bishop’s theological works. It was generally supposed that the chief direction of public affairs, with regard to the church, was designed to be committed to his care; but as he saw that this must involve him in the politics of the times, he declined the proposal, and returned to his bishopric, until the death of Dr. Wake, in January 1737, when he was appointed his successor in the archbishopric of Canterbury. This high office he filled during the space of ten years with great reputation, and towards the close of that period fell into a lingering disorder, which put a period to his life Oct. 10, 1747, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. He was buried at Croydon.

He left behind him the character of a prelate of distinguished piety and learning, strictly orthodox in respect to the established doctrines of the church of England, and a zealous and vigilant guardian of her interests. He was a great advocate for regularity, order, and oeconomy, but he supported the dignity of his high office of archbishop, in a manner which was by some attributed to a haughtiness of temper. Whiston is his principal accuser, in this respect, but allowances must be made for that writer’s prejudices, especially when we find that among the heaviest charges he brings against the archbishop is his having the Athanasian Creed read in his chapel. He had a numerous family of children, of whom three daughters and two sons survived him. One of his daughters, Mrs. Sayer, died in 1771.

His eldest son, John Potter, born in 1713, after a private education, was entered a member of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1727, and took his master’s degree in 1734. After he went into orders, he obtained from his father the vicarage of Blackburne, in the county of Lancaster, and in 1739, the valuable sinecure of Elme cum Emneth, in the isle of Ely, In 1741 his father presented him to the archdeaconry of Oxford. His other promotions were the v y icarage of Lydde in Kent, the twelfth prebend of Canterbury, and the rich benefice of Wrotham in Kent, with which he retained the vicarage of Lydde. In 1766 he was advanced to the deanery of Canterbury, on which he resigned the archdeaconry of Oxford. He died at Wrotham Sept. 20, 1770. He offended his father very much by marrying one of his servants, in consequence of which, although the archbishop, as we have seen, gave him many preferments, he left his personal fortune, which has been estimated at 70,000l. some say 90,000l. to his second son, Thomas Potter, esq. who followed the profession of the law, became recorder of Bath, joint vice-treasurer of Ireland, and member of parliament for Aylesbury and Oakhampton. He died June 17, 1759.

, an excellent landscape painter, was born at Enkhuysen, in 1625, and learned the principles of painting from his father, Peter Potter, who was but a moderate artist; yet, by the power of an enlarged genius and uncommon capacity, which he discovered even in his infancy, his improvement was so extraordinary, that he was considered as a prodigy, and appeared an expert master in his profession at the age of fifteen.

Paul’s subjects were landscapes, with different animals, but principally cows, oxen, sheep, and goats, which he painted in the highest perfection. His colouring is soft, agreeable, and transparent, and appears to be true nature; his touch is free, and exceedingly delicate, and his outline very correct. His skies, trees, and distances, shew a remarkable freedom of hand, and a masterly ease and negligence: but his animals are exquisitely finished, and touched with abundance of spirit. On these accounts he is esteemed one of the best painters of the Low Countries. His only amusement was walking into the fields; and even that amusement he so managed, as to make it conduce to the advancement of his knowledge in that art; for he always sketched every scene and object on the spot, and afterwards composed his subjects from his drawings; frequently he etched those sketches, and the prints are deservedly very estimable.

The paintings of Potter are exceedingly coveted, and bear a high price; because, beside their intrinsic merit, the artist having died young, in his twenty-ninth year, in 1654, and not painted a great number of pictures, they are now scarcely to be procured at any rate. One landscape, which originally he painted for the countess of Solms, was afterwards sold (as Houbraken affirms) to Jacob Van Hoeck, for 2000 florins. Lord Grosvenor has in his collection a small work of Potter’s, for which his lordship gave 900 guineas.

, an excellent classical scholar and translator, was born in 1721; but where, or of what family, we have not discovered. He was educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1741, but that of master not until 1788, according to the published list of Cambridge graduates, probably owing to his being then made a dignitary in Norwich cathedral. His first preferment was the vicarage of Seaming in Norfolk, in the gift of the Warner family; and, until he completed his translation of Sophocles, he held no higher preferment. In 1774, he published, in octavo, a volume of poems, some of which had appeared before separately: they consist of, “A Birth-day Thought;” “Cynthia;” “Verses to the same;” “Retirement, an epistle to Dr. Hurd” “A Fragment” “Verses to the painter of Mrs. Longe’s picture at Spixworth” “An Ode to Philoclea” “Verses to the same, exemplifying the absurdity of an affected alliteration in poetry” “Two Pieces in imitation of Spenser” “Holkham, inscribed to the earl of Leicester” “Kymber, to Sir A. Woodhouse” and a chorus from the “Hecuba” of Euripides, his intended translation of whose tragedies he announces in an advertisement. In most of these poems, particularly the “Holkham,” and “Kymber,” he shews himself a successful imitator of Pope. In the following year he published a very judicious tract, entitled “Observations on the Poor Laws, on the present state of the Poor, and on houses of Industry,” in which his principal object was, to recommend houses of industry, upon the plan of those already established in some parts of Norfolk and. Suffolk, particularly that at Bulcamp.

In 1788 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Thurlow to the dignity of a prebendary in the cathedral of Norwich. He had been a schoolfellow of lord Thurlow, and had constantly sent his publications to that nobleman, without ever soliciting a single favour from him. On receiving a copy of the “Sophocles,” however, his lordship wrote a short note to Mr. Potter, acknowledging the receipt of his books from time to time, and the pleasure they had afforded him, and requesting Mr. Potter’s acceptance of a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Norwich. In the following year, and during his residence at Norwich, the united vicarages of Lowestoft and Kessingland were presented to him, without solicitation from any quarter, by Dr. Bagot, then bishop of Norwich. His mind was sensibly impressed by such a disinterested and honourable mark of that prelate’s favour, which was the greater, as these united vicarages were the best subject of patronage that fell vacant during the seven years that Dr. Bagot held the see. Mr. Potter died suddenly, in the night-time, at Lowestoff, Aug. 9, 1804, in the eighty-third year of his age. He was a man of unassuming simple manners, and his life was exemplary. His translations are a sufficient proof of his intimate acquaintance with classical learning, and in this character he was highly respected by the literati of his time. It is said that he left a manuscript biography of the learned men of Norfolk, but into whose hands this has fallen, we have not heard.

, a French divine, successively priest of the oratory, doctor of the Sorbonne, and abbe* of Chambon, was born at Montpellier in 1666. He was some time at the head of an ecclesiastical seminary, under Colbert, bishop of Montpellier where he was of infinite service, not only by the excellence of his instructions, but the purity of his example. He was vicar of St. Roch at Paris, in 161)2, and had there the credit of contributing to the penitence of the celebrated La Fontaine, of which the English reader may see his own curious account in the “New Memoirs of Literature,” vol. X. His latter days were passed at Paris, in the religious house of St. Magloire, where he died in 1723, at the age of fiftyseven.“Father Pouget was the author of some works, of which the most remarkable is,” The Catechism of Montpellier/ 1 the best edition of which is that of Paris in 1702, in 4to. It is a kind of body of divinity, and has been considered by the clergy of his communion as the most precise, clear, and elegantly simple statement of the doctrines and practices of religion that has ever been produced. He was concerned in some other works, which were not entirely his own such as “The Breviary of Narbonne” " Martinay’s edition of St. Jerom Montfaucon’s Greek Analects and a book of instructions for the Knights of Malta.

, a celebrated anatomist and physician, was born at Mans, and after receiving some education under the fathers of oratory, went to Paris, where he applied himself, with great assiduity, to natural history and philosophy. In the study of the former he had been led to the examination and dissection of insects, which turned his mind to anatomy and surgery, as the means of support for which purpose he presented himself at the Hotel Dieu, and passed his examinations with great applause, which occasioned the more surprise, as he avowed that he had had no opportunity of obtaining practical information, and knew no more of surgery than to let blood. He subsequently received the degree of doctor in medicine at Rheims, in 1699, and was admitted a member of the Academy of Sciences. He did not long survive to receive the rewards of his industry; for he died at Paris, in October 1708, in a state of considerable poverty, which he supported with cheerfulness. His success in anatomical investigation may be estimated from the transmission of his name, attached to an important ligament. The Memoirs of the Academy comprize many of his papers, besides a “Dissertation sur la Sangue,” published in the Journal des Savans viz. a “Me*moire sur les Insectes Hermaphrodites” “L'Histoire du Formica Leo” that of the “Forrnica Pulex” “Observations sur les Monies;” “Dissertation sur PApparition des Esprits,” on the occasion of the adventure of St. Maur, and some other papers. He is also considered as the editor of a “Chirurgie complette,” which is a compilation from many works upon that art.

, an eminent French professor of philosophy, was born at Poilly, a village in the diocese of Sens, in the year 1651, and studied at the university of Paris, where he distinguished himself by his talents and great diligence, and in 1673 he was admitted to the degree of M. A. In the year 1677 he was appointed professor of philosophy in his own college, whither his reputation soon attracted a multitude of students and at the opening of the “College des Quatre Nations,' 7 he was appointed to fill the philosophical chair in that seminary. Mr. Pourchot soon became dissatisfied with the Aristotelian philosophy, and embraced the principles of Des Cartes, applying mathematical principles and reasonings to the discovery of physical and moral truths. He now drew up a system of philosophy, which he published under the title of” Institutiones Philosophies,“which was very generally applauded, and met with an astonishing sale. His reputation as a philosopher, at this time, stood so high, that his lectures were always attended by a numerous concourse of students. His acquaintance was eagerly courted by the most celebrated literary characters of his time Racine, Despreaux, Mabillon, Dupin, Baillet, Montfaucon, and Santeul, were his intimate associates. He was honoured with the esteem of M. Bossuet and M. de Fenelon. The latter would have procured for him the appointment of tutor to the younger branches of the royal family, but he preferred to employ his talents in the service of the university; and was seven times chosen to fill the post of rector of that body, and was syndic for the long space of forty years. At a very advanced age he began to apply himself to the study of the Hebrew language, with a degree of ardour which soon enabled him to deliver a course of lectures upon it at the college of St. Barbe. In the midst of his numerous engagements, he found leisure to improve his” Philosophical Institutions,“of which he was preparing the fourth edition for the press, when he lost his eyesight. He died at Paris in 1734, in the 83d year of his age. Besides his” Institutions,“he was author of numerous” Discourses,“which were given to the public in the” Acts of the University,“and various” Memoirs.“He assisted the learned Masclef in greatly improving the second edition of his” Grammatica Hebraica," and he aided him in drawing up the Chaldee, Syriac, and Samaritan grammars, which are combined in that edition.

, an eminent French painter, was born at Andely, a little town in Normandy, in 1594. His family, however, were originally of Soissons in which city there were some of his relations officers in the Presidial court. John Poussin, his father, was of noble extraction, but born to a very small estate. His son, seeing the narrowness of his circumstances, determined to support himself as soon as possible, and chose painting for his profession, having naturally a strong inclination to that art. At eighteen, he went to Paris, to learn the rudiments of it. A Poictevin lord, who had taken a liking to him, placed him with Ferdinand, a portrait-painter, whom Poussin left in three months to place himself with Lalleraant, with whom he staid but a month he saw he should never learn any thing from such masters, and he resolved not to lose his time with them; believing he should profit more by studying the works of great masters, than by the discipline of ordinary painters. He worked a while in distemper, and performed it with extraordinary facility. The Italian poet Marino being at that time in Paris, and perceiving Poussin’s genius to be superior to the small performances on which he was employed, persuaded him to go with him into Italy Poussin had before made two vain attempts to undertake that journey, yet by some means or other was hindered from accepting this opportunity. He promised, however, to follow in a short time; which he did, though not till he had painted several other pictures in Paris, among which was the Death of the Virgin, for the church of Ndtre-Dame. Having finished his business, he set out for Rome in his thirtieth year.

He there met with his friend, the cavalier Marino, who rejoiced to see him and that he might be as serviceable as he could, recommended him to cardinal Barberini, who desired to be acquainted with him. Yet by some means or other, he did not emerge, and could scarcely maintain, himself. He was forced to give away his works for sums that would hardly pay for his colours. His courage, however, did not fail he prosecuted his studies assiduously, resolving, at all events, to make himself master of his profession. He had little money to spend, and therefore the more leisure to retire by himself, and design the beautiful objects in Rome, as well antiquities as the works of the famous Roman painters. It is said, that he at first copied some of Titian’s pieces, with whose colouring, and the touches of whose landscapes, he was infinitely pleased. It is observable, indeed, that his first pieces are painted in a better style of colouring than his last. But he soon shewed, by his performances, that, generally speaking, he did not much value the part of colouring; or thought he knew enough of it, to make his pictures as perfect as he intended. He had studied the beauties of the antique, the elegance, the grand gusto, the correctness, the variety of proportions, the adjustments, the order of the draperies, the nobleness, the fine air and boldness of the heads the manners, customs of times and places, and every thing that is beautiful in the remains of ancient sculpture, to such a degree, that one can never enough admire the exactness with which he has enriched his painting in all those particulars.

He used frequently to examine the ancient sculptures in the vineyards about Rome, and this confirmed him more and more in the love of. those antiquities. He would spend several days together in making reflections upon them by himself. It was in these retirements that he considered the extraordinary effects of nature with respect to landscapes, that he designed his animals, his distances, his trees, and every thing excellent that was agreeable to his taste. He also made curious observations on the works of Raphael and Domenichino; who of all painters, in his opinion, invented best, designed most correctly, and expressed the passions most, vigorously three things, which Poussin esteemed the most essential parts of painting. He neglected nothing that could render his knowledge in these three parts perfect he was altogether as curious about the general expression of his subjects, which he has adorned with every thing that he thought would excite the attention of the learned. He left no very large compositions behind him; and all the reason we can give for it is, that he had no opportunity to paint them; for we cannot imagine that it was any thing more than chance, that made him apply himself wholly to easel pieces, of a size proper for a cabinet, such as the curious required of him.

Louis XIII. and de Noyers, minister of state and superintendant of the buildings, wrote to him at Rome to oblige him to return to France to which he consented with great reluctance. He had a pension assigned him, and a lodging ready furnished at the Thuilleries. He drew the picture o “The Lord’s Supper,” for the chapel of the castle of St. Germain, and that which is in the Jesuit’s noviciate at Paris. He began “The Labours of Hercules,” in the gallery of the Louvre; but Vouet’s school railing at him and his works, put him out of humour with his own country. He was also weary of the tumultuous way of living at Paris, which never agreed with him. For these reasons he secretly resolved to return to Rome, pretending he went to settle his domestic affairs and fetch his wife; but when he was there, whether he found himself in his proper situation, or was quite put off from any thought of returning to by tae deaths of Richelieu and the king, which happened about that time, he never afterwards left Italy. He continued working on his easel-pieces, and sent them from Rome to Paris the French buying them very eagerly, whenever they could be obtained, and valuing his productions as much as Raphael’s.

Poussin, having lived happily to his seventy-first year, died paralytic in 1665. He married the sister of Caspar Dughet, by whom he had no children. His estate amounted to no more than sixty thousand livres; but he valued his ease above riches, and preferred his abode at Rome, where he lived without ambition, to fortune elsewhere. He never made words about the price of his pictures; but put it down at the back of the canvas, and it was always given him. He had no disciple. The following anecdote much illustrates his character. Bishop Mancini, who was afterwards a cardinal, staying once on a visit to him till it was dark, Poussin took the candle in his hand, lighted him down stairs, and waited upon him to his coach. The prelate was sorry to see him do it himself, and could not help saying, “1 very much pity you, Monsieur Poussin, that you have not one servant.” “And I pity you more, my lord,” replied Poussin, “that you have so many.”

, whose proper name was Dughet, was born, according to some authors, in France, in 1600; according to others, at Rome, in 1613; nearly the same difference has been found in the dates of his death, which some place in 1663, and others in 1675. Which may be right, it is not easy to ascertain but the two latter dates are adopted by the authors of the Dictionnaire Historique. His sister being married to Nicholas Poussin, and settled at Rome, he travelled to that place, partly to visit her, and partly from a strong love of painting. Sandrart says, that Caspar was employed at first only to prepare the palette, pencils, and colours, for Nicholas; but, by the instructions and example of that great master, was so led on, that he also obtained a high reputation. While he remained at Home, he dropped his own name of Dughet, and assumed that of Poussin, from his brother-in-law, and benefactor. He is acknowledged to have been one of the best painters of landscapes that the world has seen. No painter ever studied nature to better effect, particularly in expressing the effects of land-storms. His scenes are always beautifully chosen, and his buildings simple and elegant. He was not equally skilled in painting figures, and frequently prevailed on Nicholas to draw them for him. The connoisseurs distinguish three different manners in his paintings the first is dry the second is more simple, yet delightful, and natural, approaching more than any other, to the style of Claude. His third manner is more vague and undefined than these, but pleasing; though less so by far than the second. His style is considered on the whole by Mr. Mason, in his table subjoined to Du Fresnoy, as a mixture between those of Nicolo and Claude Lorraine. Mr. Mason adopts the date of 1675 for his death.

, in Latin Possinus, a learned Jesuit, of Narbonne, in the 17th century, resided a considerable time at Rome, where he was much esteemed by Christina, queen of Sweden, cardinal Barberini, and several other illustrious persons. He understood Greek well, had very carefully studied the fathers, and has left translations of a great number of Greek authors, with notes a “Catena of the Greek Fathers on St. Mark,” Rome, 1673, fol. and other works. He died 1686, aged 77.

, a learned Welsh divine, was born in Denbighshire, about 1552. In 1568, he was sent to Oxford, but to what college is uncertain. When Jesus-college was founded, in 1571, he removed thither; and took his degrees in arts the year following. In 1576, he took orders, and became vicar of Ruabon, or Rhiw-Abon, in Denbighshire, and rector of Llanfyllin, which last he resigned in 1579. About the end of the same year he was instituted to the vicarage of Mivod in Montgomeryshire, and in 1588 he had the sinecure rectory of Llansanfraid, in Mechain. He held also some dignity in the church of St. Asaph. He proceeded to his degrees in divinity in 1582, and the subsequent year, and was afterwards chaplain to sir Henry Sidney, then president of Wales. He died in 1598, and tvas buried in his own church of Ruabon. The works published by him were, 1. “Caradoc’s History of Cambria, with annotations,” 1584, 4to. This history had been translated from the Latin, by Humphrey Lloyd, but was left by him unfinished at his death. Powel corrected and augmented the manuscript, and published it with notes. 2. “Annotationes in itinerarium Cambrirc, scriptum per Silvium Geraldum Cambrensem,” London, 1585. 3. “Annotationes in Cambriae descriptionem, per Ger. Cambr.” 4. “De Britannica historia recte intelligenda, epistola ad Gul. Fleetwoodum civ. Lond. recordatorem.” This and the former are printed with the annotations on the itinerary. 5. “Pontici Virunnii Historia Britannica,” London, 1585, 8vo. Wood says, that he took great pains in compiling a Welsh Dictionary, but died before it was completed.

He left a very learned son, Gabriel Powell, who was born at Ruabon, in 1575, and educated at Jesus college, Oxford, after which he became master of the free-school at Ruthen, in his native county. Not however finding his situation here convenient for the studies to which he was addicted, ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the fathers, he returned to Oxford, and took up his abode in St. Mary Hall. Here principally he wrote those works which procured him great reputation, especially among the puritans. Dr. Vaughan, bishop of London, invited him to the metropolis, and made him his domestic chaplain, and would have given him higher preferment had he lived. It was probably Vaughan’s successor who gave him the prebend of Portpoole, in 1609, and the vicarage of Northall, in Middlesex, in 1610. He died in 1611. His works enumerated by Wood are chiefly controversial, against the papists, except one or two in defence of the silenced puritans. Several of them, being adapted to the circumstances of the times, went through numerous editions, but are now little known. Wood says he was esteemed a prodigy of learning, though he died when a little more than thirty years old (thirty-six), and had he lived to a greater maturity of years, it is “thought he would have exceeded the famous Dr. John Rainolds, or any of the learned heroes of the age.” Wood adds that he “was a zealot, and a stiff puritan.” By one of his works, entitled “The unlawfulness and danger of Toleration of divers religions, and connivance to contrary worship in one monarchy or kingdom,” it would appear that he wrote against toleration while he was claiming it for himself and his puritan brethren.

, a learned popish divine, was bora about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Oxford. He appears to have been fellow of Oriel college in 1495, and afterwards became D. D. and was accounted one of the ornaments of the university. In November 1501, he was made rector of Bledon, in the diocese of Wells, and in July 1503 was collated to the prebend Centum solidorum, in the church of Lincoln, as well as to the prebend of Carleton. In 1508, by the interest of Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury, he was made prebendary of that church, and in 1525 became prebendary of Sutton in Marisco, in the church of Lincoln. In November 1514, Pope Leo gave him a licence to hold three benefices, otherwise incompatible. His reputation for learning induced Henry VIII. to employ him to write against Luther, which he did in a work entitled “Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii evangelici, ac septenarii sacramentorum numeri adversus M. Lutherum, fratrem famosum, et Wickliffistam insignem,” Lond. 1523, 4to. This performance, says Dodd, was commonly allowed to be the best that had hitherto been published. There are two public letters from the university of Oxford, one to the king, the other to bishop Audley, applauding the choice of a person so well qualified to maintain the cause of the church and in these letters, they style him the glory of their university, and recommend him as a person worthy of the highest preferment. But all this could not protect him from the vengeance of Henry VIII. when he came to employ his learning and zeal in defence of queen Catherine, and the supremacy of the see of Rome, on both which articles he was prosecuted, hanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540, along with Dr. Thomas Abel, and Dr. Richard Fetherstone, who suffered on the same account. He wrote in defence of queen Catherine, “Tractatus de uon dissolvendo Henrici regis cum Catherina matrimonio” but it is doubtful if this was printed. Stow, indeed, says it was printed in 4to, and that he had seen it, but no copy is now known. Mr. Churton, in his “Lives of the Founders of Brazenose college,” mentions Dr. Powell’s preaching a Latin sermon, in a very elegant style, at the visitation of bishop Smyth at Lincoln.

, principal of Jesus college, Oxford, was born at Lansawell in Carmarthenshire, in 1561, and entered a commoner of Jesus college in 1581, and after taking his degrees, and obtaining a fellowship, was chosen principal in 1613 being then, says Wood, “accounted by all a most noted philosopher, or subtle disputant, and one that acted and drudged much as a tutor, moderator and adviser in studies among the juniors.” He died June 28, 1620, and was buried in St. Michael’s church. By will he left all his estate, amounting to between six and seven hundred pounds, to the college, with which a fellowship was founded. He wrote “Analysis Analyticorum posteriorum, seu librorum Aristotelis de Demonstratione, cum scholiis,” Oxon. 1594, 8vo,and “Analysis libri Aristotelis deSophisticis Elenchis,” ibid. 1594, reprinted 1598 and 1664. Concerning these two works, a wit of the day made the following lines:

, an eminent lawyer, and an upright judge, was a native of Gloucester, which city he represented in parliament in 1685. He was called to the coif April 24, 1686, appointed a justice of the common pleas April 21, 1687, at which time he received the honour of knighthood, and was removed to the court of king’s bench April 26 in the following year. He sat hi that court at the memorable trial of the seven bishops, and having declared against the king’s dispensing power, James II. deprived him of his office in July 1688; but William III. placed him again in the common pleas, Oct. 28, 1695, and queen Anne advanced him to the queen’s bench June 18, 1702, where he sat until his death, at Gloucester, on his return from Bath, June 14, 1713, far advanced in life. He was reckoned a sound lawyer, and in private was to the last a man of a cheerful, facetious disposition. Swift, in one of his letters, mentions his meeting with him at Lord Oxford’s, and calls him “an old fellow with grey hairs, who was the merriest old gentleman I ever saw, spoke pleasing things, and chuckled till he cried again.” In his time the laws against witchcraft being unrepealed, one Jane Wenman was tried before him, and her adversaries swore that she could fly “Prisoner,” said our judge, “can you fly?” “Yes, my lord.” “Well then you may; there is no law against flying.”

, an English divine of good abilities, was born at Colchester, Sept. 27, 1717 admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1734 and, having taken the degree of bachelor of arts in 1739, elected fellow of it in March 1740. In 1741, he was taken into the family of lord Townshend, as private tutor to his second son Charles Townshend, afterwards chancellor of the exchequer; and was ordained deacon and priest at the end of the year, when he was instituted to the rectory of Colkirk in Norfolk, on lord Townshend’s presentation. He returned to college the year after, and began to read lectures as an assistant to the tutors, Mr. Wrigley and Mr. Tunstali but became himself principal tutor in 1744. He took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1749, and in 1753 was instituted to the rectory of Stibbard, in the gift of lord Townshend. In 1757 he was created D. D. In 1761 he left college, and took a house in London but did not resign his fellowship till 1763. In Jan. 1765,' he was elected master of his college, and was chosen vice-chancellor of the university in November following. The year after, he obtained the archdeaconry of Colchester; and, in 1768, was instituted to the rectory of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight. He died, Jan. 19, 1775, and was interred in the chapel of St. John’s college.

The office of master of the college, says Mr. Cole, he maintained with the greatest reputation and honour to himself, and credit and advantage to the society. Some years before he attained this office, a relation with whom he had very little acquaintance, and less expectation from, Charles Reynolds, of Peldon Hall, esq. left him the estate and manor of Peldon Hall in Essex, together with other estates at Little Bentley in the same county and, adds Mr. Cole, to do him justice he well deserved it, for he was both hospitable and generous, and being a single man had ample means to exercise his generosity. In Feb. 1773, when St. John’s college had agreed to undertake two very expensive works, the new casing the first court with stone, and laying out their gardens under the direction of the celebrated Mr. Brown, who told them that his plan would cost them at least 800l. the master recommended an application to those opulent persons who had formerly been members of the college, and told the fellows that if they thought proper to make such application, and open a subscription, he would begin it with a donation of 500l. which he immediately subscribed. On all such occasions, where the honour and reputation of his college, or the university, was concerned, no one displayed his liberality more in the sumptuousness and elegance of his entertainments, but in other cases he was frugal and ceconomical.

The late celebrated poet, Mr. Mason, in his life of Whitehead, takes occasion to pay a high compliment to Dr. Powell on that part of his literary character concerning which he may be thought the least liable to be mistaken, and pronounces Dr. Powell’s taste in works of imagination to have been as correct as his judgment was in matters of more abstruse speculation. “Yet this taste,” adds Mr. Mason, “always appeared to be native and his own he did not seem to have brought it with him from a great school, nor to have been taught it by a celebrated master. He never dealt in the indiscriminate exclamations of excellent and sublime: but if he felt a beauty in an author, was ready with a reason why he felt it to be such a circumstance which those persons, who, with myself, attended his lectures on the Poetics of Aristotle, will both acknowledge and reflect upon with pleasure.”

His published works consist of the volume above mentioned, edited by Dr. Balguy, which contains three discourses preached before the university; thirteen preached in the college chapel one on public virtue three charges to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester and his “Disputatio” on taking his doctor’s degree. One of his discourses, relative to subscription, was first preached on commencement Sunday in 1757; and being reprinted in 1772, when an application to parliament on the matter of subscription was in agitation, was attempted to be answered, probably by the author of the “Confessional,” in a pamphlet entitled “Remarks on the Rev. Dr. Powell’s Sermon, &c.” but of this we do not know that he took any notice, Contenting himself with this reprint of his sermon, which was the fourth edition. He had spoken his sentiments, and had no turn for controversy. He acted the same part in his college; during the controversy in 1772 he called all his scholars before him, and submitted to them the real state of the case relating to their subscription, and left it with them. In 1760, Dr. Powell published Observations on “Miscellanea Analytica,” which was the beginning of a controversy that produced many pamphlets relative to the Lucasian professorship of mathematics at Cambridge, when Mr. Waring was elected.

A letter of Mr. Markland’s having been published in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” reflecting on Dr. Powell as if he had died rich in consequence of accumulation, and had been saving of his money to the last, produced a satisfactory defence of him from a member of St. John’s college, part of which it is but justice to Dr. Powell’s memory to copy. “It is true,” says this writer, “that Dr. Powell died in very affluent circumstances but the greatest part of his fortune was left to him in 1759 by Mr. Reynolds, a relation of his mother, and the remainder was the wellearned fruits of his labours in educating his pupils while tutor. During the ten years he was master, he lived in great splendour and magnificence, and had considerably diminished his private fortune before his death. When it was determined to rebuild the first court, he generously made a present of 500l. to the society to several undergraduates he occasionally gave sums of money, and to others he allowed annual stipends to enable them to complete their studies: at his own expence he bestowed prizes upon those who distinguished themselves at the public examinations. By his will, which had been made a considerable time before his death, he bequeathed 1000l. to his friend Dr, Balguy to six 'actual fellows, to ten who had been fellows, and to four who had only been of the college, 100l. each; and to four fellows his books.”

, a gentleman of considerable learning and political knowledge, was born in 1722, and educated at Lincoln. His first appearance in public life was when appointed secretary to the commissioners for trade and plantations in 1745, subjects with which he must have made himself early acquainted, as he had not yet reached his twenty-fourth year. In 1753 he went to America, and in the following year was concerned in a matter which eventually proved of great importance. At the beginning of what has been called the seven years’ war with France, which commenced in America in 1754, two years before it broke out in Europe, a number of persons, styled commissioners, being deputed from each colony, assembled at Albany, to consider of defending themselves against the French, who were making alarming encroachments on their back settlements. This assembly was called the Albany Congress, and became the precedent for that other more remarkable congress established at the revolution in 1773. As soon as the intention of the colonies to hold a congress at Albany was known in England, Mr. Pownall immediately foresaw the danger to the mother country, if such a general union should be permitted, and presented a strong memorial to lord Halifax, the secretary of state, on the subject, in 1754. The plan which the congress had in view was, to form agreat council of deputies from all the colonies, with a governor-general to be appointed by the crown, and empowered to take measures for the common safety, and to raise money for the execution of their designs. The ministers at home did not approve of this plan; but, seeing that they could not prevent the commissioners meeting, they resolved to take advantage of this distress of the colonies, and turn the subject of deliberation to their own account. For this purpose they sent over a proposal, that the congress should be assisted in their considerations by two of the king’s council from each colony, be empowered to erect forts, to levy troops, and to draw on the treasury in London for the money wanted and the treasury to be reimbursed by a tax on the colonies, to be laid by the British parliament; but this proposal was peremptorily rejected, because it gave the British parliament a power to tax the colonies. Although Mr. Pownall did not agtee with the ministry in the whole extent of their proposal, yet they thought him so well acquainted with the affairs of the colonies, that in 1757 they appointed him governor of Massachusetts bay.

