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

As Purcell had received his education in the school of a choir, the natural bent of his studies was towards church music. Services, however, he seemed to neglect, and to addict himself to the composition of Anthems. An anthem of his, “Blessed are they that fear the Lord,” was composed on a very extraordinary occasion. Upon the pregnancy of James the Second’s queen, supposed or real, in 1687, proclamation was issued for a thanksgiving; and Purcell, being one of the organists of the Chapel Royal, was commanded to compose the anthem. The anthem, “They that go down to the sea in ships,” was likewise owing to a singular accident. It was composed at the request of Mr. Gostling, subdean of St. Paul’s, who, being often in musical parties with the king and the duke of York, was with them at sea when they were in great danger of being cast away, but providentially escaped.

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

In 1691, the opera of “Dioclesian” was published by Purcell, with a dedication to Charles duke of Somerset, in which he observes, that “music is yet but in its nonage, a forward child, which gives hopes of what he may be hereafter in England, when the masters of it shall find more encouragement; and that it is now learning Italian, which is its best master, and studying a little of the French air to give it somewhat more of gaiety and fashion.” The unlimited powers, says Dr. Burney, of this musician’s genius embraced every species of composition that was then known, with equal felicity. In writing for the church, whether he adhered to the elaborate and learned style of his great predecessors Tallis, Bird, and Gibbons, in which no instrument is employed but the organ, and the several parts are constantly moving in fugue, imitation, or plain counterpoint; or, giving way to feeling and imagination, adopted the new and more expressive style of which he was himself one of the principal inventors, accompanying the voice-parts with instruments, to enrich the harmony, and enforce the melody and meaning of the words, he manifested equal abilities and resources. In compositions for the theatre, though the colouring and effects of an orchestra were then but little known, yet as he employed them more than his predecessors, and gave to the voice a melody more interesting and impassioned than, during the seventeenth century, had been heard in this country, or perhaps in Italy itself, he soon became the darling and delight of the nation. And in the several pieces of chamber music which he attempted, whether sonatas for instruments, or odes, cantatas, songs, ballads, and catches, for -the voice, he so far surpassed whatever our country had produced or imported before, that all other musical productions seem to have been instantly consigned to contempt or oblivion.

Purcell died Nov. 21, 1695, of a consumption or lingering distemper, as it should seem; for his will, dated the 1st, recites, that he was then “very ill in constitution, but of sound mind” and his premature death, at the early age of thirty-seven, was a severe affliction to the lovers of his art. His friends, in conjunction with his widow, for whom and his children he had not been able to make any great provision, were anxious to raise a monument of his fame for which end they selected, chiefly from his compositions for the theatre, such songs as had been most favourably received, and, by the help of a subscription of twenty shillings each person, published, in 1698, that wellknown work, the “Orpheus Britannicns,” with a dedication to his good friend and patroness lady Howard, who had been his scholar.

He was interred in Westminster-abbey, and on a tablet fixed to a pillar is the following remarkable inscription:

, a learned English divine, and compiler of a valuable collection of voyages, was born at Thaxstead in Essex in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1600, and afterwards that of bachelor of divinity. Ill 1604 he was instituted to the vicarage of Eastwood in Essex; but, leaving the cure of it to his brother, went and lived in London, the better to carry on the great work he had undertaken. He published the first volume in 1613, and the fifth in 1625, under this title, “Purchas his Pil^ grimage, or Relations of the World, and the Religions observed in all ages and places discovered from the Creation unto this present.” In 1615, he was incorporated at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge, bachelor of divinity; and a little before, had been collated to the rectory of St. Martin’s Ltidgate, in London. He was chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and had also the promise of a deanery from Charles I. which he did not live to enjoy. His pilgrimages, and the learned Hackluyt’s Voyages, led the way to all other collections of that kind; and have been, justly valued and esteemed. Boissard, a learned foreigner, has given a great character of Purchas; he styles him “a man exquisitely skilled in languages, and all arts divine and human; a very great philosopher, historian, and divine; a faithful presbyter of the church of England; very famous for many excellent writings, and especially for his vast volumes of the East and West Indies, written in his native tongue.” His other works are, “Purchas his Pilgrim or Microcosmos, or The Historie of Man,” 1627, 8vo, a series of meditations upon man at all ages and in all stations, founded on Psalm xxxix. 5. In the address to the reader are a few particulars of himself and family, which we have extracted. He published also “The King’s Tower and Triumphal Arch of London,” 1623, 8vo; and “A Funeral Sermon on Psalm xxx. 5.” is attributed to him, if.it be not mistaken for the Microcosmos. His son, Samuel, published “A Theatre to Political flying Insects,” 1657, 4to. His Voyages now sell at a vast price.

, one of the religious society called Quakers, was born at Up-Husborn, Hants, about the year 1702. When he was about ten years of age, he was put to school to learn to read and write, and to be instructed in the rudiments of arithmetic. During the time allotted for these acquisitions, he gave proof of extraordinary genius; and being prevented for about six weeks, by nary genius and being prevented for about six weeks, by illness, from attending the school, he still applied himself to his learning, and on his return to the school had got so far in arithmetic, as to be able to explain the square and cube roots to his master; who himself was ignorant of them. His memory at this time appears to have been uncommonly vigorous, for he is said not only to have asserted that he could commit to memory in twelve hours, as many of the longest chapters in the Bible, but to have attempted it with success. Another account says, quoting it from Purver’s own mouth, that he so delighted in reading the Scriptures, as to commit six chapters to memory in one hour.

He was apprenticed to a shoemaker, who, like the master of George Fox, mentioned in this work, employed his apprentice in keeping sheep. This gave our young student leisure for reading; and he occupied it in the indis-. criminate perusal of such books as came into his hands but the Scriptures had the preference in his mind. Among other books which came'in his way, was one written by Samuel Fisher, a Quaker, entitled “Rusticus ad Academicos,” in which some inaccuracies in the translation of the Bible being pointed out, Purver determined to examine for himself; and, with the assistance of a Jew, soon acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew language. About the 20th year of his age he kept a school in his native country; but afterwards, for the sake of more easily acquiring the means of prosecuting his studies, he came to London, where he probably resided when he published, in 1727, a book called “The Youth’s Delight.” The same year he returned to his native place, and a second time opened a school there; but previous to this, in London, he had embraced the principles, and adopted the profession of the Quakers. He is said to have been convinced of the truth of their tenets at a meeting held at the Bull and Mouth in Aldersgate-street; whether by means of the preaching of any of their ministers, we are not informed; but on the day month ensuing, he himself appeared as a minister among them, at the same meeting*house. On his second settling at Husborn, he began to translate the books of the Old Testament and applied himself also to the study of medicine and botany but, believing it his duty to travel in his ministerial function, he again quitted his school and his native place; not, however, probably, until after he had resided there some years; for his course was to London, Essex, and through several counties to Bristol; near which city, at Hambrook, he was in the latter part of 1738. At this place he took up his abode, at the house of one Josiah Butcher, a maltster, whose son he instructed in the classics, and there he translated some of the minor prophets, having before completed the book of Esther, and Solomon’s Song. Here he became acquainted with Rachael Cotterel, who, with a sister, kept a boardingschool for girls, at Frenchay, Gloucestershire; and whom, in 1738, he married, and soon after himself opened a boarding-school for boys at Frenchay. During his residence in Gloucestershire, (which was not at Frenchay all the time) he attempted to publish his translation of the Old Testament in numbers at Bristol; but he did not meet with sufficient encouragement; and only two or three numbers were published. In 1758, he removed to Andover, in Hampshire; and here, in 1764, he completed his translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament, a work which has not often been accomplished before by -the labour of a single individual. It consists of two volumes, folio, published in 1764, at the price of four guineas. It appears, that this work was originally intended to be printed in occasional numbers; for, in 1746, the late Dr. Fothergill wrote a letter to the Gentleman’s Magazine, in which he strongly recommended the author of a work then under publication, which was to be continued in numbers if it should meet with encouragement. This was a translation of the Scriptures, under the title of “Opus in sacra Biblia elaboratum.” Purver is not named, but that he was intended is known by private testimony. After speaking in high terms of his learning, Dr. Fothergill says, “As to his personal character, he is a man of great simplicity of manners, regular conduct, and a modest reserve; he is steadily attentive to truth, hates falsehood, and has an unconquerable aversion to vice; and to crown the portrait, he is not only greatly benevolent to mankind, but has a lively sense of the divine attributes, and a profound reverence of, and submission to the Supreme Being.” The mode of publication in numbers was probably unsuccessful, and soon dropped; yet he went on with his translation, which he completed, after the labour of thirty years. He was still unable to publish it, nor could he find a bookseller who would run the hazard of assisting him. At length his friend Dr. Fothergill generously interfered gave him a thousand pounds for the copy, and published it at his own expence. Purver afterwards revised the whole, and made considerable alterations and corrections for a second edition, which has not yet appeared but the ms. remains in the hands of his grandson. Purver appears, in this great work, a strenuous advocate for the antiquity, and even the divine authority, of the Hebrew vowel points. He is also a warm assertor of the purity and integrity of the Hebrew text, and treats those who hold the contrary opinion with great contempt; particularly Dr. Kennicott, of whom, and his publication on the state of the Hebrew text, he never speaks but with the greatest asperity. He has taken very considerable pains with the scriptural chronology, and furnishes his reader with a variety of chronological tables. He prefers the Hebrew chronology in all cases, to the Samaritan and Greek, and has throughout endeavoured to connect sacred and profane history. His version is very literal, but does not always prove the judgment or good taste of the author. Thus, he says, that “The Spirit of God hovered a top of the waters” and instead of the majestic simplicity and unaffected grandeur of “Let there be light, and there was light,” he gives us, “Let there be light, which, there was accordingly” Thus his translation, though a prodigious work for an individual, will rather be used for occasional consultation than regular perusal; and though it may afford many useful hints, will not supply the place of the established translation.

It is to be recollected, that Purver was a Quaker; and, believing, as he did, in their leading principle of immediate revelation, it was likely that his mind should be turned to look for such assistance, on places to which he found his own knowledge inadequate. He is said, accordingly, when he came to passages which were difficult to adapt to the context, not unfrequently to retire into a room alone, and there to wait for light upon the passage in question and on these occasions he so far neglected the care of his body, as sometimes to sit alone two or three days and nights.

He lived to about the age of seventy-five, his decease being in 1777, at Andover, where, in the burial-ground of the religious society with which he had professed, his remains were interred. His widow survived him; but a son and a daughter died before their parents. Hannah, the daughter, had been married to Isaac Bell, of London, by whom she had a son, named John Purver Bell, who was brought up by his grandfather.

, in Flemish Vander Putten, and in French Dupuy, was born at Venlo, in Guelderland, Nov. 4, 1574. His Christian name was Henry. He studied the classics at Dort, philosophy at Cologne, and law at Louvain, under the celebrated Lipsius, with whom he formed a lasting friendship. He afterwards, in pursuit of knowledge, visited the chief academies of Italy, and heard the lectures of the most learned professors. He remained some months at Milan, and at Padua, where John Michael Pinelli gave him an apartment in his house. In 1601 he accepted the professorship of rhetoric at Milan, and nearly about the same time, was nominated historiographer to the king of Spain. Two years afterwards he was honoured with the diploma of a Roman citizen, and the degree of doctor of laws. These flattering marks of distinction made him resolve to settle in Italy; and in 1604 he married Mary Magdalen Catherine Turria, of a considerable family at Milan, a very advantageous alliance. But notwithstanding his resolution, he could not resist the offer made to him in 1606 to succeed the now deceased Lipsius, as professor of the belles lettres at Louvain. This office he filled for forty years, although neither with the same success or the same reputation as his predecessor. Puteanus was a man of vast reading, but of little judgment. He was well acquainted with the manners and customs of the ancients, but had little of the spirit of criticism or philosophy, and was incapable of undertaking any work of great extent. Every year he published some small volumes, and such was his desire to increase their number that he even printed a volume of the attestations he used to give to his scholars.

Still he was allowed to have accumulated a great fund of learning. Bullart says, “It was the great learning of Puteanus, which, having won the heart of Urban VIII. deter* mined that great pope to send him his portrait in a gold medal, very heavy, with some copies of his works. It was that same learning, which engaged cardinal Frederic Borromeo to receive him into his palace, when he returned to Milan. It was also his learning, which made him tenderly beloved by the count de Fuentes, governor of Milan and afterwards by the archduke Albert, who, having promoted him to Justus Lipsius’s chair, admitted him also most honourably into the number of his counsellors. Lastly, it was his learning; which made him so much esteemed in the chief courts of Europe, and occasioned almost all the princes, the learned men, the ambassadors of kings, and the generals of armies, to give him proofs of their regard in the letters they wrote to him; of which above sixteen thousand were found in his library, all placed in a regular order. He had the glory to save the king of Poland’s life, by explaining an enigmatical writing drawn up in unknown characters, which no man could read or understand, and which contained the scheme of a conspiracy against that prince.” He was also, in his private character, a man of piety, of an obliging disposition, andremarkable not only for his kindness to his scholars, but for many good offices to his countrymen in every case of need. The archduke Albert, as Bullart notices, nominated him one of his counsellors, and entrusted him with the government of the castle of Louvain. He died at Louvain Sept. 17, 1646, in the seventy-second year of his age. Nicolas Vernulaeus pronounced his funeral oration, and his life was published by Milser with an engraved portrait.

The works of this author are divided into six classes, eloquence, philology, philosophy, history, politics, and mathematics, which, according to Niceron’s list, amount to 98 articles, or volumes. Those on philology have been for the most part inserted in Graevius’s Antiquities. The others most worthy of notice in the opinion of his biographers, are, 1. “De usu fructuque Bibliothecae Ambrosianae,” Milan, 1605, 8vo. This is an essay on the use of public libraries, and not a catalogue, as those who never saw it have asserted. It was afterwards reprinted in the different editions of his “Suada Attica, sive orationes selectee.” 2. “Comus, sive Phagesiposia Cimmeria, de luxu somnium,” Louvain, 1608, 12mo, Antwerp, 1611, and Oxford, 1634. The French have a translation of this in considerable demand, under the title of “Comus, ou banquet dissolu des Cimmeriens.” 3. “Historise insubricae libri sex, qui irruptiones Barbarorum in Italiam continent, abanno 157 ad annum 975.” This has gone through several editions; one at Louvain, 1630, folio, another at Leipsic. It is rather superficial, but the archduchess Isabella was so much pleased with it that she made the author a present of a gold chain. 4. “Pietatis thaumata in Protheum Parthenicum unius libri versum et unius versus librum, Stella-? rum numeris sive formis 1022 variatum,” Antwerp, 1617, 4to. This is a remarkable sample of the trifles with which men of learning amused themselves in our author’s days. The whole is a repetition under different forms of the verse “Tot sibi sunt dotes, Virgo, quot sidera ccelo.” This poor verse he has turnedand twisted 1022 different ways, the number of the fixed stars but James Bernouilli has gravely told us that it admits of no less than 3312 changes, which, after all, is nothing to the following verse,

for this, it is said, admits of 39,916,800 different combinations! 5. “Bruma, sive chimonopsegnion de laudibus hiemis, ut ea potissimum apud Belgas,” Munich, 1619, 8vo, yvith fine engravings by Sadeler, whicji constitute the principal value of this work. 6. “Circulus urbanianus, sive linea a^^ive compendio descripta,” Louvain, 1632, 4to. almost a copy of that of Bergier entitled “Point du jour,” but without acknowledgment. 7. “Belli et Pacis statera,” 1635, 4to. In this he shewed himself better acquainted with the true interests of his catholic majesty, than they who applied themselves solely to state affairs’ but he was brought into some trouble for speaking with too much freedom of things which policy should have kept secret. He was ordered to Brussels to explain his sentiments, but came off with honour. Caspar Baerle published a viplent satire against this work, entitled “Anti^Puteanus.” 8. “Auspicia Bibliothecae publicae Lovaniensis,” Louvain, 1639, 4to. and usually to be found at the end of the catalogue of that library.

, born at Antwerp, aboqt 1580, became a celebrated grammarian. His family was originally from Augsbourg. When he was only twenty-one, he published Sallust, with fragments and good notes. He then published the celebrated collection of thirty-three ancient grammarians, in 4to, at Hanau, in 1605. He was preparing other learned works, and had excited a general expectation from his knowledge and talents, when he died at Stade, in 1606, being only twenty-six years of age.

, an English poet and poetical critic, flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Very little is known of his life, and for that little- we are indebted to Mr. Haslewood, whose researches, equally accurate and judicious, have so frequently contributed to illustrate the history of old English poetry. By Ames, Puttenham was called Webster, but his late editor has brought sufficient proof that his name was George. He appears to have been born some time between 1529 and 1535. As his education was liberal, it may be presumed that his parents were not of the lowest class. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college, how long he resided, or whether he took a degree, remain unascertained. Wood had made none of these discoveries when he wrote his “Athense.” His career at court might commence at the age of eighteen, when he sought to gain the attention of the youthful king Edward VI. by an P^clogue, entitled “Elpine.” He made one or two tours on the continent, and proved himself neither an idle nor inattentive observer. He visited successively the courts of France, Spain, and Italy, and was at the Spa nearly about the year 1570. It is not improbable that he had a diplomatic appointment under Henry earl of Arundel, an old courtier, who, with the queen’s licence, visited Italy as he describes himself a beholder of the feast given by the duchess of Parma, to this nobleman, at the court of Brussels. His return was probably early after the above period, but nothing can be stated with certainty. It may however be inferred from his numerous adulatory verses addressed to queen Elizabeth, before the time of publishing his “Art of Poesie,” that he must have been a courtier of long standing, and was then one of her gentlemen pensioners.