After two years’ residence, some political differences with some of the leading men of the province, induced him to solicit to be recalled; and in 1751) he succeeded Mr. Bernard as governor of New Jersey but he retained his post a very short time, being almost immediately appointed governor, captain -general, and vice-admiral, of South Carolina. Here he continued until 1761, when he was recalled, at his own desire and on his arrival in London, he was appointed director-general of the office of controul, with the rank of colonel in the army, under the command of prince Ferdinand, in Germany. At the end of the war he returned to England, where his accounts were examined, and passed with honour.

At the general election, 1768, he was chosen representative in parliament for Tregony in Cornwall, and in 1775 for Minehead in Somersetshire, and on all cccasions vigorously opposed the measures which led to the war with America; and, from the knowledge which he was supposed to have acquired in that country, was listened to with attention. Of the importance of his speeches he had himself a considerable opinion, by his sending them in manuscript, to be printed in Almon’s Parliamentary Register. He is also said to have assisted that bookseller in his “American Remembrancer,” a periodical paper which contained all the calumny, as well as all the arguments, which the opponents of the measures of administration could bring together. At the general election in 1780 he retired from parliament, and resided, in his latter years, at Bath, where ie died Feb. 25, 1805, in the 83d year of his age, if our date of his birth be correct.

Governor Pownall was twice married first, in 1765, to lady Fawkener, relict of Sir Everard Fawkener, and daughter of lieutenant-general Churchill, who died in 1777 and secondly, in 1784, to Mrs. Astell, of Everton-house, in Bedfordshire; but had no issue by either.

He had a vigorous and comprehensive mind which by a liberal education, and constant cultivation during along series of years, was furnished with an uncommon fund of various knowledge, both as a politician and antiquary but not, in both characters, without some singular opinions. His works were very numerous. The first, and most popular, which went through several editions, was his “Ad ministration of the Colonies.” 2. Observations on a Bread Bill, which he introduced in parliament and, 3< “Of the Laws and Commissions of Sewers” both printed, but not published. 4. An ironical pamphlet, entitled “Considerations on the indignity suffered by the Crown, and dishonour brought upon the Nation, by the Marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland with an English subject,” 1772, 4to. 5. A pamphlet on “The high price of Bread,” &c. 1774, 8vo. 6. “A Topographical Description of such parts of North America as are contained in the annexed map of the middle British Colonies, &c. in North America,” 1776, folio. 7. “A Letter to Adam Smith, LL.D. F. R. S.” respecting his “Wealth of Nations,” 1776, 4to. 8. “Drainage and Navigation, but one united work,” 1776, 8vo. 9. “A Treatise on the study of Antiquities,” 1782, 8vo. 10. “A Memorial addressed to the Sovereigns of America,” 1782 *. 11. “Two Memorials, with an explanatory Preface.” 12. “Memorial addressed to the Sovereigns of Europe and the Atlantic,” 1783. 13. “Proposal for founding University Professorships for Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture,” 1786. 14. “Answer to a Letter on the Jutae or Viti.” 15. “Notices and Descriptions of Antiquities of the Provincia Romana of Gaul, now Provence, Languedoc, and Dauphiny: with Dissertations on the subjects of which those are exemplars and an Appendix, describing the Roman Baths and Thermae, discovered in 1784, at Badenweiler,” 1787, 4to. 16. “An Antiquarian Romance, endeavouring to mark a line by which the most ancient people, and the processions of the earliest inhabitancy of Europe, may be investigated, 11 1795, 8vo. 17.” Descriptions and Explanations of the Remains of some Roman Antiquities dug up in the city of Bath in 1790, with an Engraving from Drawings made on the spot,“1795, 4to. 18.” Considerations on the Scarcity and high Prices of Bread Corn,“&c, 1796. He contributed also many papers to the Archaeologia of the Society of Antiquaries, of which he was chosen a fellow in 1772, He was elected F. R.S. in 1765. He is also said to have been the author of” The Right, Interest, and Duty, of Governments, as concerned in the affair of the East Indies,“1781, 8vo.” Intellectual Physics, an Essay concerning the nature of Being,“4to, 1803 and a” Treatise on Old Age."

His brother, John Pownall, was also an antiquary, and contributed a few articles to the Archaeologia. He died July 17, 1795.

, successively bishop of Rochester and Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. was born in the county of Kent, about the year 1516, and was educated in King’s college, Cambridge, where his adversaries allow he was distinguished for his learning;. He was not only skilled in Greek and Latin, but in some of the modern languages, particularly Italian and Dutch. In early life he proved himself an able mathematician and mechanist. He constructed a clock, which pointed both to the hours of the day, the day of the month, the sign of the Zodiack, the lunar variations, and the tides, which was presented to Henry VIII. and considered by him and others as a very extraordinary performance. Heylin, who is seldom partial to the early English reformers, tells us, that he was “well-studied with the ancient fathers.”

At what time he imbibed the principles of the Reformation is uncertain; but it appears that he was accounted a champion for that great change in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. when he was made bishop of Rochester, although only in his 33d year. He was then D.D. and chaplain to archbishop Cranmer. When Gardiner was deprived, he was the following year, 1551, translated to Winchester, and was one of the bishops appointed to make a new code of ecclesiastical laws. He had frequently preached be fore king Edward who, on account of his zealous efforts for the reformation, desired that he might have the above dignities. He had before this, however, some lesser preferment. By Newcourt we find, that Cranmer gave him the rectory of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Nov. 15, 1543, which he held, in commendam, until May 15, 1551, when he was translated to Winchester. He was a frequent preacher, and wrote several treatises in defence of the Reformation but his most remarkable performance was what is commonly called “King Edward’s Catechism,” which appeared in 1553, in two editions, the one Latin, the other English, with the royal privilege. That it was not hastily adopted, however, appears by king Edward’s letter prefixed to it, in which he says “When there was presented unto us, to be perused, a short and playne order of Catechisme, written by a certayne godlye and learned man: we committed the debatinge and diligent examination thereof to certain byshoppes and other learned men, whose judgment we have in greate estimation.” This catechism has been attributed to Nowell; but the late excellent biographer of that eminent divine considers it as unquestionably Poynet’s, although Nowell took much from it into his own catechism.

When queen Mary came to the crown, Povnet, with many others, retired to Strasburgh, where he died April 11, 1556, not quite forty years of age. Dodd says he was obliged to leave England for treasonable practices; as he had not only encouraged Wyat’s rebellion, but personally appeared in the field against the queen and government. This may be true; but no treason was necessary to render England an unsafe place for a man so zealous for the reformation, a professed opponent of Gardiner, and who succeeded that tyrannical prelate in the see of Winchester. Strype informs us, that immediately on the accession of Mary, bishop Poynet was ejected and imprisoned, and deprived of episcopacy, for being married. He doubts whether he ever was concerned with Wyat, but says he was a great friend to the learned Ascham. Milner accuses him of signing away a great number of the most valuable possessions of the see of Winchester. He accuses him also of being of an intolerant spirit, and that he persecuted the learned physician, Andrew Borde. Borde, however, was guilty of irregularities, which it was not unbecoming in his diocesan to punish. If Poynet was intolerant, what shall we say of the favourites of the popish historians?

Besides the “Catechism” already mentioned, bishop Poynet was the author of: 1. “A Tragedie or Dialoge of the unjust usurped primacie of the bishop of Rome,” translated from Bernard Ochinus,“1549, 8vo. 2.” A notable Sermon concerning the ryght use of the Lordes Supper,“&c. preached before the king at Westminster,” 1550, 8vo. When abroad, he wrote, which was published the year after his death, a treatise on the same subject, entitled :t Dialecticon viri boni et literati de veritate, natura, atque substautia corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia“in which, Bayle says, he endeavoured to reconcile the therans and Zuinglians. 3.” A short Treatise of Politique Power, and of the true obedience which subjectes owe to kynges and other civile governours, with an exhortacion to all true naturall Englishe men, compyled by D. I. P. B. R. V.V. i.e. Dr. John Poynet, bishop of Rochester and Winchester,“1556, 8vo. The contents of this may be seen in Oldys’s Catalogue of Pamphlets in the Harleian Library, No. 409. It was reprinted in 1639 and 1642 which gave a suspicion that it contained sentiments respecting queen Mary, which at this time were thought applicable to a far milder sovereign. Dr. Poynet wrote” A Defence for Marriage of Priests,“1549, 8vo; and has been thought the author of an answer to the popish Dr. Martin on the same subject, entitled” An Apologie, fully aunswering, by Scriptures and anceant doctors, a blasphemose book, gathered by D. Stephen Gardiner," &c. &c. But Wharton, in his observations on Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, assigns very sufficient reasons why it could not be Poynet’s.

, an eminent English lawyer, was the son of sir John Pratt. This sir John Pratt was a student at Oxford, and fellow of Wadham college, in the hall of which is his portrait, among other distinguished members and benefactors of the society. Applying himself to the study of the law, he was called to the bar about the end of king Charles II.‘s reign and. after various gradations in the dignities of his profession, was in 1718 constituted lord chief justice of the court of King’s Bench. He died in 1724, when the subject of the present article was ’a child, one of the sons of his second wife, Elizabeth Wilson. He was born in 1713 and, after being educated in school-learning at Eton, entered of King’s college, Cambridge, on the election in 1731, and became a fellow of that society. In 1735 he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 that of M. A. after which he became a member of Lincoln’s Inn; and having regularly gone through his law studies, was called to the bar. For many years, however, he had so little practice, that at one time he had resolved to relinquish his attendance at Westminster Hall; but, by degrees he became noticed; and, in 1752, we find him supporting the rights of juries, in opposition to Mr. Murray, afterwards lord Mansfield, in a case of libel, the King y. Owen, when his client was acquitted.

In 1754 he was chosen representative for the borough of Downton, in Wiltshire and in 1759, recorder of Bath; and the same year was made his majesty’s attorney general. In Dec. 1761, he was constituted chief justice of the court of Common Pleas, and received the honour of knighthood; and in 1762, was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law.

His lordship had the reputation of having presided in that court with a dignity, weight, and impartiality, never exceeded by any of his predecessors and when the celebrated John Wilkes was seized and committed to the Tower, upon a general warrant, his lordship granted him an Habeas Corpus; and when Wilkes was brought before the court of Common Pleas, discharged him from his confinement in the Tower, on May 6, 1763, after stating the case, in a speech which did him great honour. His wise and spirited behaviour upon this occasion, and in the consequent judicial proceedings, between the printers of the “North Briton” and others concerned in that publication, or in apprehending the authors, was so acceptable to the nation, that the lord mayor, aldermen, and common-council of the city of London, presented him with the freedom of their corporation in a gold box, an,d desired him to sit for his picture, which was put up in the Guildhall in 1764, with a suitable inscription at the bottom of the frame. The guild of merchants of the city of Dublin, also voted him the freedom of their guild, in a gold box the corporation of barber- surgeons of that city voted him his freedom thereof; and the sheriffs and commons of Dublin presented him their thanks “for the distinguished zeal and loyalty which he has shewn in asserting and maintaining the rights and liberties of the subject, in the high station whichhe now fills, with remarkable dignity and for his particular services to this kingdom, in the office of attorney-general.” Other towns sent him testimonies of their regard, and his popularity was now at its height. In 1765 he was created a peer of Great Britain by the title of lord Camclen, baron Camden in the county of Kent and on July 30, 1766, his majesty, upon the resignation of lord Northington, delivered the great seal to his lordship, as lord high chancellor of Great Britain. It was the Rockingham administration who promoted his lordship’s advancement to the peerage; but they did not thereby obtain his entire support in parliament for when the declaratory bill, asserting the right of parliament to make laws, binding the colonies in all cases whatever, was brought into the House of Lords, he opposed it with the greatest vigour. Lord Camden, whatever might be thought of his opinions, was uniformly independent, and incurred a portion of popular odium for supporting the suspension of the law, in order to prevent the exportation of corn at a time when scarcity was impending. On this occasion he happened to make a sarcastic reply to lord Temple, which drew upon him the wrath of Junius; but for this he had as little regard as for the more sober invectives of party. As a lord chancellor, he appears to have conciliated the good opinion of all parties. His acuteness and judgment, and the perspicuity with w'hich he delivered his opinions, and his general politeness, mixed with a becoming regard to the dignity of his office, all produced the highest respect and confidence in his decisions. But as he still adhered to his opinion against the taxation of the Americans, which he strongly and publicly opposed on every occasion, he was removed from his high office in 1770.

In March 1782, on an entire change of men and measures, in consequence of the failure of the American war, he was appointed president of the council, which, with the exception of a short secession during the coalition-administration, he held through life, and gave his support to the measures by which Mr. Pitt provided for the safety of the country, when the French revolution had let loose the disorganizing principles of bad men of all nations. In May 1786, lord Camden was advanced to the farther dignities of viscount Bayham and earl Camden, and lived to enjoy his well-earned honours to his death, April 18, 1794. High as his lordship’s character stood with the public, it was not superior to the esteem which his private virtues universally procured. In his relative duties he was affectionate, benevolent, and cheerful. His mind and manners threw an amiable colouring over every action. A pamphlet has been attributed to him, entitled “An Inquiry into the nature and etfect of the writ of Habeas Corpus, the great bulwark of English liberty, both at common law, and under the act of parliament and also into the propriety of explaining and extending that act,” Lond. 1753, 8vo. Another is mentioned by Mr. Park, which can scarcely be called his, although relating to him “Lord Camden’s argument in Doe, on the demise of Hindson, &c. versus Kersey; wherein Lord Mansfield’s argument in Wyndham versus Chetwynd, is considered and answered.” This is said to have been first printed in 4to, at London, and suppressed by an order of the court of Common Pleas, over which lord Camden at that time presided. It was, however, published at Dublin in 1766, 8vo.

His lordship married Elizabeth, daughter, and at length sole heiress, of Nicholas Jeffreys, esq. of the Priory in Breconshire, by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his son John Jeffreys, the present earl Camden.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, is said to have been born of a good family, at St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, Dec. 25, 1749. He was ed located at Felstead, in Essex, and was originally brought up to the church. This, however, he appears to have quitted for the stage, which he attempted in London, in 1774, with very little success. After his failure in this attempt, he subsisted chiefly by writing. He also was for some time a bookseller at Bath, where, and at other places, he occasionally delivered lectures on the English language. For many years after his appearance on the stage, he assumed the name of Courtney Melmoth, which likewise is prefixed to most of his publications. As. an author, he was very prolific. The first of his productions which attracted the notice of the public, was “The Tears of Genius, occasioned by the Death of Dr. Goldsmith, 1774,” whose poetical works he endeavoured, and not always unsuccessfully, to make the model of his own. His poem of “Sympathy” was perhaps his best, and has passed through many editions, and is characterized by feeling, energy, and beauty. His first novel, entitled “Liberal Opinions upon Animals, Man, and Providence,” 1775, &c was published in detached volumes, which were eagerly perused as they successively appeared. His “Shenstone Green,” “Emma Corbett,” “The Pupil of Pleasure, or the New System (Lord Chesterfield’s) illustrated,” had likewise a temporary popularity. His other novel of any note was entitled “Family Secrets,” 1797, 5 vols. 12mo, but had not the success of the former. His dramatic productions were, a tragedy, “The Fair Circassian,” taken from Hawkesworth’s “Almoran and Harriet,” which required all the support of himself and friends, in the newspapers, to render it palatable for a few nights. His other dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dram, were so little successful as to be soon forgot.

Other works by Mr. Pratt, not noticed in the above account, are “The Sublime and Beautiful of Scripture. Being Essays on select Passages of Sacred Compositions,” 1777. “An Apology for the Life and Writings of David Hume,” 1777. “Travels of the Heart, written in France,” 17 78,. 2 vols. “Observations on Young’s Night Thoughts,” 8vo. “Landscapes in Verse, taken in Spring,” 1785. “Miscellanies,” 1786, 4 vols. which included the most popular of the preceding pieces. “Triumph of Benevolence,” a poem, occasioned by the design of erecting a Monument to Mr. Howard. “Humanity, or the Rights of Nature,” a poem, 1788. “An Ode on his Majesty’s Recovery.” “A Letter to the Tars of Old England,” and “A Letter to the British Soldiers,” 1797. “John and Dame or, The Loyal Cottagers,” a poem, 1803. “Harvest Home, consisting of Supplementary Gleanings, Original Dramas and Poems, Contributions of Literary Friends, and Select Republications, including Sympathy, a poem, revised, corrected, and enlarged, from the eighth edition,” 1805, 3 vols. 8vo. “The Cabinet of Poetry, containing the best entire pieces which are to be found in the Works of the British Poets, from Milton to Beattie. The Works of each Poet prefaced by an Account of his Life and Character, by Mr. Pratt;” 6 vols. 1808. “The Contrast, a Poem, including Comparative Views of Britain, Spain, and France,” 1808. “The Lower World, a poem, in four books, with notes,” 1810. “A Description of Leamington Spa,” a retreat of Mr. Pratt’s, &c. To these we may add his “Gleanings,” or Travels Abroad and in England, in which there is some amusement, but so much mixture of fiction, that very little reliance can be placed on them for matters of fact. Mr. Pratt died Oct. 4, 1814, at his apartments in Colmore-row, Birmingham. He was unquestionably a man of genius, and a selection might be made from his works which would establish his reputation as a poet but his necessities seldom gave him time to polish and correct, and his vanity prompted him so often to become his own reviewer and his own panegyrist, that for some years before his death he sunk in respect with the public. There are no marks of learning in any of his performances and from the time he devoted himself to represent fiction on the stage, his general conduct was that of a man playing a part, or led through the adventures of a novel. It was to his praise, however, that in his latter days his works contained a more pure morality than some he had published at an earlier period of his life.

, a most celebrated Grecian sculptor, flourished, according to Pliny, in the 104th olympiad, that is, about 364 years before the Christian aera, He worked chiefly in Parian marble, to which he seemed to convey not only expression but animation. He was much attached to the beautiful Phryne, to whom he promised to give the very finest of his works, if she would select it. Not trusting to her own judgment in this matter, she contrived a stratagem, as Pausanias relates, to discover which he most esteemed. She ran to him in a pretended alarm, exclaiming that his workshop was on fire, when he immediately cried out, “If my Satyr and Cupid are not saved, I am ruined” Having thus learned his private thoughts, she took advantage of them in making her choice. His love for Phryne led him also to preserve her beauties by his art; and her statue, carved by him, stood afterwards in the temple at Deipni, between those of Archidamus king of Sparta, and Philip of Macedon. Grace and beauty prevailed in every work of Praxiteles and his statue of Venus clothed, which was bought by the inhabitants of Coos, was only surpassed by a naked figureof the same goddess, which was obtained by the Cnidians. It is uncertain whether any work of Praxiteles remains but an antique Cupid, formerly possessed by Isabella d'Este, of the ducal family of Mantua, was supposed to have been the production of his art.

, of the academy of sciences at Berlin, was born at Charenton Feb. 16, 1716. His attachment to the mathematics was so strong, that he opened a school at Paris, in 1740, where he taught them gratuitously, and formed several excellent scholars. But his temper was acrimonious and haughty, which created him so many enemies, that he quitted France for Bale, where he staid a year or two; and having wandered for some time in various cities of Germany, he finally settled at Berlin where, though he did not escape quarrels, he was Altogether successful, and became an author. He died at Berlin in 1767, at the age of fifty-one. His works are neither numerous nor very valuable. The best is, 1. His “Préservatifs cpntre la corruption de la langue Françoise en Allernagne.” He wrote also, 2. “La Monogamie, ou l'unité en Mariage,” 1751, 3 yols. 8vo a work of learning, but whimsical and tiresome. 3. “Le Diogene de l'Alembert;” not so singular as the preceding, but not better written, with some tendency to modern sophistry. 4. Several memoirs in the volumes of the academy at Berlin. He appears to have been in a great degree unsettled in his religious opinions; inclining at times to Socinianism, and the doctrines of fortuitous creation; at others producing strong suggestions in favour of religion.

a priest of the oratory, son of a Serjeant at Chalons-sur-Saone, was born in 1648. He went to Paris early in life, and, having finished his studies there, entered into the service of father Malebranche, who, finding he had a genius for the sciences, taught him mathematics, in which the young pupil made so rapid a progress, that, at the age of seventeen he published the first edition of his “Elemens de Mathematiques.” In the same year, 1675, he entered the congregation of the oratory, and taught mathematics with distinguished reputation, particularly at Angers. He died June 8, 1690, at Mechlin. The best edition of his “Elements,” is that of 1689, 2 vols. 4to. They contain many curious problems.

, a celebrated divine in the beginning of the seventeenth century, descended from the Prestons, of Preston in Lancashire, was born at Heyford, in Northamptonshire, in Oct. 1587. An uncle on the mother’s side, who resided at Northampton, undertook the care of his education, and placed him at first at the free-school of that town, and afterwards under a Mr. Guest, an able Greek scholar, who resided in Bedfordshire. With him he remained until 1584, when he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge. Here he applied to what his biographer tells us was at that time the genius of the college, viz. music, studied its theory, and practised on the lute but thinking this a waste of time, he would have applied himself to matters of more importance, could he have remained here, but as not coming from Eton school, he could not be upon the foundation. Being therefore incapable of preferment, he removed to Queen’s college, and by the instructions of Oliver Bowles, an able tutor, he soon became distinguished for his proficiency, especially in the philosophy of Aristotle, and took his degrees with uncommon reputation. Bowles leaving college for a living, his next tutor was Dr. Porter, who, astonished at his talents, recommended him to the notice of the master, Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, by whose influence ie was chosen fellow in 1609. This he appears to have thought rather convenient than honourable, for at this time his mind was much set on public life, and on rising at court. He continued, however, to pursue his studies, to which he now added that of medicine; and, although he did this probably without any view to it as a profession, we are told that when any of his pupils were sick, he sometimes took the liberty to alter the physicians’ prescriptions. Botany and astronomy, or rather astrology, also engrossed some part of his attention. But from all these pursuits he was at once diverted by a sermon preached at St. Mary’s by Mr. Cotton, which made such an impression on him, that he immediately resolved on the study of divinity, and began, as was then usual, by perusing the schoolmen. “There was nothing,” says his biographer, “that ever Scotus or Occam wrote, but he had weighed and examined; he delighted much to read them in the first and oldest editions that could be got. I have still a Scotus in a very old print, and a paper not inferior to parchment, that hath his hand and notes upon it throughout yet he continued longer in Aquinas whose sums he would sometimes read as the barber cut his hair, and when it fell upon the place be read, he would not lay down his book, but blow it off,”

While thus employed, king James paid a visit to Cambridge, and Dr. Harsnet, the vice-chancellor, “knowing well the critical and able apprehension of his majesty,” selected the ablest in every faculty to dispute, which was then a mode of entertaining royal visitors. Preston he selected to answer in the philosophy act, and there was a time when he would have been proud of the honour but his thoughts were now so much fixed on divinity, that the applause of kings and courts had no longer any charms. In the mean time a dispute arose about the place of answerer, which terminated in Mr. Preston’s being appointed first opponent. The account of this dispute, as given by Preston’s biographer, is so curious an illustration of the academical customs of the time, that we are persuaded no apology can be necessary for giving it in his own words. It exhibits king James also in one of his favourite characters.

"His (Mr. Preston’s) great and first care was to bring his argument unto a head, without affronts or interruptions from the answerer, and so made all his major propositions plausible and firm, that his adversary might neither be willing nor able to enter there, and the minor still was backed by other syllogisms, and so the argument went on unto the issue which fell out well for master Prestbn for in disputations of consequence, the answerers are many times so fearful of the event, that they slur and trouble the opponents all they can, and deny things evident, which had been the case in all the former acts there was such wrangling about their syllogisms, that sullied and clouded the dt bates extremely, and put the king’s acumen into straits but when master Preston still cleared his way, and nothing was denied, but what was ready to be proved, the king was greatly satisfied, and gave good heed, which he might well do, because the question was tempered and fitted unto his content namely, Whether dogs could make syllogisms

"The opponent urged that they could an Enthymeme (said he) is a lawful and real syllogism, but dogs can make them he instanced in an hound who had the major proposition in his mind, namely, ‘the hare is gone either this or that way’ smells out the minor with his nose, namely, ‘she is not gone that way,’ and follows the conclusion, ‘Ergo, this way with open mouth.’ The instance suited the auditory, and was applauded and put the answerer to his distinctions, that dogs might have sagacity but not sapience, in things especially of prey, and that did concern their belly, might be nasutuli, but not logici had much in their mouths, little in their minds, unless it had relation to their mouths that their lips were larger than their understandings which the opponent, still endeavouring to wipe off with another syllogism, and put the dogs upon a fresh scent, the moderator, Dr. Reade, began to be afraid, and to think how troublesome a pack of hounds, well followed and applauded, at last might prove, and so came to the answerer’s aid, and told the opponent that his dogs, he did believe, were very weary, and desired him to take them off, and start some other argument and when the opponent would not yield, but halloed still and put them on, he interposed his authority, and silenced him. The king in his conceit was all the while upon Newmarket heath, and iiked the sport, and therefore stands up, and tells the moderator plainly he was not satisfied in all that had been answered, but did believe an hound had more in him than was imagined. I had myself (said he) a dog, that straggling far from all his fellows, had light upon a very fresh scent, but considering he was all alone, and had none to second and assist him in it, observes the place, and goes away unto his fellows, and by such yelling arguments as they best understand, prevailed with a party of them to go along with him, and bringing them unto the place, pursued it into an open view. Now the king desired for to know how this could be contrived and carried on without the use and exercise of understanding, or what the moderator could have done in that case better; and desired him that either he would think better of his dogs, or not so highly of himself.

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

Such, however, was Mr. Preston’s weight at this time that it was recommended to the duke of Buckingham by all means to patronize him, and thus do an act highly acceptable to the puritans who might prove his grace’s friends, in case his other friends should fail. The duke accordingly applied in his behalf to the king, who still demurred, but at last fancied that his favours to Preston might have a different effect from what the duke meditated. The duke wished to court him, as the head of a party; the king thought that by giving him preferment, he should detach him from that party. In this conflict of motives, it occurred to some of Mr. Preston’s friends that it would be preferable to appoint him chaplain to the prince (afterwards Charles I.), who now was grown up and had a household. Sir Ralph Freeman, a relation of Mr. Preston’s, suggested this to the duke, who immediately sent for the latter, and receiving him with such a serious air as he thought would be acceptable, told him that the prince and himself having the misfortune to be absent when he preached, would be obliged to him for a copy of his sermon, and entreated him to believe that he would be always ready to serve him to the best and utmost of his power. The sermon was accordingly written out in a fair hand, and presented, and the preacher having been introduced to the prince, was formally admitted one of his six chaplains in ordinary.

About the time that Mr. Preston was thus honoured, Dr. Dunn, the preacher of Lincoln’s-inn, died, and the place was offered to our author, and accepted by him, as he could now “have an opportunity of exercising his ministry to a considerable and intelligent congregation, where, he was assured, many parliament men, and others of his best acquaintance, would be his hearers, and where in term-time he should be well accommodated.” His usual popularity followed him here, yet he was not so much reconciled to the situation as he would have been to a similar one at Cambridge. There he would have students for his hearers who would propagate the gospel, which he thought the lawyers were not likely to do; and his Cambridge friends seemed to be of the same opinion, and wished him again among them. To promote this object, some of the fellows of Emanuel college endeavoured to prevail upon their master, Dr. Chaderton, who was old, and “had outlived many of those great relations which he had before,” to resign, in which case they hoped to procure Mr. Preston to succeed him, who was “a good man, and yet a courtier, the prince’s chaplain, and very gracious with the duke of Buckingham.” Two obstacles presented themselves to this design; the one Dr. Chaderton’s unwillingness to be laid aside without some provision for his old age; and the second, their dread lest some person might procure a mandate to succeed who was disagreeable to them, and might be injurious to the interests of the college that had flourished under Dr. Chaderton’s management. This last apprehension they represented to him in such a manner that, after some hesitation, he entered into their views, and desired that Mr. Preston might employ his interest with his court-friends to prevent any mandate being granted, and likewise to secure some provision for himself. Accordingly by a letter from the duke of Buckingham addressed to Dr. Chaderton, dated Sept. 20, 1622, we find that both these objects were attained, and Mr. Preston admitted master of Kmanuel before the news had transpired of his predecessor’s resignation. When his promotion became known, it affected the two parties into which the kingdom was then divided according to their different views. The puritans were glad that “honest men were not abhorred as they had been at court,” and the courtiers thought him now in a fair way of being their own. All considered him as a rising man, and respected him accordingly, and the benchers of Lincoln’sInn, whose preacher he still continued, took some credit to themselves for having been the first who expressed their good opinion of him. Such indeed was his consequence, that even the college statutes, which seemed an insuperable objection to his holding both places, were so interpreted by the fellows as to admit of his repairing to London at the usual periods. He now took his degree of D. D. The object of the courtiers, we have already observed, was to detach Dr. Preston from the puritans, of which he was considered as the head. They were therefore much alarmed on hearing that he had been offered the lectureship of Trinity-church Cambridge, which was in future to be dreaded as the head-quarters of puritanism. So much was it an object to prevent this, that the matter was seriously debated not only by the duke of Buckingham, but by the king himself; but here again their private views clashed. The duke, although he endeavoured to dissuade Dr. Preston from accepting this lectureship, and offered him the bishopric of Gloucester, then vacant, in its stead, would not otherwise exert himself against the doctor. because he would not lose him while the king, having no other object than wholly to detach him from the puritans, sent his secretary to inform him that if he would give up this lectureship, any preferment whatever was at his service. Dr. Preston, however, whose object, as his biographer says, “was to do good, and not to get good,” persisted, and: was appointed lecturer, and the king could not conceal his displeasure that Buckingham still sided with him.

Dr. Preston happened to be at Theobalds, in attendance as chaplain, when king James died, and on this melancholy occasion had many interviews both with the duke of Buckingham, and the prince; and as soon as the event was announced, went to London in the same coach with his new sovereign and the duke, and appeared to be in high favour; but the duke was ultimately disappointed in his hopes of support from Dr. Preston and his friends. In a public conference Dr. Preston disputed against the Arminian doctrines in a manner too decided to be mistaken; and when on this account he found his influence at court abate, he repaired to his college, until finding his end approaching, he removed to Preston, near Heyford in his native county, where he died in July 1628, in the forty-first year of his age. His remains were deposited in Fausley church. Fuller, who has classed him among the learned writers of Queen’s college, says, “he was all judgment and gravity, and the perfect master of his passions, an excellent preacher, a celebrated disputant, and a perfect politician.” Echard styles him “the most celebrated of the puritans,” and copies the latter part of what Fuller had said. He wrote various pious tracts, all of which, with his Sermons, were published after his death. The most noted of these works is his “Treatise on the Covenant,” 1629, 4U).

, an English dramatic writer, who flourished in the earlier part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was first M. A. and fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, and afterwards created a doctor of civil law, and master of Trinity-hall in the same university, over which he presided about fourteen years, and died in 1598. In 1564, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Cambridge, this gentleman acted so admirably well in the Latin tragedy of Dido, composed by John Ritvvise, one of the fellows of King’s college, and disputed so agreeably before her majesty, that as a testimonial of her approbation, she be* stowed a pension of twenty pounds per annum upon him; nor was she less pleased with him on hearing his disputations with Mr. Cartwright, and called him “her scholar,” and gave him her band to kiss. The circumstance of the pension Mr. Steevens supposes to have been ridiculed by Shakspeare in the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” at the conclusion of act the fourth. On the 6th of Sept. 1566, when the Oxonian Muses, in their turn, were honoured with a visit from their royal mistress, Preston, with eight more Cantabrigians, were incorporated masters of arts in the university of Oxford. Mr. Preston wrote one dramatic piece, in the old metre, entitled “A Lamentable Tragedy full of pleasant Mirth, conteyning the Life of Cambises King of Percia, from the beginning of his Kingdome unto his Death, his one good Deed of Execution after the many wicked Deeds and tyrannous Murders committed by and through him, and last of all, his odious Death by God’s Justice appointed, doon on such Order as folio weth.” This performance Langbaine informs us, Shakspeare meant to ridicule, when, in his play of Henry IV. part i. act 2. he makes Falstaff talk of speaking “in king Cambyses’ vein.” In proof of which conjecture, he has given his readers as a quotation from the beginning of the play, a speech of king Cambyses himself.

, was born at Hesdin, a small town in the province of Artois, in 1697. He studied with the Jesuits, but soon relinquished that society for the army, into which he entered as a volunteer, but being disappointed in his views of promotion, he returned to the Jesuits. Still, however, his attachment to the military service seems to have been predominant for he soon left the college again, and a second time became a soldier. As an officer he acquired distinction, and some years passed away in the bustle and dissipation of a military life. At length, the unhappy consequence of an amour induced him to return to France, and seek retirement among the Benedictines of St. Maur, in the monastery of St. Germain des Pres, where he continued a few years. Study, and a monastic life, could not, however, entirely subdue his passions. Recollection of former pleasures probably inspired a desire again to enjoy them in the world. He took occasion, from a trifling disagreement, to leave the monastery, to break his vows, and renounce his habit. Having retired to Holland in 1729, he sought resources in his talents, with success. In the monastery at St. Germain, he had written the two first parts of his “Memoires d'un Homme de Qualite.” The work was soon finished, and, when it was published, contributed no less to his emolument than his reputation. A connexion which he had formed at the Hague with an agreeable woman, and which was thought to have exceeded the boundaries of friendship, furnished a subject of pleasantry to the abbe Lenglet, the Zoilus of his time. In his journal entitled “Pour & Centre,” Prevot thus obviates the censure “This Medoro,” says he, speaking of himself, “so favoured by the fair, is a man of thirty-seven or thirty-eight years, who bears in his countenance and in his humour the traces of his former chagrin who passes whole weeks without going out of his closet, and who every day employs seven or eight hours in study; who seldom seeks occasions for enjoyment, who even rejects those that are offered, and prefers an hour’s conversation with a sensible friend, to all those amusements which are called pleasures of the world, and agreeable recreation. He is, indeed, civil, in consequence of a good education, but little addicted to gallantry of a mild but melancholy temper; in fine, sober, and regular in his conduct.”

Whether the accusations of his enemies were true or not, there were reasons which obliged him to pass over into England at the end of 1733, and the lady followed him. There, according to Palissot, he wrote the first volumes of “Cleveland.” The first part of his “Pour & Contre,” was published this year, a journal which brought down upon him the resentment of many authors whose works he had censured. His faults were canvassed, and perhaps exaggerated; all his adventures were brought to the public view, and related, probably, not without much misrepresentation. His works, however, having established his reputation, procured him protectors in France. He solicited and obtained permission to return. Returning to Paris in the autumn of 1734, he assumed the habit of an abbé. Palissot dates this period as the epoch in which his literary fame commenced but it is certain, that three of his most popular romances had been published before that time. He now lived in tranquillity under the protection of the prince of Conti, who gave him the title of his almoner and secretary, with an establishment that enabled him to pursue his studies. By the desire of chancellor d'Aguesseau, he undertook a general history of voyages, of which the first volume appeared in 1745. The success of his works, the favour of the great, the subsiding of the passions, a calm retreat, and literary leisure, seemed to promise a serene and peaceful old age. But a dreadful accident put an end to this tranquillity, and the fair prospect which had opened before him was closed by the hand of death. To pass the evening of his days in peace, and to finish in retirement three great works which he had undertaken, he had chosen and prepared an agreeable recess at Firmin near Chantilly. On the 23d of Nov. 1763, he was discovered by some peasants in an apoplectic fit, in the forest of Chantilly. A magistrate was called in, who unfortunately ordered a surgeon immediately to open the body, which was apparently dead. A loud shriek from the victim of this culpable precipitation, convinced the spectators of their error. The instrument was withdrawn, but not before it had touched the vital parts. The unfortunate abbé opened his eyes, and expired.

, in Latin Pricæus, a learned writer, originally of a Welsh family, was born in 1600 at London. He was brought up at Westminster-school, whence in, 1617 he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford. He made >grcat proficiency in learning, and was esteemed one of the ablest critics of his day, but espoused the Roman catholic religion which for some time he appears to have concealed. On leaving college he was entertained in the earl of Arundel’s family, with which he travelled into Italy, and there was made doctor of law?. On his return to England, he became acquainted with the earl of Strafford, who 'being pleased with his talents and learning, took him with him to Ireland, where he likewise became acquainted with archbishop Usher, and was one of his correspondents, their biblical studies forming a bond of union. When his noble patron was prosecuted, Dr. Price shared in his misfortunes, and returned to England in 1640. During the rebellion he endeavoured to support the royal cause by his pen, and wrote several pamphlets, for which he was imprisoned for a considerable time. After his release he went abroad, and took up his residence in Florence, where the grand duke made him superintendant of his museum, which was then One of the finest in Europe. By the interest of this prince, he was appointed Greek professor at Pisa, and filled that office with great reputation. Resigning it, however, probably owing to bad health, he went to Venice, with a view to publish Hesychius’s Lexicon, but not succeeding in the design, he went to Rome, and was entertained by cardinal Francis Barberini. When advanced in years, he retired to St. Augustine’s convent at Rome, where he died in 1676, aged seventy-six. His works are 1. “Notoe et observationes in apologiam L. Apuleii Madaurensis, philosophi Platonici,” Paris, 1635, 4to. These are to be found in the Gouda edition of Apuleius, 1650, 8vo, but the original is very scarce. 2. “Matthaeus, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustratus,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 3. “Annotationes in epist. Jacobi,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 4. “Acta Apostolorum, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustrata,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. 5. “Index Scriptorum, qui in Hesychii Graeco vocabulario laudantur, confectus et alphabetico ordine dispositus,” 1668. See Schrevelius’s Lexicon at the end. 6. “Comment, in varios Novi Test. Hbros,” inserted in the 5th vol. of the “Critici Sacri.” Dr. Price is praised by Sarravius, in his letters by archbishop Usher on St. Ignatius’s epistles by Heinsius, in an epistle to Carlo Dati by Selden more than once, in the second book “de Synedriis Ebraeorum” by Vossius, in his “Harmonia Evangelica” by Morus, in his notes on the New Testament by Redi, in his treatise on the Generation of Insects but especially by Axenius on Phaedrus.

, an eminent dissenting minister and political writer, was born Feb. 23, 1723, at Tynton, in the parish of Langeinor, in Glamorganshire. His father, who was many years minister of a dissenting congregation at Bridgend in the same county, intended him for trade, but gave him a good education, in the course of which, however, he became dissatisfied with his son’s departure from his own views of religion, which were Calvinistic. He died in 1739, while his son was a scholar at a seminary at Talgarth, and a scholar of more than ordinary thinking. In 1740 we are told that he first engaged in studying Butler’s “Analogy,” a work which never ceased to be the subject of his praise and admiration. In his eighteenth year, by the advice of his paternal uncle, the rev, Samuel Price, who officiated as co-pastor with the celebrated Dr. Watts, he was removed to a dissenting academy in London, founded by Mr. Coward, and of which Mr. Eames was at that time the principal tutor, where he devoted his whole time with “ardour and delight” as he used to say, to the study of mathematics, philosophy, and theology. On completing his course of education, he was removed, by the recommendation of his uncle, to Stoke Newington, and resided there for near thirteen years, in the family of a Mr. Streatfield, as his chaplain and companion.

While in this place, he occasionally officiated in different congregations, particularly at Dr. Chandler’s meetinghouse in the Old Jewry, where he seemed to acquire considerable popularity; but Dr. Chandler having advised him to be less energetic in his manner, and to deliver his discourses with more diffidence and modesty, Mr. Price ran into the opposite extreme of a cold and lifeless delivery, which naturally injured his popularity. During the latter end of his residence at Mr. Streatfield’s, he officiated principally at Edmonton, till he was chosen to be morning preacher at Newington Green. By the death of Mr. Streatfield, and also of his uncle, which happened in 1756, his circumstances were considerably improved; the former having bequeathed him a legacy in money, and the latter a house in Leadenhall-street, and some other property, but not so much as it was supposed he would have left him, if he had not offended him, as he had done his father, by the freedom of his sentiments on certain religious doctrines, particularly that of the Trinity. In 1757 he married Miss Sarah Blundell, and in 1758 removed to Newington Green, in order to be near his congregation. Previous to his leaving Hackney he published his “Review of the principal questions and difficulties in Morals,” of which he revised a third edition for the press in 1787. This gave him considerable reputation as a metaphysician. During the first years of his residence at Newington Green, he devoted himself almost wholly to the composition of sermons, and to his pastoral duties; but in 1762, as his hearers were few, he was induced, from the hope of being more extensively useful, to accept an invitation to succeed Dr. Benson as evening preacher in Poor Jewry-lane. Even here, however, he acquired no additional number of hearers, which discouraged him so much, that he had determined to give up preaching altogether, from an idea that his talents were totally unfit for the office of a public speaker. Regarding himself, therefore, as incapable of giving effect to his moral instructions by delivering them from the pulpit, he consoled himself with the hope of rendering them useful to the world by conveying them in another manner. With this view he formed the sermons which he had preached on private prayer into a dissertation on that subject, which he published in 1767, along with three other " Dissertations,' 7 on providence, miracles, and the junction of virtuous men in* a future state. These dissertations procured him the acquaintance of the first marquis of Lansdowne, then earl of Shelburne, which began in 1769, and continued for some time before Mr. Price had ever written on political subjectsbut was probably more firmly established in consequence of those publications.

Having officiated near fourteen years at Newington Green without any hope of ever becoming extensively useful in that situation, he was the more easily induced to accept an invitation to succeed Mr. Law, as morning preacher at the Gravel-Pit meeting-house in Hackney, but consented to officiate as afternoon preacher at Newington Green, and in consequence resigned that service at Poor Jewry-lane. Although his audience at Hackney was much more numerous than in either of the above places, yet during the first four or five years of his ministry, it increased very slowly “and,” says his biographer, “it is probable that neither the excellence of his discourses, nor the impressive manner in which they were delivered, would have made any great addition to his hearers, had not other causes of a very different nature concurred to render him popular.”

Mr. Price had hitherto confined his studies almost exclusively to moral and religious subjects, and had long considered his profession as excluding him from taking any part in the temporal affairs of this world but from this opinion he now began gradually to depart, and first bestowed a share of his attention on philosophical studies, which produced many valuable papers inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of the Royal Society of London, of which he had been chosen a fellow in 1765. So intent was his mind in one of his investigations, that we are told, the colour of his hair, which was naturally black, became changed in different parts of his head into spots of perfect white. In 1769 he published his valuable “Treatise on Reversionary Payments,” which contained, among a variety of other matters, the solution of many questions in the doctrine of annuities; schemes for establishing societies for the benefit of age and widows on just principles; and an exposure of the inadequacy of the societies of this kind which were continually forming in London and other parts of the kingdom. Altogether this was perhaps his most useful performance. About the end of 1769, the university of Glasgow, conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, without any solicitation or knowledge on his own part, but, as his biographer candidly acknowledges, in consequence of the application of some of his clerical friends in Londo.n, who paid the usual fees, and left him to suppose that the honour was entirely gratuitous.

This work was followed in 1772 by his <c Appeal to the public on the National Debt, 77 the principal object of which was to restore the sinking fund which had been extinguished in 1733; and although the proposition then met with much opposition, we have lived to see it adopted by parliament, and become one of the chief bulwarks of our public credit. We have also lived to see that the view he took of public affairs, and his dread of a lessened population, which he represented in the most gloomy colours, were not founded on facts, nor have been confirmed by experience. The same opinions, with others of a more general kind, led him to oppose the measures which ended in a war with America. In 1775 he published “Observations on Civil Liberty and the Justice and Policy of the War with America, 77 which was followed, in the same spirit, in 1777, by another pamphlet entitled” Observations on the Nature of Civil Government. 77 The principles of both these works encountered a variety of opinions, being both extravagantly praised and censured: by some esteemed without fault; while by others they are deemed visionary and chimerical, mischievous in their theory, and tending in their effect to the unhinging of all government That their influence was very great, cannot be denied but that their author was firmly persuaded of their usefulness, seems to be generally believed by those who have had the best opportunities of knowing his sentiments. For writing this last pamphlet, he had the honour to receive the thanks of the Court of common-council the 14th of March, 1776, as having laid down those principles upon which alone the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain over her Colonies could be justly or beneficially maintained and for holding forth those public objects without which it must be totally indifferent to the kingdom who were in or who were out of power. At the same time he also received a gold box of the value of fifty pounds.

With these two pamphlets he had determined to take no further part in the political contentions of that period; but, his biographer observes, he certainly mistook the disposition of his own mind. Whenever therefore government appointed a fast, he considered it more as a political than a religious ordinance, and always took an opportunity on that day, to deliver his sentiments on the conduct of the war, and on the evil consequences which were likely to result from it. This insured him at least one overflowing congregation in the year, for curiosity brought foes as well as friends to hear him on such occasions. But of all those discourses, he only published two which he delivered on the fast days in 1779 and 1781. So many exertions in behalf of America procured him an invitation from the congress to “come and reside among a people who knew how to appreciate his talents,” but this he thought proper to decline. In 1779 he published an “Essay on the population of England,” which, being founded on incorrect information, was in proportion incorrect in its conclusions.

But finance and politics were not the only subjects which at this period engaged Dr. Price’s time and attention. In consequence of Dr. Priestley’s disquisitions on matter and spirit, which had been just published, he was led to make some observations on those parts which did not accord with his own sentiments. This produced an amicable correspondence between them, published under the title of “A free discussion of the Doctrines of Materialism and Philosophical Necessity.” About the same time he addressed some important observations to the “Society for Equitable Assurances,” in an introduction to a work by his nephew, Mr. Morgan, on “The Doctrine of Annuities.” The value of his and his nephew’s services to that society is universally acknowledged.

When, after the war ended, lord Shelburne came into administration, in consequence of the death of the marquis of Rockingham, his lordship very gravely offered Dr. Price the place of private secretary but, his biographer adds, “his lordship surely could not be in earnest in making such an offer. It was no doubt meant as a compliment, and the simplicity of Dr. Price considered it in that light, though, as a friend observed, the minister might as well have proposed to make him master of the horse.” During the time, however, that lord Shelburne was in office, he sought the assistance of Dr. Price in forming a scheme for paying off the national debt, and moved an introductory resolution on that subject in the House of Lords; but, upon his leaving administration, the scheme was abandoned. It was, howeVer, communicated to the public by Dr Price in a treatise, entitled “The State of the public Debts and Finances, at signing the preliminary Articles of Peace in January 1783; with a plan for raising Money by public Loans, and for redeeming the public Debts.” After this, when Mr. Pitt determined to introduce a bill into parliament for liquidating the national debt, he applied to Dr. Price for his advice on the subject, and received from him three separate plans one of which now forms the foundation of that act for reducing the public debt, which was established in 1786, and has contributed, more than any other, or all other measures, to raise the credit of his administration. The friends of Dr. Price, however, offer two objections on this subject; the one that the plan Mr. Pitt adopted was the least efficient of the three; the other, that he did not publicly acknowledge his obligations to Dr. Price.

In 1784 Dr. Price published “Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, and the Means of making it useful to the World;” to which are added a letter from M. Turgot, and the last will of M. Fortune Ilicard, which exhibits an amusing, and rather humorous application of Dr. Price’s account of the powers of compound interest, and the uses to which it may be applied for the benefit of mankind. In 1786 he published a volume of sermons, partly on practical, and partly on doctrinal subjects in the latter he states, and defends with animation and zeal, the Arian hypothesis, to which he himself was attached, against Trinitarians on the one hand, and modern Unitarians on the other. He always felt hurt, we are told, at the conduct of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsay, in assuming to themselves and their sect exclusively, the appellation of Unitarians, which belongs equally to Jews and Mahometans, and in treating with so much contumely the opinions of those who differed from them. As to the practical sermons in this volume, they were very generally approved. The subjects are, the security and happiness of a virtuous course, the goodness of God, and the resurrection of Lazarus.

The other publications of Dr. Price, which chiefly attracted notice, were, a Sermon on “The Evidence of a future period of Improvement in the State of Mankind, with the means and duty of promoting it, delivered to the supporters of the new Academical Institution among Protestant Dissenters,” in 1787; and his “Discourse on the Love of our Country,” preached the 4th of November, 1789, before the society for commemorating the revolution of 1688 in Great Britain. In this last discourse Dr. Price displayed his accustomed zeal for the great principles of civil and religious liberty; and towards the conclusion of it, he adverted with triumph to the revolution in France, which he thought the beginning of a new aera of happiness to the world. How much he was deceived in this, need not be told; nor the consequence of his sermon, in producing the memorable controversy in which Mr. Burke took the lead *.

Dr. Price was now drawing hastily to his end. He had in 1786 lost his lady, and in February 1791 he was seized with a fever, the effects of a severe cold, caught while attending the funeral of a friend; from the effects of this he was gradually recovering, when he was attacked with a

* To read any of the invectives presses himself in terms of contempt against Mr. Burke, one would suppose in regard to the French revolution he was the only human being who and after asking rather too severely looked with an evil eye on the French what good was to be expected from a Revolution. But Dr. Price’s biogra- nation of atheists, he concludes with pher has found another among Dr. foretelling the destruction of a million Price’s intimate correspondents, and of human beings as a probable conno less a pereonage than John Adams, sequence of it. Such a letter, in our the late American ambassador. In opinion, outweighs an hundred of those a loug letter which he wrote to Dr. which Dr. Price received at this time Price at this- time, so far from congra- from his enlightened friends in France, tulating him on the occasion, he exsevere and very painful disorder, by which he had been many years threatened. This he bore with fortitude and resignation, though occasionally his spirits and strength were entirely exhausted by the agonies which he endured. He died on the nineteenth of March, 1791, in the sixtyeighth year of his age, and was interred in Bunhill-fields burying-ground, the funeral being followed by a great concourse of his friends and admirers, to whom he had long been endeared by his private as well as public character. His manners were peculiarly amiable, and whoever was admitted to his conversation, or even perused his works, could not avoid being struck by contrasting his mild and placid temper with that of some of the controversial writers with whom he generally co-operated. He was for many years one of the trustees to the estates of the late Dr. Daniel Williams, which is the most important concern belonging to the London Dissenters. During the applications of the dissenting ministers to parliament, from 1772 to 1779, for relief from subscription to the articles of the church of England, required by the act of Toleration, he was chosen one of the committee appointed to concert and pursue the necessary measures for obtaining that object; but when he found that it could not be obtained without a declaration of faith in the Holy Scriptures, which he contended the civil magistrate had no right to demand, he divided with a small minority of his brethren against the rest of the committee, refusing an enlargement of religious liberty on terms which, according to their views of things, and according to the true principles of dissent, implied submission to the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of conscience, to whom, in matters of this kind, they owed no obedience whatever. In 1783 the degree of LL. D. was conferred upon him by Yale college, in Connecticut, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of the American Philosophical Societies at Philadelphia and Boston. In 1786, when a new academical institution among the dissenters was established at Hackney, Dr. Price was appointed tutor in the higher branches of the mathematics but soon found himself incapable of attending to the duties, of this office, and therefore resigned it the second year. He approved the plan, however, and, says his biographer, “from the circumstance of his having bequeathed a small legacy towards its support, died inconscious of the ignorance and folly which were accelerating its destruction.” Among Dr. Price’s numerous correspondents were, the marquis of Lansdowne, the earls Chatham and Stanhope the bishops of Carlisle, St. Asaph, and Llandaff; Mr. Harris, the author of Philosophical Arrangements, &c. Mr. Howard, Dr. Franklin, the duke de Rochefoucault, the celebrated Turgot, and several of the most distinguished members of the first national assembly.

The value of the political and religious works of Dr. Price, says our predecessor in this work, men will estimate differently, as they happen to be infected or not by those principles, which, by exaggerating the true and excellent doctrines of liberty, have proved, in the present age, the bane of Christianity, and the scourge of human nature. That he was sincere and well-intentioned in his adoption and recommendation of them, there is not any reason to doubt. As a calculator on political questions, when he did not take up his data from partial documents, which flattered his preconceived opinions, he was acute, profound, and able.

, an eminent lawyer and judge, was the son of Thomas Price, esq of Geeler in Denbighshire, and born in the parish of Kerigy Druidion, Jan. 14, 1653. After an education at the grammar-school of Wrexham, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for his profession, left the university without taking a degree, and entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn about 1673. In 1677 he made what was called the grand tour, in company with the earl of Lexington, and lady and sir John Meers. When at Florence, we are told that he was apprehended, and some law-books taken from him; and his copy of “Coke upon Littleton” being supposed, by some ignorant officer, to be an English heretical Bible, Mr. Price was carried before the pope where he not only satisfied his holiness as to this work, but made "him a present of it, and the pope ordered it to be deposited in the Vatican library. In 1679 he returned, and married a lady of fortune; from whom, after some years’ cohabitation, he found it necessary to be separated, on account of the violence of her temper. In 1682 he was chosen member of parliament for Weobly in Herefordshire, and gave nis hote against the bill of exclusion. The same year he was made attorney-general for South Wales, elected an alderman for the city of Hereford, and the year following was chosen recorder of Radnor. His high reputation for knowledge and integrity procured him the office of steward to the queen dowager (relict of Charles II.) in 1684; he was also chosen townclerk of the city of Gloucester; and, in 1686, king’s counsel at Ludlow. Being supposed to have a leaning towards the exiled family, he was, after the revolution, removed from tn*e offices of attorney-general for South Wales and town-clerk of Gloucester. In resentment for this affront, as his biographer insinuates, or from a more patriotic motive, he opposed king William’s grant of certain lands in Wales to his favourite, earl of Portland, and made a memorable speech on this occasion in the House of Commons; the consequence of which was, that the grant was rejected.

Although it might have been expected that king William would have, in his turn, resented this conduct of Mr. Price, yet he appears not only to have acquiesced in the decision of parliament, but knowing Mr. Price’s abilities as a lawyer, made him, in 1700, a judge of Brecknock circuit. After sitting in parliament for Weobly from 1682 to 1702, he resigned his seat in favour of his son Thomas, and was made serjeant-at-law, and one of the barons of the exchequer. In this character he distinguished himself in the memorable case of the Coventry election, in 1706, defending the conduct of the magistrates who had called in the aid of the military, not to influence the election, but to suppress a riot which tended to destroy its freedom. In 1710, as his fortune was considerably increased by his preferment, he built an alms-house at the place of his birth for six poor people, and amply endowed it.

On the accession of George I. in 1714, the baron was continued in his office, although not employed in the judicial proceedings against the rebels in 1716. On the memorable quarrel between the king and the prince of Wales (afterwards George II.) which led to a question respecting the care and education of the prince’s children, Mr. baron Price and Mr. justice Eyre had the courage to maintain an opinion contrary to that of the king. As he advanced in life, he procured an exchange of his seat on the Exchequer bench for one in the Common Pleas, the duties of which, he was told, would be easier. This was effected in 1726 but the consequences were the reverse of what he expected for his reputation brought so many suitors into the Common Pleas, that he had more business than ever. He continued, however, to perform his duties with unremitting assiduity, and with great reputation, untii his death, at Kensington, Jan 2, 1732, in the 79th year of his age. His remains were interred at Weobly church, in Herefordshire. He bore the reputation of a man of very considerable abilities, and inflexible integrity, and, as appears by the few circumstances we have related, was certainly a man of independent spirit and courage.

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

He now devoted himself entirely to his studies and the duties of his function, going constantly to Bladen and Woodstock every Sunday; and he kept a resident curate at Woodstock, for the discharge of all parochial duties; for whose convenience, as well as that of his successors, Dr. Fell, now bishop of Oxford, built, at his own expence, a house. The terms of the purchase and building he left to Mr. Prideaux, who completed it in 1685. In college he exerted himself in reforming many abuses, and restoring discipline, which was not very acceptable to many of "the students, but procured him the friendship and esteem of his learned contemporaries at the university, particularly bishop Fell and Drs. Pocock, Marshall, Bernard, Mills, Godolphin, &c. On the death of bishop Fell, when king James imposed a popish dean on Christ Church, Mr. Prideaux determined to quit Oxford, and settle on his cures; and accordingly, having, in 1686, proceeded doctor in divinity, he exchanged his living of Bladen for the rectory of Saham. in Norfolk, and then left Oxford, to which he never returned. A few days before this he attended the funeral of his revered friend, Dr. Fell.

When he came to settle at Norwich, such was his reputation for judgment and integrity, that the whole management of the affairs of the cathedral was committed to him, and throughout life he was concerned in placing them in a much better situation than he found them, great irregularities having prevailed in the keeping of the accounts, and the registers and other documents belonging to the church being much neglected. All these he sought out, examined, and arranged in a proper manner; and ordered, from time, to time, some very necessary repairs in the church. He was also, soon after his arrival here, engaged in a controversy with the popish party, whose emissaries, taking encouragement from the conduct of king James II. were now more than usually industrious. Those who had visited Norfolk, particularly, insisted on the invalidity of the orders of the church of England “for, having no priesthood, we could have no sacraments, and consequently could be no church nor could salvation he had among us.” In reply to this, Dr. Prideaux published a work entitled “The Validity of the Orders of the Church of England made out against the objections of the papists in several letters to a gentleman of Norwich, &c.” 1688, 8vo reprinted in 1715. He also preached in the cathedral against several of the tenets of popery, at a time when many of his brethren were intimidated by the determination of the king to establish that religion. One good effect of this was, that his brethren caught a portion of his spirit, and handled the same subjects in their respective churches; and, by other seasonable measures, the mischief was delayed until the abdication of the king; and the consequent proceedings upon that important event dispelled the fears of the friends of the protestant religion.

In December of this year (1688) Dr. Prideaux was collated to the archdeaconry of Suffolk by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich. In May 1689 he made his first visitation of his archdeaconry; and the new oaths to government being then the general subject of debate among the clergy, his chief business was to give the best satisfaction he could to those who had any doubts about them which he performed with such success, that out of three hundred parishes, there were only three clergymen in all that jurisdiction who refused to take them, In the winter following he attended the convocation, which was called to consider of alterations and amendments of the liturgy, the canons, ordinances, and constitutions, the reformation of the ecclesiastical courts, &c. &c. but, after sitting ten days, no progress was made in any of these measures, and the convocation was. adjourned. Dr. Prideaux, who was of opinion that many alterations in the liturgy were necessary, wrote a pamphlet on the subject, entitled “ALetter to a Friend, relating to the present Convocation at Westminster,” of which several thousands were sold within a fortnight.

After this he quitted Norwich, and resided at his parsonage at Sahara, in which church he officiated every morning and afternoon throughout the four years that he lived there, unless when keeping his two months’ residence at Norwich, or, visiting his archdeaconry, which he did constantly twice a year, until unable to bear the journey in consequence of the stone, a disorder he had already contracted, and which at last proved fatal to him. A favourite topic in his visitations was the duty of private prayer in the families of the clergy, which he urged by every argument and told them, that when visiting, if there was any house where the dwellers refused to hear them perform family-worship, that was no house for a clergyman to make his abode in.