Of all his numerous pieces, the “Art of Poesie,” and the n Partheniades,“are the only ones known to exist, and it seems unaccountable that not a single poem by this author found a place in those miscellaneous and fashionable repositories, the” Paradise of Dainty Devices,“or” England’s Helicon.“His own volume however proves the neglect of the age, for of many poems noticed as the avowed productions of some of our best writers, we have no other knowledge than the scraps there incidentally preserved. His” Partheniades,“lately reprinted, were presented to queen Elizabeth, as a new year’s gift? probably on Jan. 1, 1579 his” Art of English Poesie“was published in 1589. From this last work it appears that he was a candid but sententious critic. What his observations want in argument is compensated by the soundness of his judgment; and his conclusions, notwithstanding their brevity, are just and pertinent. He did not hastily scan his author to indulge in an untimely sneer and his opinions were adopted by contemporary writers, and have not been dissented from by moderns. Mr. Gilchrist, in the” Censura Lit.“has drawn an able and comprehensive character of this work, as” on many accounts one of the most curious and entertaining, and intrinsically one of the most valuable books of the age of Elizabeth." In 1811, Mr. Haslewood reprinted this valuable work with his usual accuracy, and in a very elegant form, prefixing some account of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in the present sketch.

, a learned French historian, was the younger son of Claude Du Puy, an eminent French lawyer, who died in 1594, aijd who was celebrated by all the learned of his time in eloges, published collectively under the title of “Amplissimi viri Claudii Puteani Tumulus,” Paris, 1607, 4to. His son was born at Agen, Nov. 27, 1582, and was in early life distinguished for his proficiency in the languages, but principally for his knowledge of civil law and history. His talents produced Trim the esteem and friendship of the president De Thou, who was his relation, and of Nicholas Rigault and he was concerned in the publication of those editions of De Thou, which appeared in 1620 and 1626. When that great work met with opponents, he wrote, in concert with Rigault, a defence of it, entitled “Memoires et Instructions pour servir a justifier Pinnocence de messire Franc.ois-Auguste de Thou,” which was reprinted in 1734, at the end of the 15th volume of the French edition of the history. Our author was appointed successively counsellor to the king, and librarykeeper. Having accompanied Thumeri de Boissise, whom the king had sent on a political mission to the Netherlands and to Holland, he became acquainted, through his father’s reputation, with the learned men of those countries. On his return he was employed in researches respecting the king’s rights, and in making a catalogue of the charters. These scarce and valuable papers gave him so extensive an insight into every thing relative to the French history, that few persons have made such curious discoveries on the subject. He was also employed with Messrs. Lebret and Delorme, to defend his majesty’s rights over the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and produced a great number of titles and memoirs in proof of those rights. His obliging disposition made him feel interested in the labours of all the literati, and willing to communicate to them whatever was most valuable, in a vast collection of memorandums and observations, which he had been gathering together during fifty years. He died at Paris, December 14, 1651, aged 69. Among his numerous works, the French critics select the following as the most important 1. “Traité des Droits et des Libertes l'Eglise Gallicane, avec les Preuves,” 1639, 3 vols. folio. In this, as in all his works, he was an able defender of the rights of the Gajlican church, in opposition to the encroachments of the see of Rome. In 1651 he published an edition of the “Proofs,” in 2 vok. folio. 2. “Traités concernant l‘histoire de France, savoir la condemnation des Templiers, l’histoire du schisme d'Avignon, et quelques proces criminels,” Paris, 1654, 4to. 3. “Traité de la Majorite de nos rois et du regences du royaume, avec les preuves,” Paris, 1655, 4to. 4. “Histoire des plus illustres Favoris anciens et modernes,” Leaden, 1659, 4to and 12mo. In this curious list of favourites, Jbe has recorded only five French. He published also separate treatises on the rights of the king to the provinces of Burgundy, Artois, Bretagne, the three bishoprics before mentioned, Flanders, &c. &c. the titles of which it would be uninteresting to repeat. His life was published by Nicholas Rigault, Paris, 1652, 4to, and is inserted in that very useful volume, Bates’s “Vitae Selectorum aliquot virorum.”

Peter Du Puy had two brothers the eldest Christopher, was also a friend of Thuanus, and when at Rome, had influence enough to prevent the first part of his history from being put on the list of prohibited books. He was an ecclesiastic, had obtained some promotion, and would have received higher marks of esteem from pope Urban VIII. had he not taken part with his brothers in resisting the usurpations of the court of Rome. He is the author of the “Perroniana,” published in 1669 by Daille. He died in 1654. The other brother, James Du Puy, who died in 1656, was prior of St. Saviour’s, and librarian to the king, and assisted his brother in some of his works. To the royal library he was an important benefactor, bequeathing to it his own and his brother’s collection, amounting to 9000 volumes of printed books, and about 300 manuscripts. He published a very useful list of the Latiliized names in Thuanus’ history, at Geneva, in 1614, 4to, which was reprinted under the title of “Resolutio omnium difficultatum,” Ratisbon, 1696, 4to. He published also a catalogue of Thuanus’s library, and an improved edition of “Instructions et missives des Rois de France et de leurs ambassadeurs au Concile de Trente,” Paris, 1654, 4to.

, perpetual secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, was born at Bugey, Nov. 23, 1709, of an ancient family that had lost its titles and property during the wars of the league. Although the eldest of twelve children, his father destined him for the church, and he studied with great approbation and success at the college of Lyons, and had so much distinguished himself that when the tim'e came that he should study theology, two seminaries disputed which should have him. His own. determination was in favour of that of the Jesuits, in consequence of the superior having promised to remit a part of his expences in order that he might be able to purchase books. At the age of twenty-six he went to Paris to the seminary of Trente-Trois, where he became successively master of the conferences, librarian, and second superior. When he had finished his studies, he wanted the necessary supplies to enable him to travel from one diocese to another; and the archbishop of Lyons having t refused this, from a wish to keep him in his own diocese, Du Puy resolved to give up all thoughts of the church, and devote himself to the sciences and belles-lettres. He now sought the acquaintance of men of polite literature, and particularly obtained a steady friend in the academician Fourmont, whose house was the rendezvous of men of learning and learned foreigners. It was Fourmont who procured him the editorship of the “Journal cles Savans,” which he accordingly conducted for thirty years, and contributed many valuable papers and criticisms of his own. His knowledge was very various; he knew Hebrew, Greek, and mathematics, so as to have been able to make a figure in either, had he devoted himself wholly to one pursuit; but his reading and study were desultory, and it was said of him in mathematical language, that he was the mean proportional between the academy of sciences and that of inscriptions. In 1768 the prince de Soubise made him his librarian, a situation of course much to his liking, and which he filled for twenty years, until the derangement of the prince’s affairs made him inform a bookseller that he intended to part with his library. This came like a clap of thunder to poor Du Puy, and brought on a strangury, of which, after seven years of suffering, he died April 10, 1795.

He was admitted in 1756 into the academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, was appointed soon after perpetual secretary, and retained the employment until his seventysecond year. During his long career he was the author of many dissertations, &c. which are likely to preserve his name in France. Father Brumoy having omitted in his “Greek Theatre” the plays of Sophocles, Du Puy undertook to supply the deficiency, and translated that author, with notes which shewed his intimate knowledge of the original. He published six volumes of the “Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions,” vols. 36 to 41, and composed, according to custom, the eloges of several of his brethren. Among his mathematical works, we may mention “Observations sur les infiniment petits et les principes metaphysiques de la Geometric;” and an edition of Anthemius’s fragment on mechanic paradoxes, with a French translation and notes, Paris, 1777, 4to, and the Greek text rectified from four Mss. He gives here a curious explanation of the mirror of Archimedes, a subject, however, which our authority says, has been handled in a superior manner by M. Peyrard, in his “Miroir ardent,” Paris, 1807,4to.