In the first session of parliament after the new bishops (appointed in the room of those who refused to take the oaths to government) made their appearance, two bills were brought into the House of Lords, relating to the church, in both of which Dr. Prideaux was concerned the first was to take away pluralities of benefices, the other to prevent clandestine marriages. Bishop Burnet intended to introduce the first, but submitted it previously to Dr, Prideaux, who drew up a bill, which all the prelates friendly to the measure thought would be less liable to objection, and therefore it was brought into the House, but rejected the other, to prevent clandestine marriages, was introduced by one of the peers and its object was, to make it felony in the minister who should solemnize or officiate at such marriage. This matter being warmly debated, Dr. Kidder, then bishop of Bath and Wells, wrote to Dr. Prideaux, desiring his opinion on it. The doctor, in a very long letter, proved that the ecclesiastical laws were already sufficient to prevent clandestine marriages, if only carried into execution and stated, by what means, all the precautions provided in these laws had been evaded by the avarice of chancellors, comnjissaries, and registrars. He added that, as the bill stood, it could have no other effect than to subject the clergy to be tried for their lives every marriage they solemnized. Kidder, who had made vise of this paper in the debate which ended in withdrawing the bill, immediately. sent it to the press; and the week following, to Dr. Prideaux’s great surprize, he received a printed copy of it from the bishop, who however had not put his name to it.

In 1691, on the death of Dr. Pocock, his professorship (of Hebrew) was offered to Dr. Prideaux but he declined it, says his biographer, “for several reasons, which at that time made it inconvenient to him to accept it, but afterwards it proved much to his detriment that he did not.” As after the act of toleration, many people imagined themselves at liberty either to go to church or stay at home, as they thought proper, by which means the churches were much deserted, Dr. Prideaux drew up a circular letter, directed to the ministers of his archdeaconry, which was afterwards published, in 1701, at the end of his “Directions to Churchwardens.” In 1694, rinding his health impaired by the aguish air of Saham, he determined to return again with his family to Norwich but, instead of putting in a curate at Saham, he thought it his duty to give up both benefice and office, which he accordingly did, into the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and informed the warden and fellows of New college, Oxford, the patrons of the living, of his resignation. On his return to Norwich, the care of the cathedral affairs again devolved upon him, in the absence of the dean (Dr. Fairfax), who resided mostly in London. In 1696, the dean and chapter presented him to the vicarage of Trowse, worth about 40l. and situated a mile from Norwich. Here he officiated with the same assiduity and regularity as at Saham, and that purely for the love of duty for, in addition to his other preferments, he had a private fortune, which rendered this last vicarage of no consequence in a pecuniary view.

In 1697 he published his “Life of Mahomet ,” 8vo, of which three editions were printed the first year. He intended to have written a history of the Saracen empire, and with it the decay and fall of the Christian religion but he gave up this design for reasons stated in the preface to the Life of Mahomet. This valuable work was followed by his useful little treatise called “Directions to Churchwardens,” whose negligence he had very much experienced in his archdeaconry this has gone through many editions. In 1702, on the death of the dean of Norwich, Dr. Henry Fairfax, Dr. Prideaux was installed as his successor on June 8th of that year, and a more proper person could not be found. He now continued, with better effect, if possible, that attention to regularity and discipline which he had before paid and although this made him obnoxious to the persons whom he censured or dismissed, the benefit to the general body was too obvious not to be approved. In December 1702, on a public thanksgivingday for the success of the expedition to Vigo, he preached a sermon on the subject, which we notice as the only one he ever printed and, had it been left to his own inclination, would never have been thought of by himself for that purpose. In 1703 he published a tract in vindication of the ecclesiastical law, which gives the successor in any ecclesiastical benefice or promotion, all the profits, from the day of the avoidance. This was occasioned by an alteration in the law which bishop Burnet was about to have introduced; but our author’s arguments carried such weight, that the design was given up.

On the translation of the bishop of Norwich to Ely, Dr. Prideaux was advised to make interest for the bishopric but being now sixty years of age, too late to enter on a course of public life and parliamentary attendance, and for other reasons, he declined interfering, and Dr. Trimnell became bishop, whom he thought every way deserving of the preferment. In the mean time Dr. Prideaux continued his labours for the general interests of the church, and in 1709, published his tract on “The original right of Tythes.” In this, his first intention was to give the History of Appropriations and this was to have been only an introduction but it enlarging under his hand, he resolved to publish it by itself as the first part of the work. He had for many years made collections of the common law and ecclesiastical history; but wanted much information which he could not have without going to London, and consulting the public records there and he was about this time seized with the calamitous distemper of the stone; so that he was forced to lay aside that design. Upon this last account also he resigned the vicarage of Trowse, when no longer able to go up into the pulpit. The seventy of his disorder now suggested the operation of lithotomy, which was successfully performed by Mr. Salter, an enii* nent surgeon of London, who went to Norwich for the purpose but the subsequent cure, having been entrusted to a young man at Norwich, was so badlyareated, that the patient had almost lost his life, and was indeed ever after a great sufferer by this misconduct.

Being enabled, however, to return to his studies, after improving a new edition of his “Directions to Church Wardens,” in 1712> he proceeded with that greater work, on which his reputation with posterity principally depends. It was entitled “The Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament;” the first part of which was published in 1715, -the second in 17 1, foL Both parts were received with the greatest approbation, and went through eight editions in 4 vols. 8vo, at London, besides two or three at Dublin, before the end of 1720, since which it has been often reprinted, and is indeed accounted a standard book in every theological library. This history takes in the affairs of Egypt, Assyria, and all the other eastern nations, as well as the Jews and likewise those of Greece and Rome, as far as was necessary to give a distinct view of the completion of the prophecies which relate to the times comprehended in the history. The author has also set in the clearest light some passages of prophane history, which before lay dispersed and buried in confusion and there appears throughout the whole work such an amiable spirit of sincerity and candour, as sufficiently atones for the few mistakes which escaped his diligence. Gordon, the author of “Cato’s Letters,” had certainly no prejudices in favour of Prideaux, or of his work yet he styles it “a body of universal history, written with such capacity, accuracy, industry, and honesty, as make it one of the best books that ever came into the world, and shew him to be one of the greatest men in it. No book was ever more universally read and approved it is, indeed, a great public service done to mankind, and entities the author to the highest public gratitude and honour. But though I never saw any great work, to which 1 found fewer objections, yet as a memorable proof how inseparably mistakes and prejudices cleave to the mind of man, the great and candid Dr. Prideaux is not without them. I therefore do not upbraid him with them, but rather admire him for having so few. There are, however, some of his theological observations, which seem to me not only ill-grounded, but to have a tendency to create in his readers wrong notions of the Deity, and to encourage them to mistake the common accidents of life, and the common events of nature, for judgments 4 and to apply them superstitiously as such.” There are letters between the dean, and his cousin Mr. Moyie, concerning some passages in this “Connection,” &c. printed in the “Miscellaneous Works” of the latter, and in Dr. Prideaux’s life. No man could be more willing to listen to reasonable objections, or to correct what could be proved to be wrong. Candour was the distinguishing feature of Dean Prideaux’s character.

In the interval between the publication of the first and second parts of his “Connection,” lord Townsend, secretary of state to George I. having meditated a design to introduce a reformation in the two universities, consulted our author upon it, who drew up a plan for the purpose, and sent it to his lordship, under the title of “Articles for the Reformation of the- two Universities.” These amounted to fifty-six in number. No proceeding was held in consequence of this but some of his articles have bee.n silently adopted, and others are perhaps irreconcileable with the true interests of those seminaries. His proposition to erect a sort of college for those who had neglected their studies, by the name of Drone-Hall, has more the air of a piece of humour, than a serious proposition. The whole are printed in the volume which contains his life.

In the seventy-fourth year of his age, finding himself so much weakened by age and infirmity that he could no longer use his books as formerly, and being desirous that his collection of Oriental books should not be dispersed, he permitted his son, who had been educated at that college, to make a present of them to the society of Clare-hall, Cambridge; and they were accordingly deposited in Clare-hall-library, to the number of three hundred volumes and upwards. It were to be wished, that such an example was more frequently followed, for there are few ways that tend more to render such a valuable collection useless, than by dispersing it among private hands.

About a year before his death he was wholly confined to his chamber, and at last his increasing infirmities took from him all power of helping himself. He had always been a sufferer since his case, after being cut for the stone, was improperly treated, and was frequently afflicted and greatly reduced, by rheumatic pains and paralytic affections. He expired Nov. 1, 1724, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, and was buried, according to his own direction, inthe cathedral of Norwich.

Dr. Prideaux was naturally of a very strong, robust constitution; which enabled him to pursue his studies with great assiduity; and notwithstanding his close application, and sedentary manner of life, enjoyed great vigour both of body and mind for many years together, till afflicted by the stone. Although we have few particulars of his course of study at Oxford, it is evident that he must have been an early and hard student, and had accumulated a great fund of Oriental learning, and an intimate acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. His parts were very good, rather solid than lively: his judgment excellent: as a writer he is clear, strong, intelligent, and learned, without any pomp of language, or ostentation of eloquence. His conversation resembled his style, being learned and instructive, but with a conciseness of expression on many occasions, which, to those who were not well acquainted with him, had sometimes the appearance of rusticity. In his manner of life, he was regular and temperate, being seldom out of his bed after ten at night, and he generally rose to his studies before five in the morning. His disposition was sincere and candid. He generally spoke his mind with freedom and boldness, and was not easily diverted from pursuing what he thought right. To those who differed from him in opinion, he always behaved with great candour. In party principles he was rather inclined to what was called Low-church; but in his adherence to the establishment, in performing all the duties annexed to liis preferments, in enjoining a like attention upon all vvith whom he had influence, and in his dislike of schism and schismatics, no man was more inflexible. He had at one time flattered himself that a few alterations in the liturgy might tend to bring back the dissenters to the church; but he lived to see, what we have lived to see more clearly, that a few alterations would not answer the purpose. For most of these particulars we are indebted to an excellent Life of Dr. Prideaux, which appeared in October 1748, “with several tracts and letters of his upon various subjects, never before published.”

, a learned English bishop, was born at Stowford, in the parish of Harford, near Ivy-bridge in Devonshire, Sept. 17, 1578, and was the fourth of seven sons of his father, who being in mean circumstances, with so large a family, our author, after he had learned to write and read, having a good voice, stood candidate for the place of parish-clerk of the church of Ugborow near Harford. Mr. Price informs us, that “he had a competitor for the office, who had made great interest in the parish for him* self, and was likely to carry the place from him. The parishioners being divided in thematter, did at length agree in this, being unwilling to disoblige either party, that the Lord’s-day following should be the day of trial; the one should tune the Psalm in the forenoon, the other in the afternoon; and he that did best please the people, should have the place. Which accordingly was done, and Prideaux lost it, to his very great grief and trouble. Upon, which, after he became advanced to one of the first dignities of the church, he would frequently make this reflection, saying,” If I could but have been clerk of Ugborow, I had never been bishop of Worcester.“Disappointed in this office, a lady of the parish, mother of sir Edmund Towel, maintained him at school till he had gained some knowledge of the Latin tongue, when he travelled to Oxford, and at first lived in a very mean station in Exetercollege, doing servile offices in the kitchen, and prosecuting his studies at his leisure hours, till at last he was taken notice of in the college, and admitted a member of it in act-term 1596, under the tuition of Mr. William Helme, B. D. On January the 31st, 1599, he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in 1602 was chosen probationer fellow of his college. On May the 11th, 1603, he proceeded Master of Arts, and soon after entered into holy orders. On May the 6th, 1611, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity; and the year following was elected rector of his college in the room of Dr. Holland; and June the 10th, the same year, proceeded Doctor of Divinity. In 1615, upon the advancement of Dr. Robert Abbot to the bishopric of Sarum, he was made regius professor of divinity, and consequently became canon of Christ-church, and rector of Ewelme in Oxfordshire; and afterwards discharged the office of vice-chancellor of the university for several years. In the rectorship of his college he behaved himself in such a manner, that it flourished more than any other in the university; more foreigners coming thither for the benefit of his instruction than ever was known; and in his professorship, says Wood,” he behaved himself very plausible to the generality, especially for this reason, that in his lectures, disputes, and moderatings (which were always frequented by many auditors), he shewed himself a stout champion against Socinus and Arminius. Which being disrelished by some who were then rising, and in authority at court, a faction thereupon grew up in the university between those called Puritans, or Calvinists, on the one side, and the Remonstrants, commonly called Arminians, on the other: which, with other matters of the like nature, being not only fomented in the university, but throughout the nation, all things thereupon were brought into confusion.“In 1641, after he had been twenty- six years professor, he was one of those persons of unblemished reputation, whom his majesty made bishops, on the application of the marquis of Hamilton, who had been one of his pupils. Accordingly, in November of that year, he was elected to the bishopric of Worcester, to which he was consecrated December the 19th following; but the rebellion was at that time so far advanced, that he received little or no profit from it, to his great impoverishment. For adhering stedfastly to his majesty’s cause, and pronouncing all those of his diocese, who took up arms against him, excommunicate, he was plundered, and reduced to such straits, that he was obliged to sell his excellent library. Dr. Gauden said of him, that he now became literally a helluo librorum, being obliged to turn his books >nto bread for his children. He seems to have borne this barbarous usage with patience, and even good humour. On -one occasion, when a friend came to see bim, and asked him how he did? he answered,” Never better in my life, only I have too great a stomach, for 1 have eaten the little plate which the sequestrators left me; I have eaten a great library of excellent books; I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now am come to eat my iron, and what will come next I know not." So great was his poverty about this time that he would have attended the conferences with the king at the Isle of Wight, but could not afford the means of travelling. Such was the treatment of this great and good man, one of the best scholars and ablest promoters of learning in the kingdom, at the hands of men who professed to contend for liberty and toleration.

Re died of a fever at Bredon in Worcestershire, at the house of his son-in-law, Dr. Henry Sutton, July the 20th, 1650, leaving to his children no legacy but “pious poverty, God’s blessing, and a father’s prayers,” as appears from his last will and testament. His body was attended to the grave by persons of all ranks and degrees, and was interred in the chancel of the church of Bredon. He was a man of very extensive learning; and Nath. Carpenter, in his “Geography delineated,” tells us, that “in him the heroical wits of Jewel, Rainolds, and Hooker, as united into one, seemed to triumph anew, and to have threatened a fatal blow to the Babylonish hierarchy.” He was extremely humble, and kept part of the ragged clothes in which he came to Oxford, in the same wardrobe where he lodged his rochet, in which he left that university. He was exemplary in his charity, and very agreeable in conversation. By his first wife, Mary, daughter of Dr. Taylor, burnt for the Protestant religion in the reign of queen Mary, he had several children; viz. William, a colonel in the service of king Charles I. and slain at the battle of Marston-moor in 1644; Matthias, a captain in the army of that king, who died at London 1646; and three other sons, who died in their infancy, and were buried in Exeteivcollege; and two daughters, viz. Sarah, married to William Hodges, archdeacon of Worcester, and rector of Ripple in Worcestershire; and Elizabeth, married to Dr. Henry Sutton, rector of Bredon in Worcestershire. Our author had for his second wife, Mary, daughter of sir Thomas Reynel of West Ogwell in Devonshire, knt. Cleveland the poet wrote an elegy upon his death.

His son Matthias, above mentioned, was born in 1622, and admitted of Exeter-college in 1640, where he took his degrees in arts. He died at London in 1646. After his death was published, under his name, “An easy and compendious introduction for reading all sorts of Histories,” Oxon. 1648, 4to; reprinted 1655, with a “Synopsis of the Councils,” written by his father.

, a dissenting divine, but more justly eminent as a philosopher, was born March 18, 1733, at Field-head, near Leeds. His father, a clothier, was a dissenter of the Calviriistic persuasion. In his youth he was adopted by an aunt, who provided for his education in several schools, in which he acquired some knowledge of the learned languages, particularly Hebrew. Being intended for the ministry, he went, in 1752, to Dr. Ash worth’s dissenting academy, at Daventry, whore he spent three years, and came out from it an adherent to the Arian system. Here too he became acquainted with Hartley’s Works, to whose opinions he was afterwards very partial. He first settled as a minister at Needham-market, in Suffolk and, after three years’ residence, removed' to Namptwich in Cheshire. Here he also kept a school, and, to the more common objects of instruction, added experiments in natural philosophy, to which he had already become attached. His first publication was, an “English Grammar,” printed in 1761, in which he pointed out errors in Hume’s language, which that author had the candour to rectify in his future editions of his celebrated history.

In the same year, he was invited to become a tutor in languages in the academy at Warrington; and here he first began to acquire reputation as a writer in various branches of literature. Several of his works had relation to his office in the academy, which, besides philosophy, included lectures on history and general policy. A visit to London having introduced him to the acquaintance of Dr. Franklin, Dr. Watson, Dr. Price, and Mr. Canton, he was encouraged by them to execute a plan he had already begun, of writing a “History of Electricity,” which accordingly appeared in 1767. It is rather carelessly and hastily exeecuted, but must have been of advantage to the science. Almost the whole of his historical facts are taken from the Philosophical Transactions but at the end he gives a number of original experiments of his own. The most important of all his electrical discoveries, was, that charcoal is a conductor of electricity, and so good a conductor that it vies even with the metals themselves. This publication went through several editions, was translated into foreign languages, and procured him the honour of being elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, as one of his biographers says; but his election took place the year before; and about the same time the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws.

In the same year in which his History of Electricity appeared, he left Warrington, and settled at Leeds as minister, and instantly resumed his theological studies, which produced a number of publications, in which he announced the opinions he had adopted. From an Arian he was now become a Socinian, and not content with enjoying the changes which he was at perfect liberty to make, he began to contend with great zeal against the authority of the established religion. It was, however, during his residence here, that his attention was more usefully turned to the properties f fixed air. He had commenced experiments on this subject in 1768, and the first of his publications appeared in 1772, in which he announced a method of impregnating water with fixed air. In the paper read to the royal society in 1772, which obtained the Copley medal, he gave an account of his discoveries and at the same time announced the discovery of nitrous air, and its application as a test of the purity or fitness for respiration of airs generally. About this time, also, he shewed the use of the burning lens in pneumatic experiments; he related the discovery and properties of muriatic acid air; added much to what was known of the airs generated by putrefactive processes, and by vegetable fermentation; and he determined many facts relative to the diminution and deterioration of air, by the combustion of charcoal, and the calcination of metal. In 1774, he made a full discovery of dephlogisticated air, which he procured from the oxyds of silver and lead. This hitherto secret source of animal life and animal heat, of which Mayow had a faint glimpse, was unquestionably first exhibited by Dr. Priestley, though it was discovered about the same time by Mr. Scheele, of Sweden. In 1776, his observations on respiration were read before the royal society, in which he discovered that the common air inspired was diminished in quantity, and deteriorated, in quality, by the action of the blood on it, through the blood-vessels of the Jungs; and that the florid red colour of arterial blood was communicated by the contact of air through the containing vessels. In 1778 Dr. Priestley pursued his experiments on the properties of vegetables growing in the light to correct impure air, and the use of vegetation in this part of the (economy of nature and it seems certain that Dr. Priestley made his discoveries on the subject previously to those of Dr. Ingenhouz, then engaged in similar researches. From this period Dr. Priestley seems to have attended to his pneumatic experiments as an occupation, devoting to them a regular portion of his time. To this attention, among a prodigious variety of facts, tending to shew the various substances from which gases may be procured, the methods of producing them, their influence on each other, and their probable composition, we owe the discovery of vitriolic acid air, of ajkaline air, and of dephlogisticated nitrous air or, as it has since been denominated, the gaseous oxyd of azote, the subject of so many curious and interesting experiments by sir Humphrey Davy. To these may be added the production of various kinds of inflammable air, by numerous processes that had escaped the observation of Mr. Cavendish. To Dr. Priestley we are indebted for that fine experiment of reviving metallic calces in inflammable air and he first ascertained the necessity for water to be present in the formation of the gases, and the endless production of gases from water itself. His experiments on this subject, viz. the generation of air from water, opened a new field for reflection, and deserve particular notice. It had been already remarked that water was necessary to the generation of every species of gas but the unceasing product of air from water had been observed by no one before.

“To enumerate,” says Mr. Kirwan, “Dr. Priestley’s discoveries, would in fact be to enter into a detail of most of those that have been made within the last fifteen years. How many invisible fluids, whose existence evaded the sagacity of foregoing ages, has he made known to us The very air we breathe he has taught us to analyse, to examine, to improve a substance so little known, that even the precise effect of respiration was an enigma, until he explained it. He first made known to us the proper food of vegetables, and in what the difference between these and animal substances consisted. To him pharmacy is indebted for the method of making artificial mineral waters, as well as for a shorter method of preparing other medicines metallurgy for more powerful and cheap solvents; and chemistry for such a variety of discoveries as it would be tedious to recite discoveries which have new-modelled that science, and drawn to it, and to this country, the attention of all Europe. It is certain, that, since the year 1773, the eyes and regards of all the learned bodies in Europe have been, directed to this country by his means. In every philosophical treatise his name is to be found, and in almost every page. They all own that most of their discoveries are due either to the repetition of his discoveries, or to the hints scattered through his works.”

The success of his “History of Electricity” induced him to adopt the design of treating on other sciences, in the same historical manner and at Leeds he occupied himself in preparing “The History and present state of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light, and Colours.” The expences necessary in composing such a work obliged him to issue proposals for publishing it by subscription and it appeared in 1772, in one very large volume 4to. The sale of this work by no means corresponded with the expectations formal from the number of names given in as subscribers it has been said, not one-third part of the number paid for, or demanded the book when it was published. One of his biographers says that it failed, chiefly because it was impossible to give adequate notions of many parts of the theory of optics without a more accurate acquaintance with mathematics than common readers can be supposed to possess. Perhaps too, the writer himself was scarcely competent to explain the abstruser parts of this science.

After a residence at Leeds for six years, Dr. Priestley accepted the offer of the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, to reside with his lordship in the nominal capacity of librarian, but really as his literary companion. The terms were 2501. per annum, with a house for his family to live in, and an annuity for life of 150l. in the event of their being separated by his lordship’s dying, or changing his mind. He accordingly fixed his family in a house at Calne, in Wiltshire, near his lordship’s seat; and during seven years attended upon the noble earl in his winter’s residences at London, and occasionally in his excursions, one of which, in 1774, was a tour to the continent. This situation was useful, as affording Dr. Priestley advantages in improving his knowledge of the world, and in pursuing his scientific researches; and as he was perfectly free from restraint, this was the period of some of those exertions which increased his reputation as a philosopher, and some of those which brought the greatest obloquy upon him as a divine. In 1775, he published his “Examination of the doctrine of Common Sense, as held by Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald,” in which he treated those gentlemen with a contemptuous arrogance, of which, we are told, he was afterwards ashamed. In his manner of treating his opponents, he always exhibited a striking contrast to the mild and placid temper of his friend Dr. Price. After this he became the illustrator of the Hartleian theory of the human mind. He had, previously to this, declared himself a believer in the doctrine of philosophical necessity and in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Hartley, he expressed some doubts of the immateriality of the soul. The charge which these induced against him of infidelity and atheism, seems only to have provoked him to a more open avowal of the same obnoxious sentiments; and in 1777 he published “Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit,” in which he gave a history of the doctrines concerning the soul, and openly supported the system which, upon due investigation, he had adopted. It was followed by “A Defence of Unitarianism, or the simple Humanity of Christ, in opposition to his Pre-existence and of the Doctrine of Necessity.” It seems not improbable that these works produced a coolness in the behaviour of his noble patron, which about this time he began to remark, and which terminated in a separation, after a connection of seven years, without any alledged complaint. That the marquis of Lansdowne had changed his sentiments of Dr. Priestley appears from the evidence of the latter, who informs us, that when he came to London, he proposed to call on the noble lord; but the latter declined receiving his visits. Dr. Priestley adds, that during his connection with his lordship, he never once aided him in his political views, nor ever wrote a single political paragraph. The friends of both parties seem to think that there was no bond of union between them, and his lordship’s attention became gradually so much engaged by politics, that every other object of study lost its hold. According, however, to the articles of agreement, Dr. Priestley retained his annuity for life of 150l. which was honourably paid to the last; and it has been said, that when the bond securing to him this annuity was burnt at the riots of Birmingham, his lordship in the handsomest manner presented him with another.

Dr. Priestley now removed to Birmingham, a situation which he probably preferred to almost any other, on account of the advantage it afforded of able workmen in every branch requisite in his experimental inquiries, and of some men distinguished for their chemical and mechanical knowledge, particularly Watt, Withering, Bolton, and Kier. Several friends to science, aware that the defalcation of his income would render the expences of his pursuits too burthensome for him to support, joined in raising an annual subscription for defraying them. This assistance he without hesitation accepted, considering it as more truly honourable to himself than a pension from the crown, which might have been obtained for him, if he had wished it, during the short administration of the marquis of Rockingham, and the early part of that of Mr. Pitt. Some of these subscriptions were made with a view to defray the expences of his philosophical experiments only, but the greater part of the subscribers were equally friends to his theological studies. He had not been long settled at Birmingham, before a vacancy happened in the principal dissenting congregation, and he was unanimously chosen to supply it. Theology now again occupied a principal share of his attention, and he published his “History of the Corruptions of Christians,” and “History of early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ.” These proved to be, what might be expected, a fertile source of controversy, into which he entered with his usual keenness, and he had for his antagonists two men not easily repelled, the rev. Mr. Badcock, and Dr. Horsley, in whose articles we have already noticed their controversies with this polemic. The renewed applications of the dissenters, for relief from the penalties and disabilities of the corporation and test acts, afforded another topic of discussion, in which Dr. Priestley took an active part; and he did not now scruple to assert that all ecclesiastical establishments were hostile to the rights of private judgment, and the propagation of truth, and therefore represented them as anti-christian, and predicted their downfall, in a style of inveteracy which made him be considered as the most dangerous enemy of the established religion, in its connection vvith the state. Some of the clergy of Birmingham having warmly opposed the dissenters’ claims, Dr. Priestley published a series of “Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham,” which, on account of their ironical manner, as well as the matter, gave great offence. In this state of irritation, another cause of animosity was added by the different feelings concerning the French revolution. The anniversary of the capture of the Bastille, July 14th, had been kept as a festival by the friends of the cause and its celebration was prepared at Birmingham in 1791. Dr. Priestley declined joining the party but a popular tumult ensued, in which he was particularly the object of fury. His house, with his fine library, manuscripts, and apparatus, were made a prey to the flames, and this at a time when it was generally asserted that the mobs in other great cities were rather favourable to the republican cause. After a legal investigation, he received a compensation for his losses, which compensation he stated himself, at 2,000l. short of the actual, loss he sustained. In this he reckoned many manuscripts, the value of which no jury could estimate, and which indeed could have been calculated only in his own imagination. He was not, however, without friends, who purchased for him a library and apparatus equal, according to his own account, to what he had lost. He now came to London, and took up his residence at Hackney, where in a very short time he was chosen to succeed his deceased friend, Dr. Price, as minister to a congregation there; and he had at the same time some connection with the new college lately established in that village. Resuming his usual occupations of every kind, he passed some time in comfort and tranquillity; “but,” say his apologists, “he soon found public prejudice following him in every path, and himself and his family molested by the rude assaults of malignity, which induced him finally to quit a country so hostile to his person and principles.” On the other hand, we are told, that, “had Dr. Priestley conducted himself at Hackney like a peaceable member of society, and in his appeals to the public on the subject of the riots at Birmingham, expressed himself with less acrimony of the government of the country, the prejudices of the people would very quickly have given way to compassion. But when he persisted in accusing the magistrates and clergy, and even the supreme government of his country, of what had been perpetrated by a lawless mob, and appealed from the people, and even the laws of England, to the societies of the * Friends of the Constitution' at Paris, Lyons, Nantz, &c. to the academy of sciences at Paris, when Condorcet was secretary, and to the united Irishmen of Dublin, how was it possible that the prejudices of loyal Englishmen could subside?”

Whichever of these opinions is the true one, it is certain that Dr. Priestley felt his situation uncomfortable, and accordingly, in the month of April 1794, embarked for America, and took up his residence at the town of Northumberland, in Pennsylvania. It was a considerable labour, in this remote situation, to get a well-furnished library and chemical laboratory; but he at length surmounted all obstacles, and effected his purpose. He was offered a chemical professorship in Philadelphia, which he declined, not meaning to engage in any public duty, in order that he might be enabled to devote his whole time to his accustomed pursuits, in which he soon shewed his philosophical friends that he was not idle. Here, however, he was not generally so well received as he expected; and during the administration of Mr. Adams, he was regarded by the American government with suspicion and dislike: but that of Mr. Jefferson was afterwards very friendly to him. A severe illness, which he suffered in Philadelphia, laid the foundation of a debility of his digestive organs, which gradually brought on a state of bodily weakness, while his mind continued in full possession of all its faculties. Of his last illness and death, we shall subjoin the account as given in the Philadelphia Gazette.

“Since his illness at Philadelphia, in the year 1801, he never regained his former good state of health. His complaint was constant indigestion, and a difficulty of swallowing food of any kind. But during this period of general debility, he was busily employed in printing his Church History, and the first volume of his Notes on the Scriptures, and in making new and original experiments. During this period, likewise, he wrote his pamphlet of Jesus and Socrates compared, and reprinted his Essay on Phlogiston.

“From about the beginning of November 1803, to the middle of January 1804, his complaint grew more serious; yet, by judicious medical treatment, and strict attention to diet, he, after some time, seemed, if not gaining strength, at least not getting worse; and his friends fondly hoped that his health would continue to improve as the season, advanced. Ke, however, considered his life as very precarious. Even at this time, besides his miscellaneous reading, which was at all times very extensive, he read through all the works quoted in his “Comparison of the different Systems of Grecian philosophers with Christianity;” composed that work, and transcribed the whole of it in less than three months; so that he has left it ready for the press. During this period he composed, in one day, his Second Reply to Dr. Linn.

“In the last fortnight of January, his fits of indigestion became more alarming, his legs swelled, and his weakness increased. Within two days of his death, he became so weak, that he could walk but a little way, and that with great difficulty. For some time he found himself unable to speak; but, on recovering a little, he told his friends, that he had never felt more pleasantly during his whole lifetime, than during the time he was unable to speak. He was fully sensible that he had not long to live, yet talked with cheerfulness to all who called on him. In the course of the day he expressed his thankfulness at being permitted to die quietly in his family, without pain, and with every convenience and comfort that he could wish for. He dwelt upon the peculiarly happy situation in which it had pleased the Divine Being to place him in life, and the great advantage he had enjoyed in the acquaintance and friendship of some of the best and wisest men of the age in which he lived, and the satisfaction he derived from having led an useful as well as happy life. He this day gave directions about printing the remainder of his Notes on Scripture (a work, in the completion of which he was much interested), and looked over the first sheet of the third volume, after it was corrected by those who were to attend to its completion, and expressed his satisfaction at the manner of its being executed.

“On Sunday, the 5th, he was much weaker, but sat up in an arm-chair for a few minutes. He desired that John, chap. xi. might be read to him: he stopped the reader at the 45th verse, dwelt for some time on the advantage he had derived from reading the Scriptures daily, and recommended this practice, saying, that it would prove a source of the purest pleasure. `We shall all (said he) meet finally; we only require different degrees of discipline suited to our different tempers, to prepare us for final happiness.‘ Mr. ——— coming into his room, he said, `You see, sir, I am still living.’ Mr. ——— observed, `that he would always live.' `Yes, I believe I shall; we shall meet again in another and a better world.‘ He said this with great animation, laying hold of Mr. ———’s hand in both his own. After evening prayers, when his grand-children were brought to his bed-side, he spoke to them separately, and exhorted them to continue to love each other, &c. ‘ I am going (added he) to sleep as well as you, for death is only a good long sound sleep in the grave, and we shall meet again.’

“On Monday morning, the 9th of February, on being asked how he did, he answered in a faint voice, that he had no pain, but appeared fainting away gradually. About eight o'clock, he desired to have three pamphlets which had been looked out by his directions the evening before. He then dictated as clearly and distinctly as he had ever done in his life, the additions and alterations which he wished to have made in each. M——— took down the substance of what he said, which was read to him. He observed, `Sir, you have put in your own language, I wishj it to be mine.‘ He then repeated over again, nearly word for word, what he had before said, and when it was transcribed, and read over to him, he said, That is right, I have now done.’ “About half an hour after, he desired that he might be removed to a cot. About ten minutes after he was removed to it, he died (Feb. 6, 1804) but breathed his last so easily, that those who were sitting close to him did not immediately perceive it. He had put his hand to his face, which prevented them from observing it.”

There are many circumstances in this account which the reader will consider with profound attention. It is unnecessary to point them out, or to attempt a lengthened character of Dr. Priestley. It has been said with truth that of his abilities, none can hesitate to pronounce that they are of first-rate excellence. His philosophical inquiries and publications claim the greatest distinction, and have materially contributed to the advancement of science. As an experimental philosopher, he was among the first of his age. As a divine, had he proved as diligent in propagating truth as in disseminating error, in establishing the gospel in the minds of men, instead of shaking their belief in the doctrines of revelation, perhaps few characters of the last century would have ranked higher as learned men, or have been held in greater estimation. Such, however, was not the character of his theological writings, which, as Dr. Johnson said, were calculated to unsettle every thing, but to settle nothing. All this accords with the sentiments of the great majority of the nation, with respect to Dr. Priestley as a divine, although we are aware that the epithet of bigot will be applied to him who records the fact. On the other hand, in dwelling on Dr. Priestley’s character as a philosopher, his friends may take the most effectual method of reconciling all parties, and handing down his fame undiminished to the latest posterity. We have enumerated his principal works in the preceding sketch, but the whole amount to about 70 volumes, or tracts, in 8vo. An analysis of them is given in the “Life,” to which we are principally indebted for the above particulars.

, an eminent Italian painter, was descended from a noble family in Bologna, where he was born in 1490. His friends, perceiving that he had a strong inclination for design, permitted him to go to Mantua, where he was six years a disciple of Julio Romano, who was then ornamenting the apartments of the palace del Te. In this time he became so skilful, that he represented battles in stucco and basso relievo, better than any of the young painters at Mantua, who were Julio’s pupils. He assisted Julio in executing his designs and Francis I. of France sending to Rome for a man that understood working in stucco, Primaticcio was the person chosen for this service, and he adorned Fontainbleau, and most of the palaces in France, with his compositions. The king put such confidence in him, that he sent him to Rome to buy antiques, in 1540; on which occasion he brought back one hundred and fourscore statues, with a great number of busts. He had moulds made by Giacomo Baroccio di Vignola, of the statues of Venus, Laocoon, Commodus, the Tiber, the Nile, the Cleopatra at Belvidere, and Trajan’s Pillar, in order to have them cast in brass. After the death of Rosso-, who was his rival, he succeeded him in the place of superintendant of the buildings; and in a little time finished the gallery which his predecessor had begun. He brought so many statues of marble and brass to Fontainbleau, that it seemed another Rome, as well for the number of the antiques as for his own works in painting and in stucco. He was so much esteemed in France, that nothing of any consequence was done without him, which had relation to painting or building; and he even directed the preparations for all festivals, tournaments, and masquerades. He was made abbot of St. Martin at Troyes, and lived with such splendour, that he was respected as a courtier as well as a painter. He and Rosso taught the French a good style for, before their time, what they had done in the arts was very inconsiderable, and had something of the Gothic in it. He died in 1570, at the age of eighty, after having been favoured and caressed in four reigns.

The frescoes of the palace del Te by Primaticcio, cannot now, says Mr. Fuseli, with certainty be discriminated. Hia oil-pictures are of the utmost rarity in Italy, and even at Bologna. In the great gallery Zambeccari there is a concert by him, with three female figures, a most enchanting performance. The eye is equally charmed by the forms, the attitudes, the tone of colour, the breadth, taste, and ease of the draperies, and the original air of the whole. Nicolo Abbati, the partner of his works, though not his scholar, was left by him to terminate what remained unfinished of his plans in France.

, baronet, president of the Royal Society, was born at Stichel-house, in the county of Roxburgh, North Britain, April 10, 1707. His father was sir John Pringle, of Stichel, bart. and his mother, whose name was Magdalen Eliott, was sister to sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobs, bart. Both the families from which he descended were very ancient and honourable in the south of Scotland, and were in great esteem for their attachment to the religion, and liberties of their country, and for their piety and virtue in private life. He was the youngest of several sons, three of whom, besides himself, arrived to years of maturity. His grammatical education be received at home, under a private tutor and after having made such a progress as qualified him for academical studies, he was removed to the university of St. Andrew’s, where he was put under the immediate care of Mr. Francis Pringle, professor of Greek in the college, and a near relation of his father. Having continued there some years, he went to Edinburgh in Oct. 1727, for the purpose of studying physic, that being the profession which he now determined to follow. At Edinburgh, however, he stayed only one year, the reason, of which was, that he was desirous of going to Leyden, at that time the most celebrated school of medicine in Europe. Boerhaave, who had brought that university into reputation, was considerably advanced in years, and Mr. Pringle was unwilling, by delay, to expose himself to the danger of losing the benefit of that great man’s lectures. For Boerhaave he had a high and just respect but it was not his disposition and character to become the implicit and systematic follower of any man, however able aod distinguished. While he studied at Leyden, be contracted an intimate friendship with Van Swieten, who afterwards became so famous at Vienna, both by his practice and writings. Van Swieten was not only Pringle’s acquaintance and fellow-student at the university, but also his physician when he happened to be seized there with a fit of sickness; yet on this occasion he did not owe his recovery to his friend’s advice; for Van Swieten having refused to give him the bark, another person prescribed it, and he was cured. When he had gone through his proper course of studies at Leyden, he was admitted, July 20, 1730, to his doctor of physic’s degree. His inaugural dissertation, “De marcore senili,” was printed. Upon quitting LeyIen, Dr. Pringle settled as a physician at Edinburgh, where he gained the esteem of the magistrates of the city, and of the professors of the college, by his abilities and good conduct and, such was his known acquaintance with ethical subjects, that, March 28, 1734, he was appointed, by the magistrates and council of the city of Edinburgh, to be joint professor of pneumatics and moral philosophy with Mr. Scott, during that gentleman’s life, and sole professor after his decease and, in consequence of this appointment, Dr. Pringle was admitted, on the same day, a member of the university. In discharging the duties of this new employment, his text-book was “Puffendorff de Officio Hominis et Civis,” agreeably to the method he pursued through life, of making fact and experiment the basis of science. Dr. Pringle continued in the practice of physic at Edinburgh, and in performing the obligations of his professorship, till 1742, when he was appointed physician to the earl of Stair, who then commanded the British army. For this appointment he was chiefly indebted to his friend Dr. Stevenson, an eminent physician at Edinburgh, who had an intimate acquaintance with lord Stair. By the interest of this nobleman, Dr. Pringle was constituted, Aug. 24, 1742, physician to the military hospital in Flanders; and it was provided in the commission, that he should receive a salary of twenty shillings a-day, and be entitled to half-pay for life. He did not, on this occasion, resign his professorship of moral philosophy; the university permitted him to retain it, and Messrs. Muirhead and Cleghorn were allowed to teach in his absence, us long as he continued to request it. The exemplary attention which Dr. Pringle paid to his duty as an army physician is apparent from every page of his “Treatise on the Diseases of the Army.” One thing, however, deserves particularly to be mentioned, as it is highly probable that it was owing to his suggestion. It had hitherto been usual, for the security of the sick, when the enemy was near, to remove them a great way from the camp the consequence of which was, that many were lost before they came under the care of the physicians. The earl of Stair, being sensible of this evil, proposed to the duke de Noailles, when the army was encamped at Aschaffenburg, in 1743, that the hospitals on both sides should be considered as sanctuaries for the sick, and mutually protected. The French general, who was distinguished for his humanity, readily agreed to the pro posal, and took the first opportunity of shewing a proper regard to his engagement. At the hattle of Dettingen, Dr. Pringle was in a coach with lord Carteret during the whole time of the engagement, and the situation they were placed in was dangerous. They had been taken unawares, and were kept betwixt the fire of the line in front, a French battery on the left, and a wood full of hussars on the right. The coach was occasionally shifted, to avoid being in the eye of the battery. Soon after this event, Dr. Pringle met with no small affliction in the retirement of his great friend, the earl of Stair, from the army. He offered to resign with his noble patron, but was not permitted. He, therefore, contented himself with testifying his respect and gratitude to his lordship, by accompanying him forty miles on his return to England; after which he took leave of him with the utmost regret.

But though Dr. Pringle was thus deprived of the immediate protection of a nobleman who knew and esteemed his worth, his conduct in the duties of his station procured him effectual support. He attended the army in Flanders, through the campaign of 1744, and so powerfully recommended himself to the duke of Cumberland, that, in the spring following, March 11, he had a commission from his royal highness, appointing him physician general to his majesty’s forces in the Low Countries, and parts beyond the seas; and on the next day he received a second commission from the duke, by which he was constituted physician to the royal hospitals in the same countries. On March 5, he resigned his professorship in consequence of these promotions. In 1745 he was with the army in Flanders, but was recalled from that country in the latter end of the year, to attend the forces which were to be sent against the rebels in Scotland. At this time he had the honour of being chosen F. R. S. Dr. Pringle, at the beginning of 1746, in his official capacity, accompanied the duke of Cumberland in his expedition against the rebels, and remained with the forces, after the battle of Culloden, till their return to England, in the middle of August. We do not find that he was in Flanders during any part of that year. In 1747 and 1748, he again attended the army abroad and in the autumn of 1748 he embarked with the forces for England, upon the conclusion of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. From that time he principally resided in London, where, from his known skill and experience, and the reputation he had acquired, he might reasonably expect to succeed as a physician. In April 1749, Drt Pringle was appointed physician in ordinary to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. In 1750 he published, in a letter to Dr. Mead, “Observations on the Gaol or Hospital Fever.” This work, which passed through two editions, and was occasioned by the gaol-distemper that broke out at that time in the city of London, was well received by the medical world, though he himself afterwards considered it as having been hastily written. After supplying some things that were omitted, and rectifying a few mistakes that were made in it, he included it in his grand work on the “Diseases of the Army,” where it constitutes the seventh chapter of the third part of that treatise. It was in the same year that Dr. Pringle began to communicate to the Royal Society his famous “Experiments upon Septic and Antiseptic substances, with remarks relating to their use in the theory of Medicine” These experiments, which comprehended several papers, were read at different meetings of the society the first in June, and the two next in the November following three more in the course of 1751 and the last in Feb. 1752. Only the three first numbers were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” as Dr. Pringle had subjoined the whole, by way of appendix, to his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” These experiments upon septic and antiseptic substances, which have accompanied every subsequent edition of the treatise just mentioned, procured for him the honour of sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal. Besides this, they gained him a high and just reputation, as an experimental philosopher. In February 1753, he presented to the Royal Society “An Account of several Persons seized with the Gaol Fever by working in Newgate and of the manner by which the Infection was communicated to one entire family.” This is a very curious paper and was deemed of such importance by the excellent Dr. Stephen Hales, that he requested the author’s permission to have it published, for the common good of the kingdom, in the “Gentleman’s Magazine;” where it was accordingly printed, previous to its appearance in the Transactions. Dr. Pringle’s next communication was, “A remarkable Case of Fragility, Flexibility, and Dissolution of the Bones.” In the 49th volume of the “Transactions,” we meet with accounts which he had given of an earthquake felt at Brussels; of another at Glasgow and Dunbarton and of the agitation of the waters, Nov. 1, 1756, in Scotland and at Hamburgh. The 50th volume contains, Observations by him on the case of lord Walpole, of Woolterton; and a relation of the virtues of Soap in dissolving the Stone, as experienced by the reverend Mr. Matthew Simson. The next volume is enriched with two of the doctor’s articles, of considerable length, as well as value. In the first, he has collected, digested, and related the different accounts that had been given of a very extraordinary fiery meteor, which appeared on Sunday the 26th of November, 1758, between eight and nine at night; and, in the second, he has made a variety of remarks upon the whole, in which no small degree of philosophical sagacity is displayed. It would be tedious to mention the various papers, which, both before and after he became president of the Royal Society, were transmitted through his hands. Besides his communications in the Philosophical Transactions, he wrote, in the Edinburgh Medical Essays, volume the fifth, an “Account of the success of the Vitrum ceratum Antimonii.”

April 14, 1752, Dr. Pringle married Charlotte, the second daughter of Dr. Oliver, an eminent physician at Bath, and who had long been at the head of his profession in that city. This connection did not last long, the lady dying in the space of a few years. Nearly about the time of his marriage, Dr. Pringle gave to the public the first edition of his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” It was reprinted in the year following, with some additions. To the third edition, which was greatly improved from the further experience the author had gained by attending the camps, for three seasons, in England, an Appendix was annexed, in answer to some remarks that professor De Haen, of Vienna, and M. Gaber, of Turin, had made on the work. A similar attention was paid to the improvement of the treatise, in every subsequent edition. The work is divided into three parts; the first of which, being principally historical, may be read with pleasure by every gentleman. The latter parts lie more within the province of physicians, who are the best judges of the merit of the performance and to its merit the most decisive and ample testimonies have been given. It hath gone through seven editions at home and abroad it has been translated into the Fretich, German, and Italian languages. Scarcely any medical writer hath mentioned it without some tribute of applause. Ludwig, in the second volume of his “Commentarii de Rebus in Scientia Naturali et Medicina gestis,” speaks of it highly; and gives an account of it, which comprehends sixteen pages. The celebrated and eminent baron Haller, in his “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” with a particular reference to the treatise we are speaking of, styles the author “Vir illustris de omnibus bonis artibus bene meritus.” It is allowed to be a classical book in the physical line; and has placed the writer of it in a rank with the famous Sydenham. Like Sydenham, too, he has become eminent, not by the quantity, but the value of his productions and has afforded a happy instance of the great and deserved fame which may sometimes arise from a single performance. The reputation that Dr. Pringle gained by his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army,” was not of a kind which is ever likely to diminish. The utility of it, however, was of still greater importance than its reputation. From the time that he was appointed a physician to the army, it seems to have been his grand object to lessen, as far as lay in his power, the calamities of war; nor was he without considerable success in his noble and benevolent design. By the instructions received from this book, the late general Melville, who united with his military abilities the spirit of philosophy, and the spirit of humanity, was enabled, when governor of the Neutral Islands, to be singularly useful. By taking care to have his men always lodged in large, open, and airy apartments, and by never letting his forces remain long enough in swampy places, to be injured by the noxious air of such places, the general was the happy instrument of saving the lives of seven hundred soldiers. In 1753, Dr. Pringle was chosen one of the council of the Royal Society. Though he had not for some years been called abroad, he still held his place of physician to the army and, in the war that began in 1755, attended the camps in England during three seasons. This enabled him, from further experience, to correct some of his former observations, and to give adc,Htional perfection to the third edition of his great work. In 1758, he entirely quitted the service of the army; and being now determined to fix wholly in London, he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, July 5, in the same year. The reason why this matter was so long delayed might probably be, his not having hrtherto come to a final resolution with regard to his settlement in the metropolis. After the accession of king George III. to the throne of Great Britain, Dr. Pringle was appointed, in 1761, physician to the queen’s household and this honour was succeeded, by his being constituted, in 1763, physician extraordinary to her majesty. In April in the same year, he had been chosen a member of the Academy of Sciences at Haarlem and, June following, he was elected a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London. In the succeeding November, he was returned on the ballot, a second time, one of the council of the Royal Society; and, in 1764, on the decease of Dr. Wollaston, he was made physician in ordinary to the queen. In Feb. 1766, he was elected a foreign member, in the physical line, of the Royal Society of Sciences at Gottingen; and, on the 5th of June in that year, his majesty was graciously pleased to testify his sense of Dr. Pringle' s abilities and merit, by raising him to the dignity of a baronet of Great Britain. In July 1768, sir John Pringie was appointed physician in ordinary to her late royal highness the princess dowager of Wales to which office a salary was annexed of lOOl. a-year. In 1770, he was chosen, a third time, into the council of the Royal Society as he was, likewise, a fourth time, for 1772.

On Nov. 30, in that year, in consequence of the death of James West, esq. he was elected president of that illustrious and learned body. His election to this high station, though he had so respectable an opponent as the late sir James Porter, was carried by a very considerable majority. This was undoubtedly the highest honour that sir John Pringle ever received; an honour with which his other literary distinctions could not be compared. It was at a very auspicious time that sir John Pringle was called upon to preside over the Royal Society. A wonderful ardour for philosophical science, and for the advancement of natural knowledge, had of late years displayed itself through Europe, and had appeared with particular advantage in our own country. He endeavoured to cherish it by all the methods that were in his power; and he happily struck upon a new way to distinction and usefulness, by the discourses which were delivered by him on the annual assignment of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. This gentleman had originally bequeathed five guineas, to be given at each anniversary meeting of the Royal Society, by the determination of the president and council, to the person who had been the author of the best paper of experimental observations for the year past. In process of time, this pecuniary reward, which could never be an important consideration to a man of an enlarged and philosophical mind, however narrow his circumstances might be, was changed into the more liberal form of a gold medal; in which form it is become a truly honourable mark of distinction, and a just and laudable object of ambition. It was, no doubt, always usual with the president, on the delivery of the medal to pay some compliment to the gentleman on whom it was bestowed but the custom of making a set speech on the occasion, and of entering into the history of that part of philosophy to which the experiments related, was first introduced by Mr. Martin B'olkes. The discourses, however, which he and his successors delivered were very >hort, and were only inserted in the minute-books of the society. None of them had ever been printed before sir John Pringle was raised to the chair. The first speech that was made by him being much more elaborate and extended than usual, the publication of it was desired and with this request, it is said, he was the more ready to comply, as an absurd account of what he had delivered had appeared in a newspaper. Sir John Pringle was very happy in the subject of his primary discourse. The discoveries in magnetism and electricity had been succeeded by the inquiries into the various species of air. In these enquiries Dr. Priestley, who had already greatly distinguished himself by his electrical experiments, and his other philosophical pursuits and labours, took the principal lead. A paper of his, entitled “Observations on different kinds of Air,” having been read before the society in March 1772, was adjudged to be deserving of the gold medal; and sir John Pringle embraced with pleasure the occasion of celebrating the important communications of his friend, and of relating with accuracy and fidelity what had previously been discovered upon the subject. At the close of the speech, he earnestly requested Dr. Priestley to continue his liberal and valuable inquiries; and we have recently said how well he fulfilled this request. It was not, we believe, intended, when sir John Pringle’s first speech was printed, that the example should be followed but the second discourse was so well received by the Royal Society, that the publication of it was unanimously requested. Both the discourse itself, and the subject on which it was delivered, merited such a distinction. The composition of the second speech is evidently superior to that of the former; sir John having probably being animated by the favourable reception of his first effort. His account of the torpedo, and of Mr. Walsh’s ingenious and admirable experiments relative to the electrical properties of that extraordinary fish, is singularly curious. The whole discourse abounds with ancient and modern learning, and exhibits sir John Pringle’s knowledge in natural history, as well as in medicine, to great advantage. The third time that he was called upon to display his abilities at the delivery of sir Godfrey’s medal, was on an eminently important occasion. This was no less than Mr. (the late Dr.) Maskelyne’s successful attempt completely to establish sir Isaac Newton’s system of the universe, by his “Observations made on the mountain Schehallien, for finding its at-; traction.” Sir John Pringle took advantage of this opportunity, to give a perspicuous and accurate relation of the several hypotheses of the ancients, with regard to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the noble discoveries with which Copernicus enriched the astronomical worldHe then traced the progress of the grand principle of gravitation down to sir Isaac’s illustrious confirmation of it to which he added a concise narrative of Messrs. Bouguer’s and Condamine’s experiment at Chimboraco, and of Mr. Maskelyne’s at Schehallien. If any doubts yet remained with respect to the truth of the Newtonian system, they were now totally removed. Sir John Pringle had reason to be peculiarly satisfied with the subject of his fourth discourse; that subject being perfectly congenial to his disposition and studies. His own life had been much employed in pointing out the means which tended not only to cure, but to prevent, the diseases of mankind and it is probable, from his intimate friendship with capt. Cook, that he might suggest to that sagacious commander some of the rules which he followed, in order to preserve the health of the crew of his majesty’s ship the Resolution, during her voyage round the world. Whether this was the case, or whether the method pursued by the captain to attain so salutary an end, was the result alone of his own. reflections, the success of it was astonishing and this famous voyager seemed well entitled to every honour which could be bestowed. To him the society assigned their gold medal, but he was not present to receive the honour. He was gone out upon that voyage from which he never returned. In this last voyage he continued equally successful in maintaining the health of his men.

Sir John Pringle, in his next annual dissertation, had an opportunity of displaying his knowledge in a way in which it had not hitherto appeared. The discourse took its rise from, the prize medaPs being adjudged to Mr. Mudge an eminent surgeon at Plymouth, upon account of his valu* able paper, containing “Directions for making the best composition for the metals of Reflecting Telescopes, together with a description of the process for grinding, polishing, and giving the great speculum the true parabolic form.” Sir John has accurately related a variety of parti* culars, concerning the invention of reflecting telescopes, the subsequent improvements of these instruments, and the state in which Mr. Mudge found them, when he first set about working them to a greater perfection, till he had truly realized the expectation of sir Isaac Newton, who, above an hundred years ago, presaged that the public would one day possess a parabolic speculum, not accomplished by mathematical rules, but by mechanical devices. Sir John Pnngle’s sixth discourse, to which he was led by the assignment of the gold medal to Mr. (now Dr.) Hutton, on account of his curious paper, entitled “The Force of fired Gunpowder, and the initial Velocity of Cannon-balls, determined by experiments,” was the theory of gunnery. Though sir John had so long attended the army, this was probably a subject to which he had heretofore paid very little attention. We cannot, however, help admiring with what perspicuity and judgment he has stated the progress that was made, from time to time, in the knowledge of projectiles, and the scientific perfection to which his friend Mr. Hutton had carried this knowledge. Sir John Pringle was not one of those who delighted in war, and in the shedding of human blood; he was happy in being able to shew that even the study of artillery might be useful to mankind; and, therefore, this is a topic which he has not forgotten to mention. Here ended his discourses upon the delivery of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. If he had continued to preside in the chair of the Royal Society, he would, no doubt, have found other occasions of displaying his acquaintance with the history of philosophy. But the opportunities which he had of signalizing himself in this respect were important in themselves, happily varied, and sufficient to gain him a solid and lasting reputation. Several marks of literary distinction, as we have already seen, had been conferred upon sir John Pringle, before he was raised to the president’s chair; but after that event, they were bestowed upon him with great abundance and, not again to resume the subject, we shall here collect them together. Previously, however, to these honours (excepting his having been chosen a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London), he received the last promotion that was given him in his medical capacity, which was, his being appointed, Nov. 4, 1774, physician extraordinary to his majesty. In the year 1776 he was enrolled in the list of the members of no less than four learned bodies. These were, the Royal Academy of Sciences at Madrid the Society of Amsterdam, for the promotion of Agriculture the Royal Academy of Medical Correspondence at Paris and the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg. In July 1777, sir John Pringle was nominated, by his serene highness the landgrave of Hesse, an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries at Cassel. In 1778 he succeeded the celebrated Linnæus, as one of the foreign members of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris. This honour was then extended, by that illustrious body, only to eight persons, on which account it was justly esteemed a most eminent mark of distinction; and we believe there have been few or no instances wherein it has been conferred on any other than men of gceat and acknowledge/1 abilities and reputation. In October in the same year, our author was chosen a member of the Medical Society at Hanau. In the succeeding year, March 29, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Belles Lettres at Naples. The last testimony of respect which was, in this way, bestowed upon sir John Pringle, was his being admitted, in 1781, into the number of the fellows of the newly-erected Society of Antiquaries at Edinburgh, the particular design of which is to investigate the history and antiquities of Scotland.

It was at a late period of life, when sir John Pringle was in the sixty-sixth year of his age, that he was chosen to be president of the Royal Society. Considering, therefore, the extreme attention that was paid by him to the various and important duties of his office, and the great pains he took in the preparation of his discourses, it was natural to expect that the burden of his honourable station should grow heavy upon him in a course of time. This burden was increased not only by the weight of years, but by the accfdent of a fall in the area in the back part of his house, from which he received considerable hurt, and which, in its consequences, affected his health and weakened his spirits. Such being the state of his body and mind, he began to entertain thoughts of resigning the president’s icbair. It has been said likewise, and believed, that he was much hurt by the disputes introduced into the society, concerning the question, whether pointed or blunted electrical conductors are the most efficacious in preserving buildings frcm the pernicious effects of lightning. Perhaps sir John Pringle’s declining years, and the general state of his health, will form sufficient reasons for his resignation. His intention, however, was disagreeable to many of his friends, and to many distinguished members of the Royal Society. Accordingly, they earnestly solicited him to continue in the chair; but, his resolution being fixed, he resigned it at the anniversary meeting in 1773. Joseph Banks, esq. (now sir Joseph Banks) was unanimously elected president in his room, a gentleman whose life, and the services he has rendered to science, will hereafter form an important article in biographical works. Though sir John Pringle quitted his particular relation to the Royal Society, and did not attend its meetings so constantly as he had formerly done, he still retained his literary connexions in general. His bouse continued to be the resort of ingenious and philosophical men, whether of his own country or from abroad and he was frequent in his visits to his friends. He was held in particular esteem by eminent and learned foreigners, none of whom came to England without waiting upon him, and paying him the greatest respect. He treated them, in return, with distinguished civility and regard. When a number of gentlemen met at his table, foreigners were usually a part of the company. Sir John Pringle’s infirmities increasing, he hoped that he might receive an advantage from an excursion to Scotland, and spending the summer there; which he did in 1780, principally at Edinburgh. He had probably then formed some design of fixing his residence in that city. However this may have been, he was so well pleased with a place to which he had been habituated in his younger days, and with the respect shewn him by his friends, that he purchased a house there, whither he intended to return in the following spring. When he came back to London, in the autumn of the year above mentioned, he began to prepare for putting his scheme into execution. Accordingly, having first disposed of the greatest part of his library, he sold his house in Pall-mall, in April 1781, and some few days after removed to Edinburgh. In this city he was treated, by persons of all ranks, with every mark of distinction. But Edinburgh was not now to him what it had been in early life. The vivacity of spirits, which in the days of youth spreads such a charm on the objects that surround us, was, fled. Many, if not most, of sir John Pringle’s old friends and contemporaries, were dead; and though some of them remained, they could not meet together with the same strength of constitution, the same ardour of pursuit, the same animation of hope, which they had formerly possessed. Th younger men of eminence paid him the sincerest testimonies of esteem and regard; but it was too late in life for him to form new habits of close and intimate friendship. He found, likewise, the air of Edinburgh too sharp and cold for his frame, which had, long been peculiarly sensible to the severities of weather. These evils were exaggerated ;by his increasing infirmities, and perhaps by that restlessness of mind, which, in the midst of bodily complaints, is’ still hoping to derive some benefit from a change of place. He determined, therefore, to return once more to London, where he arrived in the beginning of September. Before sir John Pringle entirely quitted Edinburgh, he requested his friend, Dr. John Hope, to present ten volumes folio x of “Medical and Physical Observations,” in manuscript, to the Royal College of Physicians in that city. This benefaction was conferred on two conditions first, that the observations should not be published and secondly, that they should not be lent out of the library on any pretence whatever. A meeting of the college being summoned upon the occasion, sir John’s donation was accepted with, much gratitude, and a resolution passed to comply with the terms on which it was bestowed. He was, at the same time, preparing two other volumes to be given to the university, containing the formulas referred to in his annotations.