, lieutenant-general under Louis XIII. and XIV. was of a noble family in Armagnac, and was born in the year 1600. He is one of those Frenchmen of distinction who have written memoirs of their own time, from which so abundant materials are supplied to their history, more than are generally found in other countries. His memoirs extend from 1617 to 1658. - They were first published at Paris, and at Amsterdam in 1690, under the inspection of Du Chene, historiographer of France, in 2 vols. 12mo, and are now republished in the general collection of memoirs. The life of iPuy-Segur was that of a very active soldier. He entered into the army in 1617, and served forty-three years without intermission, rising gradually to the rank of lieutenantgeneral. In 1636, the Spaniards having attempted to pass the Somme, in order to march to Pans, Puy-Segur was ordered to oppose them with a small body of troops. The general, the count de Soissons, fearing afterwards that he would be cut off, which was but too probable, sent his aidde-camp to tell him that he might retire if he thought proper. “Sir,”“replied this brave officer,” a man ordered upon a dangerous service, like the present, has no opinion to form about it. I came here by the count’s command, and shall not retire upon his permission only. If he would have me return, he must command it." This gallant man is said to have been at one hundred and twenty sieges, in which there was an actual cannonade, and in more than thirty battles or skirmishes, yet never received a wound. He died in 1682, at his own castle of Bernouille, near Guise. His memoirs are written with boldness and truth; contain many remarkable occurrences, in which he was personally concerned; and conclude with some very useful military instructions.

His son, of the same name, was born at Paris in 1655, entered into the army under his father, rose to the post of commander-in-chief in the French Netherlands, and at length to the still more important one of a marshal of France in 1734. He died at Paris in the year 1743, at the age of 88. He was author of a work “On the Art Military,” published by his only son James Francis, marquis of Chastenet, who died in 1782. He was the author of some political works.

, a late English poet, was descended from a very ancient and respectable family, who are stated to have come into England with the Conqueror, and settled at a place called the Meerd in Herefordshire. His greatgreat-grandfather was auditor of the exchequer to James I. His son, sir Robert Pye, a knight also, married Anne, the eldest daughter of John Hampden, the patriot, of whom the subject of this article was consequently the representative by the female line. The last male heir left the estate in Herefordshire, and the name, to the Trevors, descended from the second daughter; but sir Robert Pye purchased Faringdon in Berkshire, which county he twice represented in Parliament. Our author’s father, Henry Pye, esq. who occasionally resided there, was elected no less than five times, without opposition, for the same county.

Henry James Pye was born in London in 1745, and educated at home under a private tutor until he had attained the age of seventeen. He then entered a gentleman, commoner of Magdalen college, Oxford, under the care of Dr. Richard Scroup, where he continued four years, and had the honorary degree of M. A. conferred on him July 3, 1766. In 1772, at the installation of Lord North, he was also created Doctor of Laws. Within ten days after he came of age his father died (March 2, 1766), at Faringdon; and Mr. Pye married, in the same year, the sister of Lieut.­col. Hooke, and lived chiefly in the country, making only occasional visits for a few weeks to London, dividing his time between his studies, the duties of a magistrate, and the diversions of the field, to which he was remarkably attached. He was for some time in the Berkshire militia. In 1784 he was chosen member of parliament for Berkshire but the numberless expences attending such a situation, and the contest to obtain it, reduced him to the harsh, yet necessary measure, of selling his paternal estate. In 179O Mr. Pye was appointed to succeed his ingenious and worthy friend Mr. Warton* as poet-laureat and in 1792 he was nominated one of the magistrates for Westminster, tinder the Police Act in both of which situations he conducted himself with honour and ability.

From his earliest days Mr. Pye was devoted to reading. When he was about ten years old, his father put Pope’s Homer into his hand: the rapture which he received from this exquisite paraphrase of the Grecian bard was never to be forgotten, and it completely fixed him a rhymer for' life, as he pleasantly expressed it. To this early love of reading Mr. Pye was indebted for the various learning he possessed. His first literary production, probably, was an “Ode on the birth of the Prince of Wales,” published in the Oxford Collection and the following distinct publications have successively appeared from his prolific pen 1.“Beauty > a poetical essay,” 1766. 2. “'Elegies on different occasions,” 1768, 4to. 3. “The Triumph of Fashion, a vision,” 1771, 4to. 4. “Faringdon Hill, a poem in two books,” 1774, 4to. 5. “Six Olympic Odes of Pindar, being those omitted by Mr. West, translated into English verse, with notes,” 1775, 12mo. 6. “The Art of War, a poem, translated from the French of the king of Prussia,” written and published in 1778, at his leisure hours during the encampment at Coxheath. 7. “The Progress of Refinement, a poem, in three parts,” 1783, 4to; forming a history of the procedure of the human mind, in manners, learning, and taste, from the first dawnings of cultivated life to the present day. The poem displays the great knowledge of the author, the elegance of his genius, and the soundness of his judgment. His descriptions are just and beautiful, and his versification correct, polished, and harmonious. 8. “Shooting, a poem,” 1784, 4to. 9. “Poems on various Subjects,” in two vols. 8vo, in which several of the beforementioned pieces were collected, and a few new ones added, 1787. 10. “An elegant and very faithful English Translation of the Song of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, is to be found, among other excellent pieces, in this collection. 11.” A Translation of the Poetics of Aristotle, first published in an octavo volume in 1788, and afterwards prefixed to a Commentary on that Work, published in a quarto volume. 12. “Amusement, a poetical essay,” 1790. 13. “The Siege of Meaux, a tragedy, in three acts,” acted at Covent-Garden theatre, 1794, 8vo. 14. “The War Elegies of Tyrtseus imitated, and addressed to the people of Great Britain with some Observations on the Life and Poems of TyrtEeus,” 1795. 15. “The Democrat; interspersed with Anecdotes of well-known Characters,” 1795, 2 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lenore, a tale, translated from the German of Gottfried Augustus Burger,” 1796, 4to. Of the several translations of this tale which have appeared, Mr. Pye’s is esteemed the best but nei r ther English morals nor English taste are likely to be benefited by the translation of such poems as “Lenore.” 17. “Naucratia, or Naval dominion, a poem,” 2d edit. 1798. 18. “The Inquisitor, a tragedy in five acts, altered from the German by the late James Petit Andrews and Henry James Pye,” 1798, 8vo. 19. “The Aristocrat, by the author of the Democrat,” 1799, 2 vols. 12mo. 2O. “Carmen Seculare for the year 1800.” 21. “Adelaide, a tragedy,” acted at Drury-lane theatre, 1800, 8vo, but calculated rather for the closet than the stage. 22. “Alfred, an epic poem in six books,” 1802, 4to. 23. “Verses on several subjects, written in the vicinity of Stoke Park, in the summer and autumn of 1801,” 1802. sm. 8vo. 24. “A second Collection of his Poems, in two octavo volumes, comprising, besides several of those already mentioned, a volume of sketches on various subjects and a translation of Xenophon’s Defence of the Athenian Democracy, with, notes.” 25. “A Prior Claim, a comedy,” acted at Drurylane Theatre, 1805, 8vo, in which he was assisted by Mr. Samuel James Arnold, his son-in-law. 26. “Comments on the Commentators on Shakspeare with preliminary observations on his genius and writings, and on the labours of those who have endeavoured to elucidate them,” 1807, 8vo. 27. “A Translation of the Hymns and Epigrams of Homer,” 1810. He published also many occasional poems, besides his odes for the new year, for his majesty’s birthday, and for the anniversary of the Literary Fund, which are preserved in the magazines. Mr. Pye died Aug. 11, 1813, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.

, an English divine, the son of the Rev, John Pyle, rector of Stodey, in Norfolk, was born there in 1674, and is said by Mr. Masters to have been educated at Caius-college, Cambridge but his name does not occur in the printed list of graduates. About 1698, he was examined for ordination by Mr. Whiston (at that time chaplain to bishop Moore), who says, in his own “Life,” that “Dr. Sydall and Mr. Pyle were the best scholars among the many candidates whom it was his office to examine.” It is supposed Mr. Pyle was first curate of Sr. Margaret’s parish in King’s Lynn, where he married in 1701, and the same year was appointed by the corporation to be minister or preacher of St. Nicholas’s chapel. Between the years 1708 and 1718 he published six occasional sermons, chiefly in defence of the principles of the Revolution, and the succession of the Brunswick family. He also engaged in the Bangorian controversy, writing two pamphlets in vindication of bishop Hoadly, who rewarded him with a prebend of Salisbury, and a residentiaryship in that cathedral.