Sir John Pringle, upon his arrival at the metropolis, found his spirits somewhat revived. He was greatly pleased with revisiting his London friends, and he was received by them with equal cordiality and affection. His Sunday evening conversations were honoured with the attendance f many respectable men and, on the other nights of the week, he had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours with his friends, at a society that had long been established, and which had met, for some time past, at Mr. Watson’s, a grocer, in the Strand. Sir John’s connection with this society, and his constant attendance upon it, formed, to the last, one of his principal entertainments. The morning: was chiefly employed by him in receiving and returning the visits of his various acquaintance and he had frequently a small and select party to dine with him at his apartments in King-street, St. James’s-square. All this while his strength declined with a rapidity which did not permit his frierrds to hope that his life would long be continued. On Monday evening, Jan. 14, 1782, being with the society at Watson’s, he was seized with a fit, from which he never recovered. He was accompanied home by Dr. Saunders, for whom he had the highest regard; and in whom he had, in every respect, justly placed the most unreserved confidence. The doctor afterwards attended him with unwearied assiduity, but, to any medical purpose, entirely in vain for he died on the Friday following, being the 18th day of the month, in the seventy-fifth year of his age and the account of his death was every where received in a manner which shewed the high sense that was entertained of his merit. On the 7th of February he was interred in St. James’s church, with great funeral solemnity, and with a very honourable attendance of eminent and respectable friends. As a testimony of regard to his memory, at the first meeting of the College of Physicians at Edinburgh, after his decease, all the members appeared in deep mourning. ti.

Sir John Pringle, by long practice, had acquired a handsome fortune, which he disposed of with great prudence and propriety. The bulk of it, as might naturally and reasonably be expected, he bequeathed to his worthy nephew and heir, sir James Pringle, of Stichel, bart. whom he appointed his sole executor. But the whole was not immediately to go to sir James; for a sum equal, we believe, to seven hundred pounds a year, was appropriated to annuities, revertible to that gentleman at the decease of the annuitants. By these means, sir John exhibited an important proof of his regard and affection for several of his valuable relations and friends. Sir John Pringle’s eminent character as a practical physician, as well as a medical author, i sg well known, and so universally acknowledged. that an enlargement upon it cannot be necessary. In the exercise of his profession he was not rapacious being ready, on various occasions, to give his advice without pecuniary views. The turn of sir John Pringle’s mind led him chiefly to the love of science, which he built on the firm basis of fact. With regard to philosophy in general, he was as averse to theory, unsupported by experiments, as he was with respect to medicine in particular. Lord Bacon was his favourite author; and to the method of investigating recommended by that great man he steadily adhered. Such being his intellectual character, it will not be thought surprising that he had a dislike to Plato. To metaphysical disquisitions he lost all regard in the latter part of his life; and, though some of his most valued friends had engaged in discussions of this kind, with very different views of things, he did not choose to revert to the studies of his youth, but contented himself with the opinions he had then formed.

Sir John Pringle had not much fondness for poetry. He had not even any distinguished relish for the immortal Shakspeare at least, he seemed too- highly sensible of the defects of that illustrious bard, to give him the proper degree of estimation. Sir John Pringle had not, in his youth, been neglectful of philological inquiries; and, after having omitted them for a time, he returned to them again; so far, at least, as to endeavour to obtain a more exact knowledge of the Greek language, probably with a view to a better understanding of the New Testament. He paid a great attention to the French language and it is said that he was fond of Voltaire’s critical writings. Among all his other pursuits, sir John Pringle never forgot the study of the English language. This he regarded as a matter of so much consequence, that he took uncommon pains with respect to the style of his compositions and it cannot be denied that he excels in perspicuity, correctness, and propriety of expression. Though he slighted poetry, he was very fond of music. He was even a performer on the violoncello, at a weekly concert given by a society of gentlemen at Edinburgh. Besides a close application to medical and philosophical science, sir John Pringle, during the latter part of his life, devoted much time to the study of divinity this was, with him, a very favourite and interesting object. He corresponded frequently with Mishaelis on theological subjects and that celebrated professor addressed to him some letters on “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks,” which sir John thought worthy of being published in this country. He was accordingly at considerable pains, and some expence, in the publication, which appeared in 1773,under the following title “Joannis Davidis Michaelis, Prof. Ordin. Philos. et oc. Reg. Scient. Goettingensis Collegae, Epistolae, de LXX flebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joannem Pringle, baronetturn: primo privatim miss, nunc vero utriusque consensus publice editae,” 8vo. Sir John Pringle was likewise a diligent and frequent reader of sermons, which form so valuable a part of English literature. If, from the intellectual, we pass on to the moral character of sir John Pringle, we shall find that the ruling feature of it was integrity. 3y this principle he was uniformly actuated in the whole of his behaviour. All his acquaintance with one voice agreed that there never was a man of greater integrity. He was equally distinguished for his sobriety. He told Mr. Boswell, that he had never in his life been intoxicated with liquor. In his friendships, sir John Pringle was ardent and steady. The intimacies which were formed by him, in the early part of his life, at Edinburgh, continued unbroken to the decease of the gentlemen with whom they were made; and were sustained by a regular correspondence, and by all the good offices that lay in his power. With relation to sir John Pringle' s external manner of deportment, he paid a very respectful attention to those whom he esteemed; but he had a kind of reserve in his behaviour, when he was not perfectly pleased with the persons who were introduced to him, or who happened to be in his company. His sense of integrity and dignity would not permit him to adopt that false and superficial politeness, which treats all men alike, however different in point of real estimation and merit. He was above assuming the professions, without the reality of respect. On the religious character of sir John Pringle it is more particularly important to enlarge. The principles of piety ajid virtue, which were early instilled into him by a strict education, do not appear ever to have lost their influence uppn the general conduct, of his life. Nevertheless, when he travelled abroad in the world, his belief of the Christian revelation was so far unsettled, that he became at least a sceptic on that subject. But it was not the disposition of sir John Priugle to rest satisfied in his doubts and difficulties, with respect to a matter of such high importance. He was too great, a lover of truth, not to make religion the object of his serious inquiry. As he scorned to be an implicit believer, he was equally averse to the being an implicit unbeliever; which is the case of large numbers who reject Christianity with as little knowledge, and as little examination, as the most determined bigots embrace their systems. The result of this investigation was, a full conviction of the divine original and authority of the Gospel. The evidence of revelation appeared to him to be solid and invincible, and the nature of it to be siich as must demand the most grateful acceptance. Such having been the character and eminence of sirJohn Pringle, it was highly proper that a tribute to his merit should be placed in Westminster abbey. Accordingly, under the direction and at the expence of his nephew and heir, a monument with an English inscription was erected, of which Mr. Nollekens was the sculptor.

, in Latin Priolus, author of an History of France from the death of Louis XIII. in 1643 to 1664, was born in 1602. He was descended from the Prioli, an illustrious family, some of whom had been doges of Venice. He underwent some difficulties from losing his father and mother, when young; but these did not abate his passion for learning, which he indulged day and night. He studied first at Orthez, next at Montauban, and afterwards at Leyden in which last city he profited by the lectures of Heinsius and Vossius. He went to Paris, for the sake of seeing and consulting Grotius and afterwards to Padua, where he learned the opinions of Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, under Cremoninus and Licetus. After returning to France, he went again into Italy, in order to be recognized by the house of Prioli, as one of their relations. He devoted himself to the duke of Rohan, then in the Venetian service, and became one of his most intimate confidents; but, uncertain what his fate would be after this duke’s death, he retired to Geneva, having married, three months before, a lady of a very noble family. The duke de Longueville drew him from this retirement, upon his being appointed plenipotentiary from the court of France for the treaty of Munster, as a person whose talents might be of service to him and Priolo resided with him a year at Munster, where he contracted a very intimate friendship with Chigi the nuncio, % who was afterwards pope Alexander VII. From Munster he returned to Geneva; whence he went to France, in order to settle at Paris. He stayed six months in Lyons, and there had frequent conferences with cardinal Francis Barberini the effect of which was, that himself and his whole family abjured the Protestant religion, and immediately received the communion from the hands of the cardinal. He was not, however, long easy at Paris for, the civil war breaking out soon after, he joined with the malecontents, which proved the ruin of his fortune. He was obliged to retire to Flanders, his estate was confiscated, and his family banished. Being afterwards restored to the favour of his sovereign, he resolved to lead a private life, and to devote himself to study. It was at this time, and to divert his melancholy, that he wrote, without the least flattery or partiality, his “History of France,” in Latin. It has gone through several impressions but the best edition is that of Leipsic, 1686, 8vo. He was again employed in negociations; and set out, in 1667, upon a secret affair to Venice; but did not arrive at the end of his journey, being seized with an apoplectic fit, of which he died in the archbishop’s palace at Lyons. He left seven children; who, by virtue of his name, and their own accomplishments and merit, rose to very flourishing circumstances.

, an English poet of considerable eminence, was born July 21, 1664, but there is some difficulty in settling his birth-place. In the register of his college he is called, at his admission by the president, Matthew Prior, of Winburn in Middlesex; by himself, next day, Matthew Prior of Dorsetshire; in which county, not in Middlesex, Winborn, or Winborne as it stands in the Villare, is found. When he stood candidate for his fellowship, five years afterwards, he was registered again by himself as of Middlesex. The last record (says Dr. Johnson) ought to be preferred, because it was made upon oath yet there is much reason for thinking that he was actually of Wimborn in Dorsetshire, and that his county was concealed, in order to entitle him to a fellowship. (See Gent. Mag. LXII. p. 02.)

By the death of his father, the care of him devolved upon an uncle, Samuel Prior, who kept the Rummer tavern, near Charing-cross, and who discharged the trust Imposed in him with a tenderness truly paternal, and at a proper a<re sent him to Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1681, and distinguished himself to great advantage. After remaining here for a short time, he was taken home by his uncle, in order to be bred to his trade. At leisure hours, however, he pursued the study of the classics, on which account he was soon noticed by the polite company who resorted to his uncle’s house. It happened, one day, that the earl of Dorset and other gentlemen being at this tavern, the discourse turned upon a passage in an ode of Horace, who was Prior’s favourite author: and the company being divided in their sentiments, one of the gentlemen said, “I find we are not like to agree in our criticisms; but, if I am not mistaken, there is a young fellow in the house who is able to set us all right.” Upon which he named Matt. Prior, who being called in, gave the company the satisfaction they wanted.

Lord Dorset, exceedingly struck with his ingenuity and learning, from that moment determined to remove him“from the station he was in, to one more suitable to his talents and genius and accordingly procured him to be sent, in 1682, to St. John’s coiiege in Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. in 1686, and was shortly after chosen fellow. In 1688, he wrote a poem called” The Deity." It is the established practice of that college, to send every year to the earl of Exeter some poems upon sacred subjects, in acknowledgment of a benefaction enjoyed by them from the bounty of his ancestor: on this occasion were those verses written; which, though nothing is said of their success, seem to have recommended him to some notice; for his praise of the countess’s music, and his lines on the famous picture of Seneca, afford reason to suppose that he was more or less conversant in that family.

The same year he published the “City Mouse and Country Mouse,” to ridicule Dryden’s Hind and Panther," in conjunction with Mr. Montague. Spence tells us how. much Dryden was mortified at this attack, which appears somewhat improbable. Dryderr, says Johnson, had been more accustomed to hostilities, than that such enemies should break his quiet and, if we can suppose him vexed, it would be hard to deny him sense enough to conceal his uneasiness. The poem, however, produced its author more solid advantages than the pleasure of fretting Dryden and Prior, coming to London, obtained such notice, that, in 1691, he was sent to the congress at the Hague, as secretary to the embassy.

Prior had been the enemy of Dryden some years before the revolution, and had the hardihood to represent that great writer as a miserable poetaster, in an anonymous satire on which, probably, says Malone, he did not reflect with much satisfaction, when he became a tory. Prior, however, never published any satire but this, and one on “The modern Poets,” which he wrote in 1687 or 1688. From his “Heads of a Treatise upon Learning,” a manuscript formerly in the possession of the duchess dowager of Portland, it appears, that he abstained from this dangerous exercise of his talents, on prudential considerations. In this same ms. he thus speaks of himself: “As to my own part, I felt this (poetical) impulse very soon, and shall continue to feel it as long as I can think. I remember nothing farther in life, than that I made verses. I chose Guy of Warwick for my first hero and killed Colborn, the giant, before I was big enough for Westminster. But I had two accidents in youth which hindered me from being quite possessed with the muse. I was bred in a college where prose was more in fashion than verse and as soon as I had taken my first degree, was sent the king’s secretary to the Hague. There I had enough to do in studying my French and Dutch, and altering my Terentian and original style into that of articles and conventions. So that poetry, which by the bent of my mind might have become the business of my life, was, by the happiness of my education, only the amusement of it; and in this, too, from the prospect of some little fortune to be made, and friendship to be cultivated with the great men, I did not launch much into satire; which, however agreeable at present to the writers or encouragers of it, does in time do neither of them good: considering the uncertainty of fortune, and the various changes of ministry, and that every man, as he resents, may punish in his turn of greatness; and that in England a man is less safe as to politics, than he is in a bark upon the coast, in regard to the change of the wind, and the danger of shipwreck.” By these prudential maxims, Prior appears to have been guided through the greater part of his life.

His conduct at the Hague was so pleasing to king William, that he made him one of his gentlemen of the bedchamber; and he is supposed to have passed some of the next years in the quiet cultivation of literature and poetry. In 1695 he wrote a long ode on the death of queen Mary, which was presented to the king; and, in 1697, was again employed on public business, being appointed secretary to another embassy at the treaty of Ryswick, and received a present of 200 guineas for bringing that treaty over. In the following year he held the same office at the court of France, where he was considered with great distinction. We are told, that as he was one day surveying the apartments at Versailles, being shewn the victories of Louis, painted by Le Brun, and asked whether the king of England’s palace had any such decorations “The monuments of my master’s actions,” said he, “are to be seen every where but in his own house.” The pictures of Le Brun are not only in themselves sufficiently ostentatious, but were explained by inscriptions so arrogant, that Boileau and Racine thought it necessary to make them more simple.

He was in the following year at Loo with the king; from whom, after a long audience, he carried orders to England, and upon his arrival became under-seeretary of state in the earl of Jersey’s office; a post which he did not retain long, because Jersey was removed; but he was soon made commissioner of trade. In 1700, at which time he was created M.A. he produced one of his longest and most splendid compositions, the “Carmen Seculare,” in which he exhausts all his powers in celebrating the glories of king William’s reign, and it is supposed with great sincerity. In the parliament which met in 1701, he was chosen representative for East Grinstead, and now voted for the impeachment of those lords who had persuaded the king to the partition -treaty, a treaty in which he had himself been officially employed, but which it is thought he never approved.

Upon the success of the war with France, after the accession of queen Anne, Prior exerted his poetical talent in honour of his country first, in his “Letter to Boileau, on the victory at Blenheim, in 1704;” and again, in his Ode on the glorious success of her majesty’s arms in 1706, at the battle of Ramilies and Dr. Johnson thinrks this is the only composition produced by that event which is now remembered. About this time Prior published a volume of his poems, with the encomiastic character of his deceased patron, the earl of Dorset. It began with the “College Exercise,” and ended with the “Nut-brown Maid.” Prior now, whatever were his reasons, began to join the party who were for bringing the war to a conclusion, who were to expatiate on past abuses, the waste of, public money, the unreasonable “Conduct of the Allies,” the avarice of generals, and other topics, which might render the war and the conductors of it unpopular. Among other writings, the “Examiner” was published by the wits of this party, particularly Swift. One paper, in ridicule of* Garth’s verses to Godolphin upon the loss of his place, was written by Prior, and answered by Addison, who appears to have known the author either by conjecture or intelligence.

The tories, who were now in power, were in haste to end the war; and Prior, being recalled to his former political employment, was sent, July 1711, privately to Paris, with propositions of peace. He was remembered at the French court; and, returning in about a month, brought with him the abbe Gaultier and Mr. Mesnager, a minister from France, invested with full powers. The negociation was begun at Prior’s house, where the queen’s ministers met Mesnager, Sept. 20, 1711, and entered privately upon the great business. The importance of Prior appears from the mention made of him by St. John, in his letter to the queen. “My lord treasurer moved, and all my lords were of the same opinion, that Mr. Prior should be added to those who are empowered to sign: the reason for which is, because he, having personally treated with Monsieur de Torcy, is the best witness we can produce of the sense in which the general preliminary engagements are entered into: besides which, as he is the best versed in matters of trade of all your majesty’s servants who have been trusted in this secret, if you should think fit to employ him in the future treaty of commerce, it will be of consequence that he has been a party concerned in concluding that convention which must be the rule of this treaty.”

The conferences began at Utrecht Jan. 1, 1711-12, but advanced so slowly, that Bolingbroke was sent to Paris to adjust differences with less formality and Prior, who had accompanied him, had, after his departure, the appointment and authority of an ambassador, though no public character. Soon after, the duke of Shrewsbury went on a formal embassy to Paris, but refused to be associated with a man so meanly born as Prior, who therefore "continued to act without a title till the duke returned next year to England, and then he assumed the style and dignity of ambassador. Yet even while he continued in appearance a private man, he was treated with confidence by Lewis, who sent him with a letter to the queen, written in favour of the elector of Bavaria, and by M. de Torcy. His public dignity and splendour commenced in August 1713, and continued till the August following; but it was attended with some perplexities and mortifications. He had not all that is customarily given to ambassadors he hints to the queen, in an imperfect poem, that he had no service of plate; and it appeared, bv the debts which he contracted, that his remittances were not punctually made.

On the first of August, 1714, ensued the downfall of the tories, and the degradation of Prior. He was recalled but was not able 'to return, being detained by the debts which he had found it necessary to contract, and which were not discharged before March, though his old friend Montague was now at the head of the treasury. On his return he was welcomed, March 25, 1715, by a warrant, and examined, before a committee of the privy council, of which Mr. (afterwards sir Robert) Walpole was chairman, with great strictness and severity. He was then confined for some time, and on June 10, 1715, Mr. Walpole moved an impeachment against him, which, however, ended in his being released without trial or punishment. During his confinement he wrote his “Alma.”

He had now his liberty, but had nothing else. Whatever the profit of his employments might have been, he had always spent it; and at the age of fifty-three was, with all his abilities, in danger of penury, having yet no solid revenue but from the fellowship of his college, which, when in his exaltation he was censured for retaining it, he said “he could live upon it at last.” Being, however, generally known and esteemed, he was encouraged to add other poems to those which he had printed, and to publish them by subscription. The expedient succeeded by the industry of many friends, who circulated the proposals, and the care of some, who, it is said, withheld the money from him lest he should squander it. The price of the volume was two guineas the whole collection was four thousand to which lord Harley, the son of the earl of Oxford, to whom he had invariably adhered, added an equal sum, for the purchase of Down-hall, which Prior was to enjoy during life, and Harley after his decease. He had now, what wits and philosophers have often wished, the power of passing the day in contemplative tranquillity. But it seems, says Johnson, that busy men seldom live long in a state of quiet. It is not unlikely that his health declined. He complains of deafness “for,” says he, “I took little care of my ears while I was not sure if my head was my own.” He had formed a design of writing an “History of his own Time;” but had made very little progress in it, when a lingering fever carried him off, Sept. 18, 1721, in his fifty-eighth year. He died at Wimple, a seat of the earl of Oxford, not far from Cambridge and his corpse was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected at his own charge, 500l. having been set apart by him for that purpose, and an inscription for it was written by Robert Freind, master of Westminster-school. After his death, more of his poems were published; and there appeared, in 1740, “The History of his own Time, compiled from his original manuscripts;” a composition little worthy of him, and undoubtedly, for the most part, if not entirely, spurious. To make his college some amends for retaining his fellowship, he left them books to the value of 2001. to be chosen by them out of his library and also his picture painted by La Belle, in France, which had been a present to him from Lewis XIV.

“Of Prior,” says Johnson, " eminent as he was, both by his abilities and station, very few memorials have been left by his contemporaries; the account therefore must now be destitute of his private character and familiar practices. He lived at a time when the rage of party detected all which it was any man’s interest to hide; and, as little ill is heard of Prior, it is certain that not much was known. He was not afraid of provoking censure; for, when he forsook the whigs, under whose patronage he first entered the world, he became a tory so ardent and determinate, that he did not willingly consort with m'en of different opinions. He was one of the sixteen tories who met weekly, and agreed to address each other by the title of brother; and seems to have adhered, not only by concurrence of political designs, but by peculiar affection, to the earl of Oxford and his family. With how much confidence he was trusted has been already told.

"He was, however, in Pope’s opinion, fit only to make verses, and less qualified for business than Addison himselfThis was surely said without consideration. Addison, exalted to a high place, was forced into degradation by a sense of his own incapacity; Prior, who was employed by men very capable of estimating his value, having been secretary to one embassy, had, when great abilities were again wanted, the same office another time; and was, after so much experience of his knowledge and dexterity, at last sent to transact a negociation in the highest degree arduous and important, for which he was qualified, among other requisites, in the opinion of Bolingbroke, by his influence upon the French minister, and by skill in questions of commerce above other men.

“Of his behaviour in the lighter parts of life, it is too late to get much intelligence., One of his answers to a boastful Frenchman has been related and to an impertinent one he made another equally proper. During his embassy he sat at the opera by a man, who, in his rapture, accompanied with his own voice the principal singer. Prior fell to railing at the performer with all the terms of reproach that he could collect, till the Frenchman, ceasing from his song, began to expostulate with him for his harsh censure of a man who was confessedly the ornament of the stage.” I know all that,“says the ambassador,” mais il chante si haut, que je ne sgaurois vous entendre."

In his private character Prior was licentious, and descended to keep low company. In his “Tales” we find much indecency, and his works, collectively, are not a suitable present from a decent giver. Whatever his opinions, there seems no evidence to contradict the charge brought against him, that his life was irregular, negligent, and sensual. For the merit of his poems we may refer to Dr. Johnson’s criticism, which some have thought rather severe. As it becomes more attentively considered, however, it seems to harmonize with more recent opinions. Ease and humour are the principal characteristics of Prior’s poetry. Invention he had very little; but, although his stories, and even his points may be traced, he certainly had the happy art of telling an old story so as to convey new delight. He appears to have rested his reputation on his “Solomon,” which he wrote with great labour. Johnson, who objects to it chiefly its tediousness, allows that the reader will be able to mark many passages to which he may recur for instruction and delight, many from which the poet may learn to write, and the philosopher to reason: and Cowper says, that in his opinion, Solomon is the best poem, whether we consider the subject of it, or the execution, that Prior ever wrote.

, an eminent grammarian of antiquity, was born at Caesarea, and afterwards went to Constantinople, where he taught the principles of his art, and was in the highest reputation about the year 525. Donatus, Servius, and Priscian, are called triumviri in “Re Grammatica,” by Laurentius Valla, who thinks them all excellent, and that none oF the ancients, who wrote after them upon the Latin language, are fit to be mentioned with them. Priscian composed a work “De Arte Grammatica,” which was first printed by Aldus, at Venice, in 1476 it is addressed to Julian, not the emperor, as some have erroneously supposed, but the consul. He wrote a book “De NaturalibusQusestionibus,” which he dedicated to Chosroes, king of Persia. He translated “Dionysius’s Description of the World,” into Latin verse: this is printed with the edition of that author, at Oxford, 1697, in 8vo. Some have pretended that this grammarian! was first a Christian, and afterwards a Pagan but there is no foundation for this opinion. Hadrian Valesius relates, that his name, in a very ancient and correct manuscript, is written Pracscianus, A person who writes false Latin is proverbially said to break Priscian’s head."

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

, 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.

, an eminent artist, was the son of Ercole Procaccini of Bologna, a painter of considerable note. He was born in 1548, a-nd was at first educated as a sculptor, which he relinquished, and frequented the academy of the Caracci, but the principal object of his studies were the works of Corregio, and in the opinion of many, none ever approached nearer the grandeur of that style, particularly in easel pictures, and works of confined composition, though his grace be often meretricious, and his colour less vigorous. A Madonna of his at St. Luigi de Fraiicesi, has been engraved as the work of Allegri and some still better imitations may be seen in the palace of St. Vitali at Parma, in that of Caregaat Genoa, and elsewhere. Of his various altar-pieces, the most resembling the manner of Corregio is perhaps that of St. Afra in Brescia: it represents Maria with the infant, amid an ogling and smiling group of angels and saints, where dignity seems as much sacrificed to grace, as in the mutual smile of the Virgin and the angel in his Nunziata, at St. Antonio of Milan; grimaces both, unworthy of the moment and of the mystery.

, an eminent philosopher among the later Platonists, was born at Constantinople in the year 410, of parents who were both able and willing to provide for his instruction in all the various branches of learning and knowledge. He was first sent to Xanthus, a city of Lycia, to learn grammar; thence to Alexandria, where he was under the best masters in rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics; and from Alexandria he removed to Athens, where he heard Plutarch, the son of Nestorius, and Syrianus, both of them celebrated philosophers. He succeeded the last in the rectorship of the Platonic school at Athens, where he died in the year 485. Marinus of Naples, who was his successor in the school, wrote his life and the first perfect copy of it was published, with a Latin version and notes, by Fabricius, Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, and afterwards subjoined to his “Bibiiotheca Latina, 1703,” 8vo.

He wrote a vast number of works in various ways; many of which are lost, some are published, and a few remain still in manuscript only. Of the published, there are four very elegant hymns; one to the “Sun,” two to “Venus,” and one to the “Muses,” of all which Godfrey Olearius, and Grotius, wrote Latin versions. There are “Commentaries upon several pieces of Plato,” upon the four books of Claudius Ptolemoeus “Dejudiciis Astrorum,” upon the first book of “Euclid’s Elements,” and upon Hesiod’s “Opera & Dies.” There are also works of Proclus upon philosophical and astronomical subjects particularly the piece “De Sphsera,” which was published in 1620, 4to, by Bainbridge, the Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. Lastly, we may mention his “Argumenta XVIII. adversus Christianos” which, though the learned Cave supposed them to be lost, are still extant. Cave, concluding too much from the title of this piece, and from what Suidas says of Proclus, was led to rank him with Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, as a professed and bitter adversary of Christianity whereas Proclus only attacks the Christians upon this single dogma, “whether the world be eternal” the affirmative of which he attempts to prove against them by eighteen arguments. Joannes Philopon us refuted these arguments of Proclus, with eighteen arguments for the negative: and both the one and the other, for they are interwoven, have been printed more than once with Latin versions.

The character of Proclus is that of all the later Platonists, who were in truth much greater enthusiasts than the Christians their contemporaries, whom they represented in this light. Proclus was not reckoned quite orthodox by his order he did not adhere so religiously, as Julian and Porphyry, to the doctrines and principles of his master “he had,” says Cudwortb, “some peculiar fancies and whimsies of his own, and was indeed a confounder of the Platonic theology, and a rningler of much unintelligible stuff with it.”

, an ancient Greek historian of the sixth century, was born at Caesarea in Palestine, and went thence to Constantinople in the time of the emperor Anastasius whose esteem he obtained, as well as that of Justin the first, and Justinian. His profession was that of a rhetorician and pleader of causes. He was advanced to be secretary to Belisarius, and attended that renowned general in the wars of Persia, Africa, and Italy. He afterwards was admitted into the senate, and became prefect or governor of the city gt Constantinople; where he seems to have died, somewhat above sixty, about the year 560. His history contains eight books; two, of the Persian war, which are epitomized by Photius, in the sixty-third chapter of his “Bibliotheca;” two, of the wars of the Vandals; and four, of that of the Goths; of all which there is a kind of abridgment, in the preface of Agathias, who began his history where Procopius left off. Besides these eight books, Suidas mentions a ninth, which comprehends matters not before published, and is therefore called his avExSbra, or indita. Vossius thought that this book was lost but it has since been published, and gone through many editions. Many learned men have been of opinion, that this is a spurious work, and falsely ascribed to Procopius; and cannot be persuaded, that he, who in the eight books represented Justinian, Theodora, and Belisarius, in a very advantageous light, should in this ninth have made such a collection of particulars as amounts to an invective against them and Le Vayer was so sensibly affected with this argument, that he declares all Procopius’ s history to be ridiculous, if ever so little credit be given to the calumnies of this piece. Fabricius, however, sees no reason, why this secret history tnayhot have been written by Procopius; and he produces several examples, and that of Cicero amongst them, to shew that nothing has been more usual, than fur writers to take greater liberties in their private accounts, than they can venture to introduce in what was designed for the public. There is another work of Procopius, still extant, entitled “KTi<7/xaT<z, sive de sedificiisconditis vel restauratis auspicio Justiniani Imperatoris Hbri vi.” which, with his eight books of history, were first renewed in Greek by Hoeschelius in 1607 for the book of anecdotes, though published in 1624, was not added to these, till the edition of Paris, 1662, in folio, when they were all accompanied with Latin versions.

The learned have been much divided, nor are they yet agreed, about the religion of Procopius some contending that he was an Heathen, some that he was a Christian, and some that he was hoth Heathen and Christian: of which last opinion was the learned Cave. Le Vayer declares for the Paganism of Procopius, and quotes the following passage from his first book of the “Wars of the Goths,” which, he says, is sufficient to undeceive those who considered him as a Christian historian. “I will not trouble myself,” says he, speaking of the different opinions of Christians, “to relate the subject of such controversies, although it is not unknown to rne because I hold it a vain desire to comprehend the divine nature, and understand what God is. Human wit knows not the things here below; how then can it be satisfied in the search after divinity I omit therefore such vain matter, and which only the credulity of man causes to he respected; content with acknowledging, that there is one God full of bounty, who governs us, and whose power stretches over the universe. Let every one therefore believe what he thinks fit, whether he be a priest and tied to divine worship, or a man of a private and secular condition.” Fabricius sees nothing in this inconsistent with the soundness of Christian belief, and therefore is not induced by this declaration, which appeared to Le Vayer, and other learned men, to decide against Procopius’s Christianity. This, however, whatever the real case may be, seems to have been allowed on all sides, that Procopius was at least a Christian by name and profession; and that, if his private persuasion was not with Christians, he conformed to the public worship, in order to be well with the emperor Justinian.

As an historian, he deserves an attentive reading, having written of things which he knew with great exactness. Suidas, after he had given him the surname of Illustrious, calls him rhetorician and sophister as perhaps he seems to have been too much for an historian. He is copious but his copiousness is rather Asiatic than Athenian, and has in it more of superfluity than true ornament. It may not be improper to mention, that Grotius made a Latin version of Procopius’s two books of the wars of the Vandals, and of the four books of the wars with the Goths a good edition of which was published at Amsterdam in 1655, 8vo.