His sentiments will further appear by his publishing his “Paraphrase on the Acts, and all the Epistles,” in the manner of Dr. Clarke. This was followed by his “Paraphrase on the Revelation of St. John,” and on the “Historical books of the Old Testament;” all which, comprising what was thought necessary for illustration, within a small compass, and in a plain and perspicuous manner, were much recommended and much read. His writings are generally characterised by perspicuity and manly sense, rather than by any elevation of style yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his elocution that, both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of the most admi /ed preachers of his time. His sole aim was to amend or improve his auditors. For this purpose he addressed himself, not to their passions, but to their understandings and consciences. He judiciously preferred a plainness, united with a force of expression, to all affectation of elegance or rhetorical sublimity, and delivered hi* discourses with so just and animated a torie of voice, as never failed to gain universal attention. Although he lived in friendship and familiar correspondence with many eminent churchmen, as bishop Hoadly, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Sykes, &c. yet he remained long in a situation of comparative obscurity. This, according to a passage in one of archbishop Herring’s letters to Mr. Duncomb, was, “in some measure, owing to himself; for that very impetuosity of spirit which, under proper government, renders him the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the better of him, and hurt his views.” This probably alludes to his being heterodox with respect to the Trinity, which was common with most of the divines with whom he associated. He continued to be preacher at St. Nicholas, King’s Lynn, till 1732, when he succeeded to the vicarage of St. Margaret, which he held till 1755. Being then no Jonger capable of discharging the duties annexed to it, he gave in his resignation, both to the dean and chapter of Norwich, and also to the mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the summer of that year. He then retired to SwafFham, where he died, Dec. 31, 1756, aged eighty-two > and was buried in the church of Lynn All Saints.

, a noted republican in the time of Charles I. was descended of a good family in Somersetshire, and born in 1584. In his fifteenth year he entered as a gentleman-commoner of Broadgate’s-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford, where he had for his tutor Degory Wheare, but appears to have left the university without taking a degree, and, as Wood supposes, went to one of the inns of court. He appears, indeed, to have been intended for public business, as he was very early placed as a clerk in the office of the exchequer. He was likewise not far advanced when he was elected member of parliament for Tavistock, in the reign of James I. He uniformly distinguished himself by his opposition to the measures of the court, both in the reign of that king and of his successor. In 1626 he was one of the managers of the articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and in 1628 brought into the House of Commons a. charge against Dr. Main waring, who held some doctrines which he conceived to be equally injurious to the king and the kingdom. He was likewise a great opponent of Arnainianism, being himself attached to Calvinistic principles. In 1639, he, with several other cominoners and lords, held a very close correspondence with the commissioners sent to London by the Scotch covenanters; and in the parliament which met April 13, 1640, was one of the most active and leading members. On the meeting of the next, which is called the Long Parliament, he made an elaborate speech concerning the grievances of the nation, and impeached the earl of Strafford of high treason, at whose trial he was one of the managers of the House of Commons. His uncommon violence led the king to the unhappy measure of coming to the parliament in person, to seize him and four other members. Pym, however, continued firm to the interests of the parliament, but thought it necessary, some time before his death, to draw up a vindication of his conduct, which leaves it doubtful what part he would have taken, had he lived to see the serious consequences of his early violence. In Nov. 1643, he was appointed lieutenant of the ordnance, and probably would have risen to greater distinction, but he died at Derby-house, Dec. 8 following, and was interred with great solemnity in Westminster- abbey. He left several children by his lady, who died in 1620, and is said to have been a woman of rare accomplishments and learning. Many of his speeches were printed separately, and are inserted in the annals and histories of the times.

It is affirmed by lord Clarendon and some others, that he died in great torment of that loathsome disease called morbus pediculosus; that he was a very sad spectacle; and that none but select friends were admitted to him. But Mr. Stephen Marshal, in the sermon preached at his fune* fal, affirms, that no less than eight doctors of physic, of unsuspected integrity, and some of them strangers to Mr. Pym, if not of religion different from him, who were present at the opening of his body, and near a thousand people, who saw it, were witnesses to the falsehood of the report above mentioned; the disease of which he died, being no other than an imposthume in his bowels.

Lord Clarendon observes, that “his parts were rather acquired by industry, than supplied by nature, or adorned by art; but that, besides his exact knowledge of the forms and orders of the House of Commons, he had a very comely and grave way of expressing himself, with great volubility of words natural and proper. He understood likewise the temper and affections of the kingdom as well as any man, and had observed the errors and mistakes in government, and knew well how to make them appear greater than they were. At the first opening of the Long Parliament, though he was much governed in private designing by Mr. Hampden and Mr. Oliver St. John, yet he seemed of all men to have the greatest influence upon the House of Commons and was at that time, and for some months’ after, the most popular man in that or any other age. Upon the first design of softening and obliging the most powerful persons in both Houses, when he received the king’s promise for the chancellorship of the exchequer, he made in return a suitable profession of his service to*1iis majesty; and thereupon, the other being no secret, declined from that sharpness in the House, which was more popular than any man’s, and made some overtures to provide for the glory and splendour of the crown; in which he had so ill success, that his interest and reputation there visibly abated, and he found, that he was much more able to do hurt than good; which wrought very much upon him to melancholy, and complaint of the violence nd discomposure of the people’s affections and inclinations. In the prosecution of the earl of Strafford, his carriage and language was such, as expressed much personal animosity; and he was accused of having practised some arts in it unworthy of a good man; which, if true, might make many other things, that were confidently reported afterwards of him, to be believed; as that he received a great sum of money from the French ambassador, to hinder the transportation of those regiments of Ireland into Flanders, upon the disbanding that army there, which had been prepared by the earl of Strafford for the business of Scotland in which, if his majesty’s directions and commands had not been diverted and contradicted by both Houses, many believed, that the rebellion in Ireland had not happened. From the time of his being accused of high treason by the king, he opposed all overtures of peace and accommodation and when the earl of Essex was disposed, in the summer of 1643, to a treaty, his power and dexterity wholly changed the earl’s inclination in that point. He was also wonderfully solicitous for the Scots coming-in to the assistance of the parliament. In short, his power pf doing shrewd turns was extraordinary, and no less in doing good offices for particular persons, whom he preserved from censure, when they were under the severe displeasure of the Houses of parliament, and looked upon as eminent delinquents; and the quality of many of them made it believed, that he sold that protection for valuable considerations.”

, a celebrated painter of landscapes, was born in 1621, at the village of Pynaker, between Schiedam and Delft, and always retained the name of the place of his nativity. He went for improvement to Rome, where he studied for three years, after nature, and after the best models among the great masters. He returned an accomplished painter, and his works rose to the highest esteem. His lights and shadows are always judiciously distributed and skilfully contrasted: but his cabinet pictures are much preferable to those of larger size. He chose generally a strong morning light, which allowed him to give a fine verdure to his trees. His distances are properly thrown back, by diversified objects intervening, and his landscapes enriched with figures, and pieces of architecture. He died in 1673.

, the third on the list of our early printers, was born in Normandy, as appears by king Henry’s patent of naturalization, in which he is styled “Richardus Pynson in partibus Normand. oriund.” There were, however, some of the same name in England, about his time. The few particulars recorded of his life are chiefly conjectural, as that he was either apprentice or son-in-law to Caxton. Mr. Ames intimates that he was in such esteem with the lady Margaret, Henry VIIth’s mother, and other great personages, that he printed for them all his days, and obtained a patent from the king to be his printer, in 1503, or before. He appears to have resided in the vicinity of Temple-bar, for some time on the city side, and for some time on the Westminster side of that ancient boundary. If he was made king’s printer so early as 1503, as asserted by Ames, he did not assume the title till 1503, when he first added it to his colophon. This honour seems to have been accompanied with some small salary, and the title of Esquire. Soon after his commencement in business, he employed one William Tailleur, a printer of Roan, to print Littleton’s Tenures, and some other law pieces for him because our laws being all made in the Norman French tiJl the beginning of the reign of Henry VII. and the printers of that country understanding the language better, were certainly more capable of printing them correct. Afterwards he, as well as others, had such helps, that the statutes and other law books were all printed at home. About 1525 he began his controversy with Redman, who had stolen one of his principal devices, and affixed it, without apology, to a number of the books printed by him. Redman he abuses in very gross terms, and even quibbles upon his name Redman quasi Rudem&n. Yet, notwithstanding this dispute, Redman succeeded Pynson, by removing into the very parish and house of Pynson.

Pynson was the first who introduced the Roman letter into this country. He appears to have had patrons who contributed to the expense of some of his undertakings. When he died is uncertain, nor is it ascertained what was the date of the last book printed by him. Some think he died before 1529, others later. Bertholet succeeded him as king’s printer in 1529, but it has been conjectured that Pynson only retired from business at that time. Pynson is esteemed inferior, upon the whole, as a printer, to Wynkyn de Worde; but, says Mr. Dibdiri, “in the choice and intrinsic worth of his publications, has a manifest superiority.” This is very high praise, and appears to be just. Symptoms of true, useful learning appear on Pynson’s list, which cannot be said of his predecessors, whatever value collectors may fix upon their productions.

, the founder of the sect of Pyrrhonists, or sceptics, was the son of Plistarchus of the city of Elea, in the Peloponnesus. He flourished about the 110th olympiad, or 340 B. C. He applied himself first to painting, and several of his pieces, in which he succeeded well, were long preserved at Elea but, aspiring to philosophy, he became the disciple of Anaxarchus, whom he accompanied to In-? dia. Here he conversed with the Brachmans and Gymnosophists, imbibing from their doctrine whatever might seem favourable to his natural disposition towards doubting, but in general very little satisfied with them. As every advance he afterwards made involved him in more uncertainty, he determined on establishing a new school, in which he taught, that every object of human inquiry is involved in uncertainty, so that it is impossible ever to arrive at the knowledge of truth.

Some of his opinions and some of his oddities tend to remind the reader of certain affectations of wisdom and philosophy in our own days. “All men,” he said, “regulate their conduct by received opinions. Every thing is done by habit; every thing is examined with reference to the laws and customs of a particular country; but whether these laws be good or bad, it is impossible to determine.” In this may be found the germ of those principles advanced by modern sceptics, in order to subvert all morality. At first Pyrrho lived in indigence and obscurity, courting retirement, and seldom appearing in public. He frequently travelled but never told to what country he intended to go. Every species of suffering he endured with apparent insensibility. He never turned aside to avoid a rock or precipice, and would rather be hurt than get out of the way of a chariot, and his friends were therefore obliged to accompany him wherever he went. If this be true, says Brucker, it was not without reason that he was ranked among those whose intellects were disturbed by intense study; and this excellent historian seems to think that many such reports were calumnies invented by the dogmatists whom he opposed, and he is inclined to be of this opinign on account of the respect with which he is mentioned by ancient writers. There appears, however, upon the whole, no great reason to think that his life was much more consistent than his opinions, and the respect paid to either in his age seems entitled to little regard as evidence of excellence.

His reputation certainly spread soon over all Greece, and his opinions were embraced by many. The inhabitants of Elea created him sovereign pontiff of their religion, although his leading opinion was that there is no certainty in any thing. The Athenians presented him with the freedom of their city. Epicurus liked his conversation, because, as he thought, Pyrrho recommended and practised that self-command which produces undisturbed tranquillity. The highest degree of perfection to which, in Pyrrho' s opinion, men can arrive, is, never to pass a decision upon any thing. His disciples were all agreed in one point, that they knew nothing. Some of them, however, sought truth, in hopes of rinding it others despaired of ever discovering it. Some were disposed to affirm one thing, namely, that they knew nothing for certain; but others hesitated whether it might not be unsafe to affirm even this. His opinions had existed partially prior to his own times; but, as no one before him professed absolute doubt about every thing, he 1ms always been considered as the author and founder of scepticism.

Pyrrho died about the ninetieth year of his age, probably in the 123d olympiad, or B. C. 288. After his death, the Athenians honoured his memory with a statue, and a monument to him was erected in his own country.

Brucker ascribes his scepticism to his early acquaintance with the system of Dernocritus. Having learned, says he, to deny the real existence of all qualities in bodies, except those which are essential to primary atoms, and to refer every thing else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects, that is, to appearance and opinion, he concluded, that all knowledge depended upon the fallacious report of the senses, and consequently, that there can be no such thing as certainty. He was encouraged in this notion by the general spirit of the Eleatic school, in which he was educated, which was unfavourable to science. But nothing contributed more to confirm him in scepticism, than the subtleties of the Dialectic schools, in which he was instructed by the son of Stilpo. He saw no method, by which he could so effectually overturn the cavils of sophistry, as by having recourse to the doctrine of universal wncertainty. Being strongly inclined, from his natural temper and habits of life, to look upon immoveable tranquillity as the great end of all philosophy; observing, that nothing tended so much to disturb this tranquillity, as the innumerable dissentions which agitated the schools of the dogmatists at the same time inferring, from their endless disputes, the uncertainty of the questions upon which they debated he determined to seek elsewhere for that peace of mind, which he despaired of finding in the dogmatic philosophy. In this manner it happened, in the case of Pyrrho, as it has often happened in other instances, that controversy became the parent of scepticism.

, one of the greatest men of antiquity, was born most probably about the year B. C. 586, but this date has been much contested. His father, Mnemarchus, of Samos, who was an engraver by trade, and dealt in rings and other trinkets, went with his wife to Delphi a few days after his marriage, to sell some goods during the feast and, while he stayed there, received an oracular answer from Apollo, who told him that if he embarked for Syria, the voyage would be very fortunate to him, and that his wife would there bring forth a son, who should be renowned for beauty and wisdom, and whose life would be a blessing to posterity. Mnemarchus obeyed the god, and Pythagoras was born at Sidon and, being brought to Samos, was educated there answerably to the great hopes that were conceived of him. He was called “the youth with the fine head of hair;” and, from the great qualities which appeared in him early, was soon regarded as a good genius sent into the world for the benefit of mankind.

After having remained twenty-five years in Egypt, he went to Babylon, afterwards to Crete, and thence to Sparta, to instruct himself in the laws of Minos and Lycurgus. Then he returned to Samos, which, finding under the tyranny of Polycrates, he quitted again, and visited the countries of Greece. Going through Peloponnesus, he stopped at Phlius, where Leo then reigned and, in his conversation with this prince, spoke with so much eloquence and wisdom, that Leo was at once delighted and surprised. He asked him at length, “what profession he followed?” Pythagoras answered “None, but that he was a philosopher.” For, displeased with the lofty title of sages and wise men, which his profession had hitherto assumed, he changed it into one more modest and humble, calling himself a philosopher, that is, a lover of wisdom. Leo asked him “what it was to be a philosopher and the difference there was between a philosopher and other men?” Pythagoras answered, that “life might well be compared to the Olympic games for, as in that vast assembly, some come in search of glory, others in search of gain, and a third sort, more noble than the two former, neither for fame nor profit, but only to enjoy the wonderful spectacle, and to see and know what passes in it; so we, in like manner, come into the world as into a place of public meeting, where some toil after glory, others after gain, and a few, contemning riches and vanity, apply themselves to the study of nature. These last,” said he, “are they whom T call philosophers.” And he thought them by far the noblest of the human kind, and the only part which spent their lives suitably to their nature for he was wont to say that “man was created to know and to contemplate.”

From Peloponnesus he passed into Italy, and settled at Croton; where the inhabitants, having suffered great loss in a battle with the Locrians, degenerated from industry and courage into softness and effeminacy. Pythagoras thought it a task worthy of him to reform this city; and accordingly began to preach to the inhabitants all manner of virtues; and, though he naturally met at first with great opposition, yet at length he made such an impression on his hearers, that the magistrates themselves, astonished at the solidity and strength of reason with which he spake, prayed him to interpose in the affairs of the government, and to give such advice as he should judge expedient for the good of the state. When Pythagoras had thus reformed the manners of the citizens by preaching, and established the city by wise and prudent counsels, he thought it time to lay some foundation of the wisdom he professed; and, in order to establish his sect, opened a school. It is not to be wondered that a crowd of disciples offered themselves N to a man, of whose wisdom such prodigious effects had been now seen and heard. They came to him from Greece and from Italy; but, for fear of pouring the treasures of wisdom into unsound and corrupt vessels, he received not indifferently all that presented themselves, but took time to try them for he used to say, “every soft of wood is not fit to make a Mercury” ex quowis ligno nonjit Mercurius that is, all minds are not alike capable of knowledge. He gave his disciples the rules of the Egyptian priests, and made them pass through the austerities which he himself had endured. He at first enjoined them a five years* silence, during which they were only to hear after that, leave was given them to propose questions, and to state their doubts. They were not, however, even then, to talk without bounds and measure; for he often said to them, u Either hold your peace, or utter things more worth than silence,; and say not a little in many words, but much in few.“Having gone through the probation, they were obliged, before they were admitted, to bring all their fortune into the common stock, which was managed by persons chosen on purpose, and called ceconomists and, if any retired from the society, he often carried away with him more than he brought in. He was, however, immediately regarded by the rest as a dead person, his obsequies made, and a tomb raised for him which sort of ceremony was instituted to deter others from leaving the school, by shewing, that if a man, after having entered into the ways of wisdom, turns aside and forsakes them, it is in vain for him to believe himself living—he is dead . The Egyptians believed the secrecy they observed to be recommended to them by the example of their gods, who would never be seen by mortals but through the obscurity of shadows. For this reason there was at Sais, a town of Egypt, a statue of Pallas, who was the same as Isis, with this inscription” I am whatever is, has been, or shall be; and no mortal has ever yet taken off the veil that covers me." They had invented, therefore, three ways of expressing their thoughts; the simple, the hieroglyphical, and the symbolical. In the simple they spoke plainly and intelligibly, as in common conversation; in the hieroglyphical they concealed their thoughts under certain images and characters; and in the symbolical they explained them by short expressions, which, under a sense plain and simple, included another wholly figurative. Pythagoras principally imitated the symbolical style of the Egyptians, which, having neither the obscurity of the hieroglyphics, nor the clearness of ordinary discourse, he thought very proper to inculcate the greatest and most important truths for a symbol, by its double sense, the proper and the figurative, teaches two things at once and nothing pleases the mind more, than the double image it represents to our view.