Procopius Rasus, or The Shaven, surnamed the Great, from his valour and military exploits, was a Bohemian gentleman, who, after travelling into France, Italy, Spain, and the Holy Land, was shaven, and even ordained priest, as is said, against his will, from whence he had the above epithet added to his name. He afterwards quitted the ecclesiastical habit, and attached himself to Zisca, chief of the Hussites, who esteemed him highly, and placed a particular confidence in him. Procopius succeeding Zisca in 1424, committed great ravages in Moravia, Austria, Brandenburg, Silesia, and Saxony, and made himself master of several towns, and great part of Bohemia. He had an interview with Sigismond, but not obtaining any of his demands from that prince, he continued the war. Upon hearing that the council of Basil was summoned in 1431, he wrote a long circular letter in Latin, to all the states in his own name, and that of the Hussites, in the close of which he declared that he and his party were ready to fight in defence of the four following articles: that the public irregularities of the priests should be prevented secondly, that the clergy should return to the state of poverty, in which our Lord’s disciples lived; thirdly, that all who exercise the ministerial office, should be at liberty to preach in what manner, at what time, and on what subjects they chose; fourthly, that the Eucharist should be administered according to Christ’s institution, i. e. in both kinds. Procopius also wrote a letter to the emperor Sigismond, May 22, 1432, requesting him to be present with the Hussites at the council of Basil. He was there himself with his party in 1433 they defended the above-mentioned articles very warmly, but finding that their demands were not granted, withdrew, and continued their incursions and ravages. Procopius died of the wounds he received in a battle in 1434. The Letters before spoken of, and the proposal which he made in the name of the Taborites, may be found in the last volume of the large collection by Fathers Martenne and Durand. He must be distinguished from Procopius, surnamed the Little, head of part of the Hussite army, who accompanied Procopius the Great, and was killed in the same action in which the latter received his mortal wound.

, an ancient Roman poet, was born at Mevania, a town in Urnbria, as we learn from his own writings, and probably about the year of Rome 700. Some say, his father was a knight, and a man of considerable authority; who, becoming a partizan with Antony, on the capture of Perusia, was made prisoner, and killed by Augustus’s order, at the altar erected to Caesar when his estate was forfeited of course. This which happened when the poet was very young, he alludes to in one of his elegies, and laments the ruin of his family in that early season of his life. His wit and learning soon recommended him to the patronage of Maecenas and Gallus; and among the poets of his time, he was very intimate with Ovid and Tibullus. We have no particular account of his life, or the manner of his death; only he mentions his taking a journey to Athens, probably in company with his patron Maecenas, who attended Augustus in his progress through Greece. Those that make him live the longest carry his age no higher than forty-one. His death is usually placed B. C. 10. The great object of his imitation was Callimachus Mimnermus and Philetas were two others, whom he likewise admired and followed in his elegies. Quintilian tells us, that Propertius disputed the prize with Tibullus, among the critics of his time and the younger Pliny, speaking of Passienus, an eminent and learned elegiac poet of his acquaintance, says, that this talent was hereditary and natural for that he was a descendant and countryman of Propertius. Propertius however was inferior to Tibullus in tenderness, and to Ovid in variety of fancy, and facility of expression still it must be granted that he was equal in harmony of numbers, and certainly gave the first specimen of the poetical epistle, which Ovid afterwards claimed as his invention.

, 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 celebrated Greek philosopher of Abdera, is said by some to have been the son of a rich Thracian, but by others to have been of low birth, and to have followed the trade of a porter. He was instructed in philosophy by Democritns, and, though his genius was rather subtle than solid, taught at Athens with great reputation but was at length driven from thence on account of his impiety, for he questioned the existence of a deity, and had begun one of his books with the following impious expressions “I cannot tell whether there are any Gods, or not many circumstances concur to prevent my knowing it, as the uncertainty of the thing in itself, and the shortness of human life.” This book, which was publicly burnt, having occasioned his banishment from Athens, he then visited the islands of the Mediterranean, and lived many years in Epirus. Protagoras is said to have been the first philosopher who received money for teaching. He flourished about 6 19 B. C. and died at a very advanced age, as he was going into Sicily. His usual method of reasoning was by Dilemmas, leaving the mind in suspense concerning all the questions which he proposed on which subject the following story is told of a rich young man named Evathlus. This youth, having been received as his disciple, for a large sum, half of which he paid at first, and was to pay the remainder when he had gained his first cause, remained a long time in our philosopher’s school, without troubling himself either about pleadiig or paying, which induced Protagoras to commence a law-suit for his money. When they came before the judges, the young man defended himself by saying, that he had not yet gained any cause upon which Protagoras proposed this dilemma: “If I gain my cause, thou wilt be sentenced to pay me, and if thou gainest it, tbou art in my debt, according to our agreement.” But, Evathlus, well instructed by his master, retorted the dilemma upon him thus “If the judges release me I owe thee nothing, and if they order me to pay the money, then I owe thee nothing, according to our agreement, for I shall not have gained my cause.” The judges, it is added, were so embarrassed by these quibbles, that they left the matter undecided. This story has the appearance of a fiction, but Protagoras certainly made it his business to furnish subtle arguments to dazzle and blind the judges, nor was he ashamed to profess himself ready to teach the means of making the worse cause appear the better.

, a famous ancient painter, was a native of Caunus, a city of Caria subject to the Rhodians. Who was his father, or his mother, is not known but it is probable enough that he had no other master than the public pieces that he saw; and perhaps his parents, being poor, could not be at any such expence for his education in the art, as was customary at that time. It is certain that he was obliged at first to paint ships for his livelihood: but his ambition was not be rich; his aim being solely to be master of his profession. He finished his pictures with such anxious care, that Apelles said of him, he never knew when he had done well. The finest of his pieces was the picture of Jalisus, mentioned by several authors without giving any description of it, or telling us who Jalisus was some suppose him to have been a famous hunter, and the founder of Rhodes. It is said that for seven years, while Protogenes worked on this picture, all his food was lupines mixed with a little water, which served him both for meat and drink *. Apelles was so struck with this piece, that he could find no words to express his admiration. It was this same picture that saved the city of Rhodes, when besieged by king Demetrius; for, not being able to attack it but on that side where Protogenes was at work, he chose rather to abandon his hopes of conquest, than to destroy so fine a piece as that of Jalisus.

and out of breath, he was not able to The same story, however, is told of

vexed biui to such a degree ttfat he foam of a horse. it, designed something with extreme delicacy. Protogenes coming home, the old woman told him what had passed, and shewed him the canvas who, then attentively observing the beauty of the lines, said it was certainly Apelles who had been there, and taking another colour, he drew on those lines an outline more correct and more delicate; after which he went out again, bidding the old woman shew that to the person who had been there, if he returned, and, tell him that was the man he inquired for. Apelles returning, and being ashamed to see himself outdone, took a third colour, and, among the lines that had been drawn, laid on some with so much judgment, as to comprise all the subtlety of the art. Protogenes saw these in his turn, confessed his inferiority, and ran in haste to find out Apelles.

Pliny, who tells this story, says that he saw this piece of canvas, before it was consumed in the fire which burnt the emperor’s palace; that there was nothing upon it, but some lines, which could scarcely be distinguished; and yet this fragment was more valued than any of the pictures among which it was placed. The same author informs us that Apelles asking this rival what price he had for his pictures; and Protogenes naming an inconsiderable sum, according to the hard fortune of those who are obliged to work for their bread, Apelles, concerned at the injustice done to the beauty of his productions, gave him fifty talents, equal to 10,000l. for one picture only, declaring publicly, that he would make it pass and sell it for his own. This generosity opened the eyes of the Rhodians as to the merit of Protogenes, and made them purchase this picture at a much greater price than Apelles had given. Pliny also informs us, that Protogenes was a sculptor as well as a painter. He flourished about the 108th olympiad, or 308 B. C. Quintilian, observing the talent of six famous painters, says, Protogenes excelled in exactness, Pamphilius and Melanthus in the disposition, Antiphilus in easiness, Theon the Samian, in fruitfulness of ideas, and Apelles’in grace and ingenious conceptions.

, an ancient Christian poet, was born in Spain in the year 348 but in what part is uncertain. He was brought up a lawyer and, being called to the bar, was afterwards made a judge in two considerable towns. He was then promoted by the emperor Honorius to a very high office; but not to the consulate, as some have imagined. He was fifty-seven before he employed his mind on religion, and then wrote his poems on pious subjects, which are neither deficient in the true poetic spirit, nor much imbued with it. He often uses harsh expressions, not reconcileable to pure Latinity, and is even jjuilty of false quantity. These effusions, to which he chiefly gave Greek titles, are, “Psychoniachia, or The Combat of the Soul” “Cathemerinon, or Poems concerning each day’s duty” “Tlegi rspavuv, or Hymns in Praise of Martyrs” “Apotheosis, or Treatises upon divine subjects, against Jews, Infidels, and Heretics;” “Hamartigena, or concerning Original Sin, against Marcion” “Two Books against Symmachus” “Diptichon, or some Histories of the Old and New Testament in distichs.” In the two books against Symmachus, he shews the original of false deities, gives an account of the conversion of the city of Rome and answers the petition, which Symmachns presented to the emperors, to obtain the reestablishment of the Altar of Victory, and other ceremonies of the pagan religion. These books were written before the victory gained over Radagaisus in the year 405, and after that which Stilicho won over Alaric near Pollentia in the year 402 for he mentions the latter, and say* nothing of the former, though his subject required it.

The time of Prudentius’s death is not mentioned. His works were published by Aldus at Venice in 1501, 4to, and that edition has been followed by many others. A Variorum edition was published by Weitzius, at Hanau, in 1613; another, with the notes and corrections of Nicholas Heinsius, at Amsterdam, in 1667, 12mo, neatly printed by Daniel Elzevir; another “In usum Delphini,” by father Chamillard, at Paris, 1687, 4to, and a splendid edition at Rome in 1788, 4to.

, an English lawyer, who was much distinguished by the number rather than excellence of his publications, during the reign of Charles I. was born in 1600, at Swanswick in Somersetshire, and educated at a grammar-school in the city of Bath. He became a commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1616; and, after taking a bachelor of arts’ degree, in 1620, removed to Lincoln’s-­inn, where he studied the law, and was made successively barrister, bencher, and reader. At his first coming to that inn, he was a great admirer and follower of Dr. Preston, preacher to the inn (see Preston), and published several books against what he thought the enormities of the age, and the doctrine and discipline of the church. His “Histriornastix,” which came out in 1632, giving great offence to the court, he was committed prisoner to the Tower of London and, in 1633, sentenced by the Starchamber, to be fined 5000l. to the king, expelled the university of Oxford and Lincoln’s-inn, degraded and disenabled from his profession of the law, to stand in the pillory and lose his ears, to have his book publicly burnt before his face, and to remain prisoner during lite. Prynne was certainly here treated with very unjust severity; for Whitelocke observes, that the book was licensed by archbishop Abbot’s chaplain, and was merely an invective against plays and players; but there being “a reference in the table of this book to this effect, women-actors notorious whores, relating to some women-actors mentioned in his book, as he affirmeth, it happened, that about six weeks after this the queen acted a part in a pastoral at Somerset-house; and then archbishop Laud and other prelates, whom Prynne had angered by some books of his against Arminianism, and against the jurisdiction of bishops, and by some prohibitions which he had moved, and got to the high commission-court these prelates, and their instruments, the next day after the queen had acted her pastoral, shewed Prynne’s book against plays to the king, and that place in it, women-actors notorious whores; and they informed the king and queen, that Prynne had purposely written this book against the queen and her pastoral whereas it was published six weeks before that pastoral was acted.”

After the sentence upon Prynne was executed, as it was rigorously enough in May 1634, he was remitted to prison. In June following, as soon as he could procure pen, ink, and paper, he wrote a severe letter to archbishop Laud concerning his sentence in the Star-chamber, and what the archbishop in particular had declared against him; who acquainted the king with this letter, on which his majesty commanded the archbishop to refer it to Noy the attorneygeneral. Noy sent for Prynne, and demanded whether the letter was of his hand-writing or not; who desiring to see it, tore it to pieces, and threw the pieces out of the window; which prevented a farther prosecution of him. In 1635, 1636, and 1637, he published several books: particularly one entitled “News from Ipswich,” in which he reflected with great coarseness of language on the archbishop and other prelates. The mildest of his epithets were “Luciferian lord bishops, execrable traitors, devouring wolves,” &c. For this he was sentenced in the Starchamber, in June 1637, to be fined 5000l. to the king, to lose the remainder of his ears in the pillory, to be branded on both cheeks with the letters S. L. for schismatical libeller, and to be perpetually imprisoned in Caernarvoncastle. This sentence was executed in July, in Palaceyard, Westminster; but, in January following, he was removed to Mount Orgueil castle in the isle of Jersey, where he exercised his pen in writing several books. On Nov. 7, 1640, an order was issued by the House of Commons for his releasement from prison and the same month he entered with great triumph into London. In December following, he presented a petition representing what he had suffered from Laud, for which Wood tells us he had a recompense allowed him; but Prynne positively denies that he ever received a farthing. He was soon after elected a member of parliament for Newport in Cornwall, and opposed the bishops, especially the archbishop, with great vigour, both by his speeches and writings; and was the chief manager of that prelate’s trial. In 1647, he was one of the parliamentary visitors of the university of Oxford. During his sitting in the Long Parliament, he was very zealous for the presbyterian cause; but when the independents began to gain the ascendant, shewed himself a warm opposer of them, and promoted the king’s interest. He made a long speech in the House of Commons, concerning the satisfactoriness of the king’s answers to the propositions of peace; and for that cause was, two days after, refused entrance into the House by the army. This remarkable speech he published in a quarto pamphlet, with an appendix, in which he informs us, that “being uttered with much pathetique seriousnesse, and heard with great attention, it gave such generall satisfaction to the House, that many members, formerly of a contrary opinion, professed, they were both convinced and converted; others, who were dubious in the point of satisfaction, that they were now fully confirmed most of different opinion put to a stand; and the majority of the House declared, both by their chearefull countenances and speeches (the Speaker going into the withdrawing-roome to refresh himselfe, so soon as the speech was ended) that they were abundantly satisfied by what had been thus spoken. After which the Speaker resuming the chair, this speech was seconded by many able gentlemen; and the debate continuing Saturday, and all Monday and Monday night, till about nine of the clock on Tuesday morning, and 244 Members staying quite out to the end, though the House doores were not shut up (a thing never scene nor knowne before in parliament) the question was at last put: and notwithstanding the generall’s and whole armie’s march to Westminster, and menaces against the members, in case they voted for the treaty, and did not utterly reject it as unsatisfactory, carried it in the affirmative by 140 voices (with the foure tellers) against 104, that the question should be put; and then, without any division of the House, it was resolved on the question, That the answers of the king to the propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.” In the course of the speech, he alludes to his services and sufferings, adding that “he had never yet received one farthing recompense from the king, or any other, ‘though I have waited,’ says he, ‘above eight years atyour doors for justice and reparations, and neglecting my owne private calling and affaires, imployed most of my time, studyes, and expended many hundred pounds out of my purse, since my inlargement, to maintain your cause against the king, his popish and prelatical party. For all which cost and labour, I never yet demanded, nor received one farthing from the Houses, nor the least office or preferment whatsoever, though they have bestowed divers places of honour upon persons of lesse or no desert. Nor did I ever yet receive so much as your publike thanks for any publike service done you, (which every preacher usually receives for every sermon preached before you, and most others have received for the meanest services) though I have brought you off with honour in the cases of Canterbury and Macguire, when you were at a losse in both; and cleared the justnesse of your cause, when I was at the lowest ebb, to most reformed churches abroad (who received such satisfaction from my books, that they translated them into several languages), and engaged many thousands for you at home by my writings, who were formerly dubious and unsatisfied.’”

From this time he became a bitter enemy to the army and their leader Cromwell, and attacked them with as much severity as he had used towards the royal party, and the church. Thus defying Cromwell in an open manner, he was, July 1, 1650, committed close prisoner to Dunster castle in Somersetshire. He then insisted strongly upon Magna Charta, and the liberty of the subject; which, though of little weight with Cromwell, seems at last to have released him, and taking again to his favourite employment, he wrote abundance of books upon religious controversies and other points.

In 1659, being considered as one of the secluded members of the House of Commons, he was restored to sit again, and became instrumental in recalling Charles II. in which he shewed such zeal, that general Monk was obliged to check his intemperate and irritating language, as being then unseasonable. In 1660 he was chosen for Bath, to sit in the healing parliament; and, after the restoration, expected to have been made one of the barons of the Exchequer, but this was not thought proper. When the king was asked what should be done with Prynne to keep him quiet, “Why,” said he, “let him amuse himself with writing against the Catholics, and in poring over the records in the Tower.” Accordingly he was made chief keeper of his majesty’s records in the Tower, with a salary of 500l. per annum. He was again elected for Bath in 1661; and, July that year, being discontented at some proceeding in the House, he published a paper, entitled “Sundry Reasons tendered to the most honourable House, of Peers by some citizens and members of London, and other cities, boroughs, corporations, and ports, against the new-intended Bill for governing and reforming Corporations:” of which being discovered to be the author, he was obliged to beg pardon of the House, in order to escape punishment. After the restoration, he published several books, altogether, with what he had already published, amounting to forty volumes, folio and quarto, a copy of all which, bound together, he presented to the library of Lincoln’sInn: so that March mont Needham was not far from the mark, when he called him “one of the greatest paperworms, that ever crept into a closet or library.” He died at his chambers in Lincoln’s-Iun, Oct. 24, 1669, and was interred under the chapel there.

Prynne has been thought an honest man, for opposing equally Charles, the army, and Cromwell, when he thought they were betrayers of the country; and after having accurately observed, and sensibly felt, in his own person, the violation of law occasioned by each of them, he gave his most strenuous support to the legal and established government of his country, effected by the restoration of Charles II. The earl of Clarendon calls him learned in the law, as far as mere reading of books could make him learned. His works are all in English; and, “by the generality of scholars,” says Wood, “are looked upon to be rather rhapsodical and confused, than any way polite or concise: yet for antiquaries, critics, and sometimes for divines, they are useful. In most of them he shews greatindustry, but little judgment, especially in his large folios against the pope’s usurpations. He may be well entitled ‘voluminous Prynne,’ as Tostatus Abulensis was, two hundred years before his time, called ‘ voluminous Tostatus;’ for I verily believe, that, if rightly computed, he wrote a sheet for every day of his life, reckoning from the time when he came to the use of reason and the state of man.” Many of his works have lately been in request, and have been purchased at high prices. Whether they are more read than before, is not so certain; but much curious matter might be extracted by a patient and laborious reader, which would throw light on the controversies and characters of the times. He was himself perhaps one of the most indefatigable students. He read or wrote during the whole clay, and that he might not be interrupted, had no regular meals, but took, as he wanted it, the humble refreshment of bread, cheese, and ale, which were at his elbow.

, 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 assumed name of a very extraordinary person, was undoubtedly a Frenchman born; he had his education partly in a free-school, taught by two Franciscan monks, and afterwards in a college of Jesuits in an archiepiscopal city; the name of which, as also of his birth-place and of his parents, remain yet inviolable secrets. Upon leaving the college, he was recommended as a tutor to a young gentleman, but soon fell into a mean rambling kind of life, that led him into many disappointments and misfortunes. The first pretence he took up with was that of being a sufferer for religion and he procured a certificate that he was of Irish extraction, had left the country for the sake of the Roman Catholic religion, and was going on a pilgrimage to Rome. Not being in a condition to purchase a pilgrim’s garb, he had observed, in a chapel dedicated to a miraculous saint, that such a one had been set up, as a monument of gratitude to some wandering pilgrim and he contrived to take both staff and cloak away at noon-day. “Being thus accoutred,” says he, “and furnished with a pass, I began, at all proper places, to beg my way in a fluent Latin accosting only clergymen, or persons of figure, by whom I could be understood: and found them mostly so generous and credulous, that I might easily have saved money, and put myself into a much better dress, before I had gone through a score or two of miles. But so powerful was my vanity and extravagance, that as soon as I had got what I thought a sufficient viaticum, I begged no more; but viewed every thing worth seeing, and then retired to some inn, where I spent my money as freely as I had obtained it.”

At the age of sixteen, when he was in Germany, he hit upon the wild project of passing for a Formosan. He recollected, that he had heard the Jesuits speak much of China and Japan; and was rash enough to think, that what he wanted of a right knowledge, he might make up by the strength of a pregnant invention, which here, it must be confessed, found ample scope for employment. He set himself to form a new character and language, a grammar, a division of the year into twenty months, a new religion, and whatever else was necessary to support the deceit. His alphabet was written from right to left like the Oriental tongues and he soon inured his hand to write it with great readiness. He now thought himself sufficiently prepared to pass for a Japanese converted to Christianity he altered his Avignon certificate as artfully as he could re-assumed his old pilgrim’s habit, and began his tour, though with a heavy heart, to the Low Countries. Under the notion of a Japanese converted by some Jesuit missionaries, and brought to Avignon to be instructed by them, as well as to avoid the dreadful punishments inflicted on converts by the emperor of Japan, he travelled several hundred leagues, with an appearance, however, so dismal and shabby, as to exceed even the common beggars.

At Liege he enlisted into the Dutch service, and was earned by his officer to Aix-la-Chapelle. He afterwards entered into the elector of Cologne’s service; but being still as ambitious as ever to pass for a Japanese, he now chose to profess himself an unconverted or heathenish one, rather than, what he had hitherto pretended to be, a convert to Christianity: The last garrison he came to was Sluys, where brigadier Lauder, a Scotch colonel, introduced him to the chaplain, with whom he was permitted to have a conference; and this, at length, ended in the chaplain’s fervent zeal to make a convert of him, by way of recommending himself, as it afterwards turned out, to Compton, bishop of London, whose piety could not fail of rewarding so worthy an action. By this time Psalmanazar, growing tired of the soldier’s life, listened to the chaplain’s proposal of taking him over to England; and he was, accordingly, with great haste, baptized. A letter of invitation from the bishop of London arriving, they set out for Rotterdam. Psalmanazar was, in general, much caressed there; but some there were, who put such shrewd questions to him, as carried the air of not giving all that credit which he could have wished. This threw him upon a whimsical expedient, by way of removing all obstacles, viz. that of living upon raw flesh, roots, and herbs: and he soon habituated himself, he tells us, to this new and strange food, without receiving the least injury to his health; taking care to add a good deal of pepper and spices, by way of concoction.

At his arrival in London he was introduced to the good bishop, was received with great humanity, and soon found a large circle of friends among the well-disposed, both of clergy and laity. “But,” says he, “I had a much greater number of opposers to combat with; who, though they judged rightly of me in the main, were far from being candid in their account of the discovery they pretended to make to my disadvantage: particularly the doctors Halley, Mead, and Woodward. The too visible eagerness of these gentlemen to expose me at any rate for a cheat, served only to make others think the better of me, and even to look upon me as a kind of confessor; especially as those genjtlemen were thought to be no great admirers of Revelation, to which my patrons thought I had given so ample a testimony.” Before he had been three months in London, he was cried up for a prodigy. He was presently sent to translate the church-catechism into the Formosan language; it was received by the bishop of London with candour, the author rewarded with generosity, and his catechism laid up amongst the most curious manuscripts. It was examined by the learned; they found it regular and grammatical; and gave it as their opinion, that it was a real language, and no counterfeit. After such success, he was soon prevailed upon to write the well-known " History of Formosa/' which soon after appeared. The first edition had not been long published, before a second was called for. In the mean time, he was sent by the good bishop to Oxford, topursue such studies as suited his own inclination most; whilst his opposers and advocates in London were disputing about the merits and demerits of his book.

The learned at Oxford were not less divided in their opinions. A convenient apartment was, however, assigned him in one of the colleges; he had all the advantages of learning which the university could afford him, and a learned tutor to assist him. Upon his return to London, he continued, for about ten years, to indulge acourse of idleness and extravagance. Some absurdities, however, observed in his “History of Formosa,” in the end effectually discredited the whole relation, and saved him the trouble, and his friends the mortification, of an open confession of his guilt. He seemed, through a long course of life, to abhor the imposture, and in his latter days exhibited every demonstration of penitence. He was a man. of considerable talents in conversation, and Dr. Johnson, who associated much with him at one time, had even a profound respect for him. His learning and ingenuity, during the remainder of his life, did not fail to procure him a comfortable subsistence from his pen: he was concerned in compiling and writing works of credit, particularly the “Universal History,” and lived exemplarily for many years. His death happened Tuesday, May 3, 1763, at his lodgings in Ironmonger- row, Old-street, in the eightyfourth year of his age.

, 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.

Science is greatly indebted to this astronomer, who has preserved and transmitted to us the observations and principal discoveries of the ancients, and at the same time augmented and enriched them with his own. He corrected Hipparchus’s catalogue of the fixed stars; and formed tables, by which the motions of the sun, moon, and planets, might be calculated and regulated. He was indeed the first who collected the scattered and detached observations of the ancients, and digested them into a system which he set forth in his “Μεγαλη συνταξις, sive Magna Constructio,” divided into thirteen books, and which has been called from him the Ptolemaic system, to distinguish it from those of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. About the year 827, this work was translated by the Arabians into their language, in which it was called “Almagestum,” by the command of one of their kings and from Arabic into Latin, about 1230, under the encouragement of the emperor Frederic II. There were other versions from the Arabic into Latin and a manuscript of one, done by Girardus Cremonensis, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is said by Fabricius to be still extant, and in the library of All Souls college at Oxford. The Greek text began to be read in Europe in the fifteenth century and was first published by Simon Grynaeus, at Basil, 1538, in folio, with the eleven books of commentaries by Theon, who flourished at Alexandria in the reign of the elder Theodosius. In 1454, it was reprinted at Basil, with a Latin version by Georgius Trapezuntius and again at the same place in 1551, with the addition of other works of Ptolemy, to which are Latin versions by Camerarius. We learn from Kepler, that this last edition was used by Tycho.

Another great and important work of Ptolemy was, his te Geography," in 7 books; in which, with his usual sagacity, he searches out and marks the situation of places according to their latitudes and longitudes and he was the first that did so. Though tliis work must needs fall far short of perfection, through the want of necessary observations, yet it is of considerable merit, and has been very useful to modern geographers. Cellarius indeed suspects, and he was a. very competent judge, that Ptolemy did not use all the care and application which the nature of his work required; and his reason is, that the author delivers himself with the same fluency and appearance of certainty, concerning things and places at the remotest distance, which it was impossible he could know any thing of, that he does concerning those which lay the nearest to him, and fall the most under his cognizance. Salmasius had before made some remarks to the same purpose upon this work of Ptolemy. The Greek text of this work was first published by itself at Basil in 1533, in 4to afterward, with a Latin version and notes, by Gerard Mercator at Amsterdam, in 1605 which last edition was reprinted at the same place, in 1618, folio, with neat geographical tables, by Bertius.

Other works of Ptolenty, though less considerable than these two, are still extant. As, “Libri quatuor de Judiciis Astrorum,” upon the first two books of which Cardan wrote a commentary. “Fructus Librorum suorum” a kind of supplement to the former work. “Recensio Chronologica Regum” this, with another work of Ptolemy, “De Hypothesibus Planetarum,” was published in 1620, 4to, by John Bainbridge, the Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford and Scaliger, Petavius, Dodwell, and the other chronological writers, have made great use of it. <e ApparenticE Stellarum Inerrantium“this was published at Paris by Petavius, with a Latin version, 1630, folio but from a mutilated copy, the defects of which have since been supplied from a perfect one, which sir Henry Saville had communicated to archbishop Usher, by Fabricius, in the 3d volume of his” Bibliotheca Grseca.“” Elementorum Harmonicorum libri tres" published in Greek and Latin, with a commentary by Porphyry the philosopher, by Dr. Wallis at Oxforcl, in 1682, 4to and afterwards reprinted there, and inserted in the 3d volume of Wallis’s works, in 1699, folio. Of this work Dr. Burney has such an opinion as to say, that Ptolemy ranks as high amongst the great writers of antiquity for his Harmonics, or theory of sound, as for his Almagest and Geography.

Mabillon exhibits, in his “German Travels,” an effigy of Ptolemy looking at the stars through an optical tube which effigy, he says, he found in a manuscript of the thirteenth century, made by Conradus a monk. Hence some have fancied, that the use of the telescope was known to Conradus. But this is only matter of mere conjecture, there being no facts or testimonies, nor even probabilities, to support such an opinion. It is rather likely that the tube was nothing more than a plain open one, employed to strengthen and defend the eye-sight, when looking at particular stars, by excluding adventitious rays from other stars and objects; a contrivance which no observer of the heavens can ever be supposed to have been without.

, of Lucca, an ecclesiastical historian in the fourteenth century, was descended from a noble family, from whom he derived the name of “Bartholomew Fiadoni,” but took that of Ptolemy when he entered into the order of St. Dominic. He became superior of the monastery both at Lucca and Florence. He was afterwards selected by pope John XXII. as his confessor, and in 1318 he was tnade bishop of Torcello, under the patriarchate of Venice. This prelate died in 1327. He was the first of the Italians who studied and wrote on church history. His “Annales” extend from 1060 to 1303, and was published at Lyons in 1619. His largest work was “Historiae Ecclesiastic,” in twenty-four books, commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ, and brought down to 1313. This, after remaining long in ms. was at length published at Milan in 1727, by Muratori, in his grand collection, entitled “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

, 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.