In this manner Pythagoras delivered many excellent things concerning God and the human soul, and a vast variety of precepts relating to the conduct of life, political as well as civil; and he made some considerable discoveries and advances in the arts and sciences. In arithmetic, the common multiplication table is, to this day, still called Pythagoras’s table. In geometry it is said he invented many theorems, particularly these three; 1st, Only three polygons, or regular plane figures, can fill up the space about a point, viz. the equilateral triangle, the square, and the hexagon: 2d, The sum of the three angles of every triangle is equal to two right angles: 3d, In any right-angled triangle, the square on the longest side is equal to both the squares on the two shorter sides: for the discovery of this last theorem, some authors say he offered to the gods a hecatomb, or a sacrifice of a hundred oxen; Plutarch, however, says it was only one ox, and even that is questioned by Cicero, as inconsistent with his doctrine, which forbade bloody sacrifices: the more accurate therefore say, he sacrificed an ox made of flour, or of clay; and Plutarch even doubts whether such sacrifice, whatever it was, was made for the said theorem, or for the area of the parabola, which it was said Pythagoras also found out.

In astronomy his inventions were many and great. It is reported he discovered, or maintained the true system of the world, which places the sun in the centre, and makes all the planets revolve about him; from him it is to this day called the old or Pythagorean system; and is the same as that revived by Copernicus. He first discovered that Lucifer and Hesperus were but one and the same, being the planet Venus, though formerly thought to be two different stars. The invention of the obliquity of the zodiac is likewise ascribed tt> him. He first gave to the world the name Kocr/xoj, Kosmos, from the order and beauty of all things comprehended in it asserting that it was made according to musical proportion for as he held that the sun, by him and his followers termed the fiery globe of unity, was seated in the midst of the universe, and planets moving around him, so he held that the seven planets had an harmonious motion, and their distances from the sun corresponded to the musical intervals or divisions of the monochord. We may also add, that among the works that are cited of him, there are not only books of physic, and books of morality, like that contained in what are called his “Golden VersesJ” but treatises of politics and theology. Ah these works are lost but the vastness of his mind, and the greatness of his talents, appear from the wonderful things he performed. He delivered, as antiquity relates, several cities of Italy and of Sicily from the yoke of slavery he appeased seditions in others and he softened the manners, and brought to temper the most savage and unruly humours, of several people and several tyrants. Phalaris, the tyrant of Sicily, is said to have been the only one who could withstand the remonstrances of Pythagoras and he, it seems, was so enraged at his lectures, that he ordered him to he put to death. But though the reasonings ol the philosopher could make no impression on the tyrant, yet they were sufficient to revive the spirit of the Agrigentines, and Phalaris was killed the very same day that he had fixed for the death of Pythagoras.

Pythagoras had a great veneration for marriage; and therefore at Croton, married Theano, daughter of Brontinus, one of the chief of that city. He had by her two sons, Arimnestus and Telauges which last succeeded his father in his school, and was the master of Empedocles. He had likewise one daughter, named Damo, who was distinguished by her learning as well as her virtues, and wrote an excellent commentary upon Homer. It is related that Pythagoras had given her some of his writings, with express commands not to impart them to any but those of his own family to which Damo was so scrupulously obedient, that even when she was reduced to extreme poverty, she refused a great sum of money for them. Some have indeed asserted, and Plutarch among them, that Pythagoras never wrote any thing; but this opinion is contradicted by others, and Plutarch is supposed to be mistaken. Whether he did or not, it is certain that whatever was written by his first disciples ought to be regarded as the work of himself; for they wrote only his opinions, and that so religiously, that they would not change the least syllable; respecting the words of their master as the oracles of a god; and alledging in confirmation of the truth of any doctrine only this, avrog t$a, t “He said so.” They looked on him as the most perfect image of the deitv among men. His house was called the temple of Ceres, and his courtyard the temple of the Muses; and, when he went into towns it was said he went thither, “not to teach men, but to heal them.”

Pythagoras was persecuted in the last years of his life, and died a tragical death. There was at Croton a young man called Cylon, whom a noble birth and opulence had so puffed up with pride, that he thought he should do honour to Pythagoras in offering to be his disciple. The philosopher did not measure the merit of men by these exterior things; and therefore, finding in him much corruption and wickedness, refused to admit him. This extremely enraged Cylon, who sought nothing but revenge and, having rendered many persons disaffected to Pythagoras, came one day accompanied by a crowd of profligates, and surrounding the house where he was teaching, set it on fire. Pythagoras had the luck to escape, and flying, took the way to Locrisj but the Locrians, fearing the enmity of Cylon, who was a man of power, deputed their chief magistrates to meet him, and to request him to retire elsewhere. He went to Tarentum, where a new persecution soon obliged him to retire to Metapontum. But the sedition of Croton proved as it were the signal of a general insurrection against the Pythagoreans the flame had gained all the cities of Greece the schools of Pythagoras were destroyed, and he himself, at the age of above eighty, killed at the tumult of Metapontum, or, as others say, was starved to death in the temple of the Muses, whither he was fled for refuge.

The doctrine of Pythagoras was not confined to the narrow compass of Magna Grsecia, now called the kingdom of Naples it spread itself all over Greece, and in Asia. The Romans admired his procepts long after his death and having received an oracle, which commanded them to erect statues in honour of the most wise and the most valiant of the Greeks, they erected two brazen statues one to Alcibiades as the most valiant, and the other to Pythagoras as the most wise. It was greatly to his honour, that the two most excellent men Greece ever produced, Socrates and Plato, in some measure followed his doctrine.

The sect of Pythagoras subsisted till towards the end of the reign of Alexander the Great. About that time the Academy and the Lyceum united to obscure and swallow up the Italic sect, which till then had held up its head with so much glory, that Isocrates writes: “We more admire, at this day, a Pythagorean when he is silent, than others, even the most eloquent, when they speak.” However, in after-ages, there were here and there some disciples of Pythagoras hut they were only particular persons, who never made any society nor had the Pythagoreans any more a public school. Notwithstanding the high encomiums bestowed upon this philosopher, Brucker, who has a very elaborate article on the subject, is of opinion that Pythagoras owed much of his celebrity and authority to imposture. Why did he so studiously court the society of Egyptian priests, so famous in antient times for their arts of deception; why did he take so much pains to be initiated in religious mysteries; why did he retire into a subterraneous cavern in Crete; why did he assume the character of Apollo, at the Olympic games why did he boast that his soul had lived in former bodies, and that he had been first Æthalides the son of Mercury, then Euphorbus, then Pyrrhus of Delos, and at last Pythagoras, but that he might the more easily impose upon the credulity of an ignorant and superstitious people His whole manner of life, as far as it is known, confirms this opinion. Clothed in a long white robe, with a flowing beard, and, as some relate, with a golden crown on his head, he preserved among the people, and in the presence of his disciples, a commanding gravity and majesty of aspect. He made use of music to promote the tranquillity of his mind frequently singing, for this purpose, hymns of Thales, Hesiod, and Homer. He had such an entire command of himself, that he was never seen to express, in his countenance, grief, or joy, or anger. He refrained from animal food, and confined himself to a frugal vegetable diet, excluding from his simple bill of fare, for sundry mystical reasons, pulse or beans. By this artificial demeanour, Pythagoras passed himself upon the vulgar as a being of an order superior to the common condition of humanity, and persuaded them that he had received his doctrine from heaven. We find still extant a letter of Pythagoras to Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse; but this letter is certainly supposititious, Pythagoras having been dead before Hiero was born. “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras,” the real author of which is unknown, have been frequently published, with the f< Commentary of Hierocles,“and a Latin version and notes. Mr. Dacier translated them into French, with notes, and- added the” Lives of Pythagoras and Hierocles“and this work was published in English, the” Golden Verses" being translated from the Greek by N. Rowe, esq. in 1707, 8vo.