, an eminent German civilian and historian, was born in 1631 at Flaeh, a little village near Chemnitz, in Upper Saxony, of which village his father, the descendant of a Lutheran family, Elias Puffendorf, was minister. He discovered an early propensity to letters, when at the provincial school at Grimm, and at a proper age was sent to Leipsic, where he was supported by the generosity of a Saxon nobleman, who was pleased with his promising talents, his father’s circumstances not being equal to the expence. His fajher designed him for the ministry, and directed him to apply himself to divinity; but his inclination led his thoughts to the public law, which, in Germany, consists of the knowledge of the rights of the empire over the states and princes of which it is composed, and of those of the princes and states with respect to each other. He considered this study as a proper method of advancing in some of the courts of Germany, where the. several princes who compose the Germanic body, were accustomed to have no other ministers of state than men of learning, whom they styled counsellors, and whose principal study was the public law of Germany. As these posts were not venal, and no other recommendation necessary to obtain them but real and distinguished merit, Puffendorf resolved to qualify himself for the honours to which he aspired. After he had resided some time at Leipsic, he left that city, and went to Jena, where he joined mathematics and the Cartesian philosophy to the study of the law. He returned to Leipsic in 1658, with a view of seeking an employment fit for him. One of his brothers, named Isaiah, who had been some time in the service of the king of Sweden, and was afterwards his chancellor in the duchies of Bremen and Werden, then wrote to him, and advised him not to fix in his own country, but after his example to seek his fortune elsewhere. In compliance with this advice, he accepted the place of governor to the son of Mr. Coyet, a Swedish nobleman, who was then ambassador from the king of Sweden at the court of Denmark. For this purpose he went to Copenhagen, but the war being renewed some time after between Denmark and Sweden, he was seized with the whole family of the ambassador, who himself escaped in consequence of having a few days before taken a tour into Sweden.

During his confinement, which lasted eight months, as he had no books, and was allowed to see no person, he amused himself by meditating upon what he had read in Grotius’s treatise “De jure belli & pacis,” and in the political writings of Hobbes. He drew up a short system of what he thought best in them he turned and developed the subject in his own way he treated of points which had not been touched by those authors and he added much that was new. In all this he appears to have had no other object than to divert himself in his solitude; but two years after, shewing his work to a friend in Holland, where he then was, he was advised to review and publish it. It appeared accordingly at the Hague in 1660, under the title of “Elementorum Jurisprudent Universalis libri duo;” and gave rise to his more celebrated work “De jure naturae &^gentium.” The elector Palatine, Charles Louis, to whom he had dedicated the “Elements,” not only wrote him immediately a letter of thanks, but invited him to the university of Heidelberg, which he was desirous of restoring to its former lustre and founded there, in his favour, a professorship of the law of nature and nations which was the first of that kind in Germany, though many have since been established in imitation of it. The elector engaged him also to allot some portion of his time to the instruction of the electoral prince, his son. Puffendorf remained at Heidelberg till 1670, when Charles XL king of Sweden, having founded an university at Lunden, sent for him to be professor there and thither, to the great concern of the elector Palatine, he went the same year, and was installed professor of the law of nature and nations. His reputation greatly increased after that time, both by the fame and success of his lectures, and by the many valuable works that he published. Some years after, the king of Sweden sent for him to Stockholm, and made him his historiographer, and one of his counsellors. In 1688, the elector of Brandenberg obtained the consent of the king of Sweden for Puffendorf to go to Berlin, in order to write the history of the elector William the Great; and granted him the same titles of historiographer and privycounsellor, which he had in Sweden, with a considerable pension. The king of Sweden also continued to give him marks of his favour, and made him a baron in 1694. But he did not long enjoy the title for he died the same year, of a mortification in one of his’toes, occasioned by cutting the nail. He was as much distinguished by the purity of his morals, and the rectitude of his conduct, as by the superiority of his talents, and the celebrity of his numerous writings.

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.”

Other works of Puffendorf are 4. “De officio Hominis & Civis juxta legem naturalem,” 1673, 8vo. This is a very clear and methodical abridgement of his great work “De jure naturae & gentium.” 5. “Introduction to the History of Europe,' 7 1682. With a Continuation, 1686; and an Addition, 1699, in German; afterwards translated into Latin, French, and English. 5.” Commentariorum de rebus Suecicis libri xxvi. ab expeditione Gustavi Adolphi Regis in Germaniam, ad abdicationem usque Christinae,“1686, folio. Puffendorf, having read the public papers in the archives of Sweden, with a design of writitig the history of Charles Gustavus, according to orders received from Charles IX. thought proper to begin with that of Gustavus Adolphus, and to continue it down to the abdication of queen Christina: and this he has executed in, the present work, which is very curious and exact. 6.” De habitu Religionis Christianas ad vitam civilem,“1687, 4to. In this work an attempt is made to settle the just bounds between the ecclesiastical and civil powers. 7.” Jus Feciale Divinum, sive de consensu & dissensu Protestantium Exercitatio Posthuma,“1695, 8vo. The author here proposes a scheme for the re-union of religions and it appears from the zeal with which he recommended the print* ing of it before his death, that this was his favourite work. 8.” De rebus gestis Frederici Wilelmi Magni, Electoris Brandenburgici Commentarii,“1695, in 2 vols. folio; extracted from the archives of the house of Brandenburg. To this a supplement was published from his ms. by count Hertsberg in 1783. 9.” De rebus a Carolo Gustavo Suecise Rege gestis Commentarii,“1696, in 2 vols. folio; He likewise published” An Historical Description of the Politics of the Papal empire,“in German, and some works of a smaller kind, which, being chiefly polemical,and nothing more than defences against envy and personal abuse, sunk into oblivion with the attacks which occasioned them. His brother Isaiah, mentioned above, was born in 1628, was educated at Leipsic, where he distinguished himself, and took the degree of M. A. After various changes of fortune, he was made governor of the young count of Koningsmark, and was afterwards chancellor of the duchy of Bremen. In 1686 he was appointed ambassador of the king of Denmark to the diet of Ratisbon, and died there in 1689. He is the author of a satirical work, entitled” Anecdotes of Sweden, or Secret History of Charles XL"

, one of the most famous Italian poets, was born at Florence, Decembers, 1431. He was of a noble family, and was the most poetical of three brothers who all assiduously courted the Muses. His two elder brothers, Bernardo and Luca, appeared as poets earlier than himself. The first production of the family is probably the Elegy of Bernardo addressed to Lorenzo de' Jiedici, on the death of his grandfather Cosmo. He also wrote an elegy on the untimely death of the beautiful Simonetta, mistress of Giuliano de' Medici, the brother of Lorenzo, which was published at Florence in 1494, though written much earlier. He produced the first Italian translation of the Eclogues of Virgil, which appears to have been finished about 1470 and was published in 1481 and a poem on the Passion of Christ. Luca wrote a celebrated poem on a tournament held at Florence in which Lorenzo was victor, in 1468, entitled “Giostra di Lorenzo de' Medici” as Politian celebrated the success of Giuliano, in his “Giostra di. Giuliano de' Medici.” It is confessed, however, that the poem of Luca Pulci derives its merit rather from the minute information it gives respecting the exhibition, than from its poetical excellence. He produced also “II Ciriffo Calvaneo,” an epic romance, probably the first that appeared in Italy, being certainly prior to the Morgante of his brother, and the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo and the “Driadeo d'Amore,” a pastoral romance in ottava rima. There are also eighteen heroic epistles by him in terza rima, the first from LucretiaDonati to Lorenzo de Medici, the rest on Greek and Roman subjects. These were printed in 1481, and do credit to their author. Luigi appeaps, from many circumstances, to have lived on terms of the utmost friendship with Lorenzo de Medici, who, in his poem entitled “La Caccia col Falcone,” mentions him with great freedom and jocularity. His principal work is the “Morgante maggiore,” an epic romance. Whether this or the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo was first written, has been a subject of doubt. Certain it is that the Morgante had the priority in publication, having been printed at Venice in 1488, after a Florentine edition of uncertain date whereas Bojardo' s poem did not appear till 1496, and, from some of the concluding lines, appears not to have been finished in 1494. The Morgante may therefore be justly, as it is generally, regarded as the prototype of the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto. It has been said without foundation that Ficinus and Politian had a share in this composition. It was first written at the particular request of Lucretia, mother of Lorenzo de Medici, but it was not finished till after her death, which happened in 1482. It is said by Crescimbeni that Pulci was accustomed to recite this poem at the table of Lorenzo, in the manner of the ancient rhapsodists. This singular offspring of the wayward genius of Pulci has been as immoderately commended by its admirers, as it has been unreasonably condemned and degraded by its opponents: and while some have not scrupled to prefer it to the productions of Ariosto and Tasso, others have decried it as vulgar, absurd, and profane. From the solemnity and devotion with which every canto is introduced, some have judged that the author meant to give a serious narrative, but the improbability of the relation, and the burlesque nature of the incidents, destroy all ideas of this kind. M. de la Monnoye says that the author, whom he conceives to have been ignorant of rules, has confounded the comic and serious styles, and made the giant, his hero, die a burlesque death, by the bite of a sea-crab in his heel, in the twentieth book, so that in the eight which remain he is not mentioned. The native simplicity of the narration, he adds, covers all faults: and the lovers of the Florentine dialect still read it with delight, especially when they can procure the edition of Venice, in 1546 or 1550, with the explanations of his nephew John Pulci. These, however, are no more than a glossary of a few words subjoined to each canto. There are also sonnets by Luigi Pulci, published with those of Matteo Franco, in which the two authors satirize each other without mercy or delicacy yet it is supposed that they were very good friends, and only took these liberties with each other for the sake of amusing the public. They were published about the fifteenth century, entitled “Sonetti di Misere Mattheo Franco et di Luigi Pulci jocosi et faceti, cioe da ridere.” No other poem of this author is mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, who has given the best account of him, except “La Beca di Dicomano,” written in imitatation and emulation of “La Nencio da Barberino,” by Lorenzo de Medici, ajid published with it. It is a poem in the rustic style and language, but instead of the more chastised and delicate humour of Lorenzo, the poem of Pulci, says Mr. Roscoe, partakes of the character of his Morgante, and wanders into the burlesque and extravagant. It has been supposed that this poet died about 1-487, but it was probably something later. The exact time id not known.

, an English cardinal who flourished in the twelfth century, was distinguished as a zealous friend to the interests of literature. He is placed by Fuller as a native of Oxfordshire, perhaps from his ciditnectioa with the university. In his youth he studied at 1?aris, and about 1130 returned to England, where he found the university of Oxford ravaged and nearly ruined by the Danes, under the reign of Harold I. and by his indefatigable exertions contributed to itsv restoration. The Chronicle of Osny records him as having begun in the reign of Henry I. to read the Scriptures at Oxford, which were grown obsolete, and it is supposed he commented on Aristotle. Rouse, the Warwick antiquary, mentions his reading the Holy Scriptures, probably about 1134, about which time he had a patron in Henry I. who had built his palace near the university. For some years he taught daily in the schools, and was rewarded with the archdeaconry of Rochester. After this he returned to Paris, where he filled the chair of professor of divinity. He was, however, recalled by his metropolitan, and the revenues of his benefice sequestered till he obeyed the summons. The archdeacon appealed to the see of Rome, and sentence was given in his favour. The fame of his learning induced pope Innocent II. to invite him to Rome, where he was received with great marks of honour; and in 1144 was created cardinal by Celestine II. and afterwards chancellor of the Roman church, by pope Lucius II. He died in 1150. He was author of several works; but the only one of them now extant is his “Sententiarum Liber,” which was published at Paris in 1655. It differs in some measure from the general character of the times as he prefers the simple authority of reason and scripture to the testimony of the fathers, or the subtlety of metaphysics.

, properly Poelman, a Dutch commentator on the classics, was born at Cranenbourg, in the Dutchy of Cleves, about 1510. He was bred a fuller, but by diligent application became an able scholar, critic, and grammarian. He principally applied himself to the correction of the Latin poets from ancient manuscripts, and superintended some good editions of them at the press of Plantin. He published in 1551 Arator’s History of the Acts of the Apostles in Latin hexameters, with his own corrections of the text. Virgil, Lucan, Juvenal, Horace, Ausonius, Claudian, Terence, Suetonius, and Esop’s Fables, were also edited by him, and the works of St. Paulinus. He is supposed to have died about 1580, at Salamanca, but the cause which led him so far from home we cannot assign.

, a distinguished botanist and able physician, was born at Loughborough, Feb. 17, 1730. He first settled as a surgeon and apothecary at Leicester but having been educated as a Calvinistic dissenter, the people of that town, who chanced to have different prejudices, of course gave him but little support. He struggled against pecuniary difficulties with economy, and shielded his peace of mind against bigotry, in himself or others, by looking “through nature, up to nature’s God.” His remarks and discoveries were communicated first to the Gentleman’s Magazine, in 1750, as well as several subsequent years and he intermixed antiquarian studies with his other pursuits. His botanical papers printed by the royal society, on the Sleep of Plants, and the Rare Plants of Leicestershire, procured him the honour of election into that learned body in 1762. In 1764 he obtained a diploma of doctor of physic from Edinburgh, even without accomplishing that period of residence, then usually required, and now indispensable and his thesis on the cinchona officinalis amply justified the indulgence of the university.

Soon afterwards, Dr. Pulteney was acknowledged as a relation by the earl of Bath, who had imbibed a favourable opinion of his talents which circumstances induced him to attach himself to that nobleman as travelling physician. His lordship unfortunately died soon after, on which the subject of our memoir, becoming at a loss for a situation, hesitated whether to settle at London or elsewhere but he soon, decided in favour of Blandford, in Dorsetshire, where there happened to be a vacancy. Here he continued in great reputation, and extensive practice, till his death, which happened on the 13th of October 1801, to the deep regret of all who knew him, in the 72d year of his age. His disease was an inflammation in the lungs, of only a week’s duration.

As an author, Dr. Pulteney was conspicuously distinguished by his “General view of the Writings of Linnæus,” and his “Sketches of the progress of Botany in England.” The former, published in 1782, in one volume 8vo, has contributed more than any work, except perhaps the Tracts of Stillingfleet, to diffuse a taste for Linnaean knowledge in this country. It proved a very popular book, and a new edition was soon called for. This, however, did not appear during the author’s life but has been published by his learned and much valued friend Dr. Maton, who has prefixed to this handsome quarto, portraits of Linnæus and his biographer, with a life of the latter. A translation of Linnæus’s celebrated manuscript diary of his own life is subjoined.

The “Sketches of the progress of Botany,” making two octavo volumes, appeared in 1790, but did not become so popular as the Account of Linnæus. These volumes, nevertheless, abound with original and valuable information nor is it any reproach to the memory of their intelligent author, that they do not contain, as he was well aware, all that might have been collected on every subject. Their most learned readers will ever be more sensible of their merits than their defects.

Dr. Pulteney had been associated with the Linnsean society soon after its first institution, and he ever retained a great attachment to that body, as well as to its founder. Several of his papers appear in the Transactions of the Society and he gave a final proof of his regard in the bequest of his valuable museum of natural history. He stipulated that his collections should always be kept separate from any others which the society might possess; and he provided that it should be at the option of the members, either to keep this museum entire, or to dispose of it, in order to raise a fund, whose interest should be expended annually in a medal for the best botanical paper read before the society in the course of the year. It was without hesitation determined, that these treasures should be preserved entire, as the best and most useful memorial of a benefactor to science, to whom a large portion of this corporate body were individually and strongly attached. Few men have enjoyed more entirely the respect and affection of his acquaintance than Dr. Pulteney. An air of urbanity and gaiety was diffused over his countenance and manners, which bespoke the simplicity, candour, and liberality of his mind. His ardour for science was unbounded; and as lively at the close of his life as at the beginning of his literary career. His religion was unaffected, and devoid of bigotry or intolerance, the only feelings which he contemplated without sympathy or indulgence. His conversation, like his morals, was spotless; and his cheerfulness flowed from the never-failing spring of a benevolent and honest heart.

, Earl Of Bath, an eminent English statesman, was descended from an ancient family, who took their surname from a place of that appellation in Leicestershire. His grandfather, sir William Pulteney, was member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and highly distinguished himself in the House of Commons by his manly and spirited eloquence. Of his father, little is upon record. He was born in 1682, and educated at Westminster school and Christ-church, Oxford, where his talents and industry became so conspicuous, that dean Aldrich appointed him to make the congratulatory speech to queen Anne, on her visit to the college. Having travelled through various parts of Europe, he returned to his riative country with a mind highly improved, and came into parliament for the borough of Heydon in Yorkshire, by the interest of Mr. Guy, his protector and great benefactor, who left him 40,000l. and an estate of 500l. a year.

Being descended from a whig family, and educated in revolution-principles, he warmly espoused that party, and during the whole reign of queen Anne opposed the measures of the tories. His first speech was in support of the place-bill. He had formed a notion, that no young member ought to press into public notice with too much forwardness, and fatigue the House with long orations, until he had acquired the habit of order and precision. He was often heard to declare, that hardly any person ever became a good orator, who began with making a set speech. He conceived that the circumstances of the moment should impel them to the delivery of sentiments, which should derive their tenor and application from the course of the debate, and not be the result of previous study or invariable arrangement. These rules are generally good, but we can recollect at least one splendid exception. On the prosecution of Dr. Sacheverel, Mr. Pulteney distinguished himself in the House of Commons, in defence of the revolution, against the doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance. When the tories came into power, in 1710, he was so obnoxious to them, thathis uncle, John Pulteney, was removed from the board of trade. He not only took a principal share in the debates of the four last years of queen Anne, while the whigs were in opposition, but was also admitted into the most important secrets of his party, at that critical time, when the succession of the Hanover family being supposed to be in danger, its friends engaged in very bold enterprizes to secure it. He was a liberal subscriber to a very unprofitable and hazardous loan, then secretly negociated by the whig party, for the use of the emperor, to encourage him to refuse co-operating with the tory administration in making the peace of Utrecht.

On the prosecution of Walpole for high breach of trust and corruption, Pulteney warmly vindicated his friend, for such he then was; and, on his commitment to the Tower, was amongst those who paid frequent visits to the prisoner, whom he, with the rest of the whigs, considered as a martyr to their cause. He also engaged with Walpole in defending the whig administration, and wrote the ironical dedication to the earl of Oxford, prefixed to Walpole' s account of the parliament. On the accession of George I. Mr. Pulteney was appointed privy-counsellor and secretary at war, in opposition to the inclination of the duke of Marlborough, who, as commander in chief, thought himself entitled to recommend to that post. He was chosen a member of the committee of secrecy, nominated, by the House of Commons, to examine and report the substance of the papers relating to the negociation for peace; and on. the suppression of the rebellion of 1715, he moved for the impeachment of lord Widrington, and opposed the motion to address the king for a proclamation, offering a general pardon to all who were in arms in Scotland, who should lay down their arms within a certain time. He was at this period so much connected with Stanhope and Walpole, that, in allusion to the triple alliance between Great Britain, France, and Holland, which was then negociating by general Stanhope, secretary of state, they were called the three “grand allies;” and a proverbial saying was current, “Are you come into the triple alliance?” But when Stanhope and Walpole took different sides, on the schism between the whigs, when Townsend was dismissed and Walpole resigned, Pulteney followed his friend’s example, and gave up his place of secretary at war. When Walpole made a reconciliation between the king and the prince of Wales, and negociated with Sunderland to form a new administration, in which he and lord Townsend bore the most conspicuous part, then were first sown those seeds of disgust and discontent which afterwards burst forth. The causes of this unfortunate misunderstanding may be traced from the authority of the parties themselves, or their particular friends. Pulteney was offended because Walpole had negociated with the prince of Wales and Sunderland, without communicating the progress to him, although he had told it to Mr. Edgcumbe, who indiscreetly gave a daily account to Pulteney. Another cause of disgust was, that Pulteney, who had hitherto invariably proved his attachment to Townsend and Walpole, expected to receive some important employment, whereas he was only offered a peerage; and, when he declined it, more than two years elapsed before any farther overtures were made; and though Pulteney, at length, solicited and obtained the office of cofferer of the household, he deemed that place far below his just expectations. Although, therefore, he continued to support the measures of administration for some time, the disdainful manner in which he conceived he had been treated by Walpole had made too deep an impression on his mind to be eradicated. Finding that he did not possess the full confidence of administration, or disapproving those measures which tended, in his opinion, to raise the power of France on the ruins of the house of Austria, and which, in his opinion, sacrificed the interests of Great Britain to those of Hanover, topics on which he afterwards expatiated with great energy and unusual eloquence in parliament, he became more and more estranged from his former friends, and expressed his disapprobation of their measures both in public and private. At length his dissontent arrived at so great a height, that he declared his resolution of attacking the minister in parliament.

Walpole perceived his error, in disgusting so able an associate; and, with a view to prevent his opposition to the payment of the king’s debts, hinted to him, in the House of Commons, that at the removal of either of the secretaries of state, the ministers designed him for the vacant employment. To this proposal Pulteney made no answer, but bowed and smiled, to let him know he under* stood his meaning. He now came forward as the great opposer of government; and his first exertion on the side of the minority, was on the subject of the civil list, then in arrears. For this he was soon afterwards dismissed from his place of cofferer of the household, and began a systematic opposition to the minister; in which he proved himself so formidable, that Walpole again endeavoured to reconcile him; and about the time of Townsend’s resignation, queen Caroline offered him a peerage, together with the post of secretary of state for foreign affairs; but he declared his fixed resolution never again to act with sir Robert Walpole. The most violent altercations now passed in the House of Commons between them: their heat against each other seemed to increase, in proportion to their former intimacy, and neither was deficient in sarcastic allusions, violent accusations, and virulent invectives. For these the reader may be referred to the parliamentary history of the times, or to the excellent Life of Walpole, by Mr. Coxe, to which the present article is almost solely indebted.

Pulteney placed himself at the head of the discontented whigs; and, in conjunction with Bolingbroke, his ancient antagonist, he became the principal supporter of the “Craftsman” to which paper he gave many essays, and furnished hints and observations. The controversy in 1731, which passed between Pulteney and Walpole' s friends and pamphleteers, widened the breach, and rendered it irreparable. The “Craftsman” was full of invectives against Walpole, and the measures of his administration. Jn answer to this paper, a pamphlet was published under the title of “Sedition and Defamation displayed,” which contained a scurrilous abuse of Pulteney and Bolingbroke. Pulteney’s opposition is here wholly attributed, and surely not very unjustly, to disappointed ambition and personal pique. In answer to this pamphlet, which Pulteney supposed to be written by lord Hervey, the great friend and supporter of sir Robert Walpole, he wrote “A proper reply to a late scurrilous libel, &c. by Caleb D'Anvers, of Gray’s Inn, esq.;” and introduced a character of sir Robert, which does not yield in scurrility or misrepresentation to that of Pulteney, given in “Sedition and Defamation displayed.” The author also treated lord Hervey (Pope’s lord Hervey) with such contempt and ridicule, in allusion to his effeminate appearance, as a, species of half man and half woman, that his lordship was highly offended: a duel ensued, and Pulteney slightly wounded his antagonist. Pulteney afterwards acknowledged his mistake, when he found that the pamphlet was not written by lord Hervey, but appears to have made a similar mistake in ascribing it to Walpole; for it was the production of sir William Yonge, secretary at war.

The “Craftsman” involved Pulteney in other controversies, in one of which he wrote his famous pamphlet, entitled “An Answer to one part of a late infamous libel, intituled ‘ Remarks on the Craftsman’s vindication of his two honourable patrons,’ in which the character and conduct of Mr. P. is fully vindicated.” In this Mr. Pulteney was so irritated, as to disclose some secret conversation with Walpole, and some contemptuous expressions which that statesman uttered against the king, when prince of Wales; but this, instead of producing the effect which Pulteney probably expected, only raised his majesty’s resentment higher against himself. Franklin, the printer of the pamphlet, was arrested; Pulteney’s name was struck out of the list of privy-counsellors, and he was put out of all commissions of the peace; measures which tended to render the breach irreparable, while they added considerable popularity to Pulteney, It was some time after this that he made that celebrated speech, in which he compared the ministry to an empiric, and the constitution of England to his patient. This pretender in physic,“said he,” being consulted, tells the distempered person, there were but two or three ways of treating his disease, and be was afraid that none of them would succeed. A vomit might throw him into convulsions, that would occasion immediate death: a purge might bring on a diarrhoea, that would carry him off in a short time: and he had been already bled so much, and so often, that he could bear it no longer. The unfortunate patient, shocked at this decla-, ration, replies, Sir, you have always pretended to be a regular doctor, but I now find you are an errant quack,: I had an excellent constitution when I first fell into your hands, but you have quite destroyed it; and now, I find, I have no other chance for saving my life, but by calling for the help of some regular physician."

In this manner he continued inflexibly severe, attacking the measures of the minister with a degree of eloquence and sarcasm that worsted every antagonist; and sir Robert was often heard to say, that he dreaded his tongue more than another man’s sword. In 1738, when opposition ran so high, that several members openly left the House, as finding that party, and not reason, carried it in every motion, Pulteney thought proper to vindicate the extraordinary step which they had taken; and, when a motion was made for removing sir Robert Walpole, he warmly supported it. What a single session could not effect, was at length brought about by time; and, in 1741, when sir Robert found his place of prime minister no longer tenable, he wisely resigned all his employments, and was created earl of Orford. His opposers also were assured of being provided for; and, among other promotions, Pulteney himself was sworn of the privy-council, and soon afterwards created earl of Bath. He had long lived in the very focus of popularity, and was respected as the chief bulwark against the encroachments of the crown; but, from, the moment he accepted a title, all his favour with the people was at an end, and the rest of his life was spent in contemning that applause which he no longer could secure. What can be said in his favour has been candidly stated by the biographer of his great antagonist. Dying without issue, June 8, 1764, his title became extinct; and his only son, having died some time before in Portugal, the paternal estate devolved to his brother, the late lieutenantgeneral Pulteney. Besides the great part he bore in “The Craftsman,” he was the author of many political pamphlets; in the drawing up and composing of which no man of his time was supposed to exceed him. Lord Orford, who has introduced him among his Royal and Noble Authors, says, that his writings will be better known bv his name, than his name will be by his writings, though his prose had much effect, and his verses (for he was a poet) were easy and graceful. " Both were occasional, and not dedicated to the love of fame. Good-humour, and the spirit of society, dictated his poetry ambition and acrimony his political writings. The latter made Pope say,

“That loss, however, was amply compensated to the world by the odes to which lord Bath’s political conduct gave birth. The pen of sir Charles Hanbury Williams inflicted deeper wounds in three months on this lord, than a series of Craftsmen, aided by lord Bolingbroke for several years, could imprint on sir Robert Walpole. The latter lost his power, but lived to see justice done to his character. His rival acquired no power, but died very rich.” Allowance must here be made for lord Orford’s partiality to his father. Lord Bath had better attributes than the sole one of dying rich. His character is given with more truth, as well as favour, in the lives of the bishops Pearce and Newton. He was generous and affectionate. Of all his misfortunes, none touched him so nearly as the death of his son, the hopes of his family, now extinct.

, of Gaeta, born in 1550, was educated in the school of del Conte. Though he died young, he left a great name for excellence in portraitpainting. He made numbers for the popes and the nobility of his time, with a power which acquired him the name of the Roman Vandyck; but he is more elaborate, or what the Italians call ‘leccato,’ and preluded to the style of Seybolt in the extreme finish of hair, and the representation of windows and other objects in the pupil of the eyes. His historic subjects partake of the same minute attention: such is his Crucifix in the Vallicella, and the Assumption in St. Silvestro, on Monte Cavallo; a work of correct design, graceful tints, and sweet effect. The Borghese palace, and the gallery at Florence, possess two paintings of his. His cabinet pictures are as scarce as precious. He died in 1588, in the thirty-eighth year of his age.

, a very eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Purbach, a town upon the confines of Bavaria and Austria, in 1423, and educated at Vienna. He afterwards visited the most celebrated universities in Germany, France, and Italy; and found a particular friend and patron in cardinal Cusa, at Rome. Returning to Vienna, he was appointed mathematical professor, in which office he continued till his death, which happened in 1461, in the 39th year of his age only, to the great loss of the learned world.

Purbach composed a great number of pieces upon mathematical and astronomical subjects, and his fame brought many students to Vienna; and, among them, the celebrated Regiomontanus, between whom and Purbach there subsisted the strictest friendship and union of studies till the death of the latter. These two laboured together to improve every branch of learning, by all the means in their power, though astronomy seems to have been the favourite of both; and had not the immature death of Purbach prevented his further pursuits, there is no doubt but that, by their joint industry, astronomy would have been carried to very great perfection. That this is not merely surmise, may be learnt from those improvements which Purbach actually did make, to render the study of it more easy and practicable. His first essay was, to amend the Latin translation of Ptolemy’s Almagest, which had been made from the Arabic version: this he did, not by the help of the Greek text, for he was unacquainted with that language, but by drawing the most probable conjectures from a strict attention to the sense of the author.

He then proceeded to other works, and among them he wrote a tract, which he entitled “An Introduction to Arithmetic;” then a treatise on “Gnomonics, or Dialling,” with tables suited to the difference of climates or latitudes; likewise a small tract concerning the “Altitudes of the Sun,” with a table also, “Astrolabic Canons,” with a table of the parallels, proportioned to every degree of the equinoctial. After this he constructed Solid Spheres, or Celestial Globes, and composed a new table of fixed stars, adding the longitude by which every star, since the time of Ptolemy, had increased. He likewise invented various other instruments, among which was the gnomon, or geometrical square, with canons and a table for the use of it.

He not only collected the various tables of the primum mobile, but added new ones. He made very great improvements in trigonometry, and by introducing the table of sines, by a decimal division of the radius, he quite changed the appearance of that science; he supposed the radius to be divided into 600,000 equal parts, and computed the sines of the arcs, for every ten minutes, in such equal parts of the radius, by the decimal notation, instead of the duodecimal one delivered by the Greeks, and preserved even by the Arabians till our author’s time; a project which was completed by his friend Regiomontanus, who computed the sines to every minute of the quadrant, in 1,000,000th parts of the radius.

, an eminent musician, was son of Henry Purcell, and nephew of Thomas Purcell, both gentlemen of the Royal Chapel at the restoration of Charles II. and born in 1658. Who his first instructors were is not clearly ascertained, as he was only six years old when his father died; but the inscription on Blow’s monument, in which Blow is called his master, gives at least room to suppose that Purcell, upon quitting the chapel, might, for the purpose of completing his studies, becojne the pupil of Blow. Dr. Burney is inclined to think that he might have been qualified for a chorister by Capt. Cook. However this be, Purcell shone early in the science of musical composition; and was able to wrfte correct harmony at an age when to perform choral service is all that can be expected. In 1676, he was appointed organist of Westminster, though then but eighteen; and, in 1682, became one of the organists of the chapel royal.