, a celebrated ancient traveller, was born at Massilia (now Marseilles), a colony of the Phoceans. He was well acquainted with philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, and geography and it is supposed, with reason, that his fellow-citizens, being prepossessed in favour of his knowledge and talents, and wishing to extend their trade, sent him to make new discoveries in the North, while they employed Euthymenes, for the same purpose, in the South. Pytheas explored all the sea-coasts, from Cadiz to the isle of Thule, or Iceland, where he observed that the sun s rose almost as soon as it was set which is the case in Iceland, and the northern parts of Norway, during the summer season. After his return from this first voyage, he travelled by land through all the maritime provinces of Europe lying on the ocean and the Baltic, as far as Tanais, which is supposed to have been the Vistula, where he embarked for Massilia. Polybius and Strabo have treated the account of his travels as fabulous but Gassendi, Sanson, and Rudbeck, join with Hipparchus and Eratosthenes in defending this ancient geographer, whose reputation is completely established by the modern navigators. We are indebted to Pytheas for the discovery of the Isle of Thule, and the distinction of climates, by the different length of the days and nights. Strabo has also preserved to us another observation, which was made by him in his own country, at the time of the solstice. Pytheas must have lived at the same time with Aristotle and Alexander the Great; for Polybius, as quoted by Strabo, asserts, that Dicearchus, Aristotle’s pupil, had read his works. This ingenious Marseillois is the first and most ancient Gaulish author we know. His principal work was entitled, “The Tour of the Earth” but neither this, nor any other of his writings, have come down to us, though some of them were remaining at the end of the fourth century. They were written in Greek, the language then spoken at Marseilles.

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

, an English poet, was born in the year 1592, at Stewards, near Romford in Essex, and baptized on May 8 of that year. His family was of some consideration in the county of Essex, and possessed of several estates in Romford, Hornchurch, Dagenham, &c. In Romford church are registered the deaths of his grandfather, sir Robert Quarles, and his two wives and daughters, and James Quarles, his father, who died Nov. 16, 1642. He was clerk of the green cloth, and purveyor of the navy, to queen Elizabeth. Our poet was educated at Christ’s cbllege, Cambridge, and Lincoln’s-inn, London. His destination seems to have been to public life, for we are told he was preferred to the place of cup-bearer to Elizabeth, daughter of James 1. electress palatine and queen of Bohemia; but quitted her service, very probably upon the ruin of the elector’s affairs, and went over to Ireland, where he became secretary to archbishop Usher. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion in that kingdom, in 1641, he suffered greatly in his fortune, and was obliged to fly for safety to England. But here he did not meet with the quiet he expected; for a piece of his, styled “The Royal Convert,” having given offence to the prevailing powers, they took occasion from that, and from his repairing to Charles I. at Oxford, to hurt him as much as possible in his estates. But we are told, that what he took most to heart was, being plundered of his books, and some manuscripts which he had prepared for the press. The loss of these is supposed to have hastened his death, which happened Sept. 8, 1644, when he was buried in the church of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London. Quarles was also chronologer to the city of London. What the duties of this place were, which is now abolished, we know not but his wife Ursula, who prefixed a short life of him to one of his pieces, says that “he held this place till his death, and would have given that city (and the world) a testimony that he was their faithful servant therein, if it had pleased God to blesse him with life to perfect what he had begun.” Mr. Headley observes, that Mr. Walpole and Mr. Granger have asserted, that he had a pension from Charles I. though they produce no authority and he thinks this not improbable, as the king had taste to discover merit, and generosity to reward it. Pope, however, asserted the same thing, and probably had authority for it, although he did not think it necessary to quote it:

Wood, in mentioning a publication of Dr. Burgess, which was abused by an anonymous author, and defended by Quarles, styles the latter “an old puritanical poet, the sometimes darling of our plebeian judgments;” and Phillips says of his works, that “they have been ever, and still are, in wonderful veneration among the vulgar.” And this certainly has been the case until within the last thirty years several critics of acknowledged taste studied Quarles’s various works with - attention, and have advanced proofs that some of them deserve a better fate. Of these, Mr. Head ley, and Mr. Jackson of Exeter, appear to have pleaded the cause of this neglected poet with best effect and although they do not convince us that reprinting the whole of any of his pieces would be an acceptable labour, there can be no doubt that a judicious selection would prove Quarles a man of real genius and true poetical spirit. Quarles (says Mr. Headley) has been branded with more than common abuse, and seems often to have been censured merely from the want of being read. “If his poetry,” adds this amiable critic, “failed to gain him friends and readers, his piety should at least have secured him peace and good-will. He too often, no doubt, mistook the enthusiasm of devotion for the inspiration of fancy. To mix the waters of Jordan and Helicon in the same case was reserved for the hand of Milton; and for him, and him only, to find the bays of Mount Olivet equally verdant with those of Parnassus. Yet, as the effusions of a real poetical mind, however thwarted by untowardness of subject, will be seldom rendered totally abortive, we find in Quarles original imagery, striking sentiment, fertility of expression, and happy combinations together with a compression of style, that merits the observation of the writers of verse. Gross deficiencies of judgment, and the infelicities of his subjects, concurred in ruining him.”

Owing to this and other attempts to revive the memory of Quarles, his various pieces have become lately in much request and the original, or best editions, are sold at high prices. The first, in point of popularity, is his “Emblems,” Lond. 1635, small 8vo, with prints by Marshall and Simpson. The hint was probably taken, as many of the plates certainly were, from Herman Hugo’s Emblems, published a few years before (see Hugo), but the accompanying verses are entirely Quarles’s. Hugo was more mystical, Quarles more evangelical. Alciat preceded them both of which Fuller seems to have been aware, in the following character of Quarles, which we shall transcribe, as Mr. Headley has not disdained to take a hint from it. “Had he been contemporary,” says our quaint biographer, “with Plato, that great back-friend to poets, he would not only have allowed him to live, but advanced him to an office in his commonwealth. Some poets, if debarred profaneness, wantonness, and satiricalness, that they may neither abuse God, themselves, nor their neighbours, have their tongues cut out in effect. Others only trade in wit at the second hand; being all for translations, nothing for invention. Our Quarles was free from the faults of the first, as if he had drank of Jordan instead of Helicon, and slept on Mount Olivet for his Parnassus; and was happy in his own invention. His visible poetry, I mean his ‘Emblems,’ is excellent, catching therein the eye and fancy at one draught; so that he hath out-Alciated therein, in some some men’s judgments. His ‘Verses on Job’ are done to the life; so that the reader may see his forces, and through them the anguish of his soul. According to the advice of St. Hierome, verba vertebat in opera, and practised the Job he had described.” Of these Emblems there have been innumerable editions, and they continue still to be printed. His other works we shall mention in the order of publication. 2. i“A Feast for Wormes, in a poem of the history of Jonah,” ibid. 1620, 4to. 3. “Pentalogia, or the Quintessence of Meditation.” 4. “Hadassa, or the History of Esther,” Lond. 1621. 5. “Job Militant, with meditations divine and moral,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 6. “Argalus and Parthenia,” a romance, ibid. 1631, 4to. 7. "History of Sampson,” 1631, 4to. 8. “Anniversaries” upon his “Paranete.” 9. “Enchiridion of Meditations, divine and moral,” prose, ibid. 1654. 1O. “The Loyal Convert.” 11. “The Virgin Widow,” a comedy, Lond. 1649, 4to. 12. “Divine Fancies: digested into epigrammes, meditations, and observations,” 1633, 4to. 13. “The Shepheard’s Oracles, delivered in certain Eglogues,” 1646, 4to. 14. “Divine poems containing Jonah, Esther, Job, Sions Sonets, Elegies, &c.” 1630, 8vo; reprinted, with plates, in 1674. 15. “Solomon’s Recantation,” reprinted 1739. This is probably not a perfect list of his pieces, nor have we been able to see copies of the whole. Some are accurately described in Messrs. Longman’s “Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica.”

By his wife he had eighteen children, one of whom, named John, a poet also, was born in Essex in 1624 admitted into Exeter college, Oxford, in 1642; bore arms for Charles I. within the garrison at Oxford; and was afterwards a captain in one of the royal armies. Upon the ruin of the king’s affairs, he retired to London in a mean condition, where he wrote several things purely for a maintenance, and afterwards travelled on the continent. He returned, and died of the plague at London, in 1665. Some have esteemed him also a good poet; and perhaps he was not entirely destitute of genius, which would have appeared to more advantage, if it had been duly and properly cultivated. His principal merit, however, with his admirers, was certainly his being a very great royalist.

, an eminent painter, was born at Antwerp in 1607. He studied the belles-lettres and philosophy for some time; but his taste and inclination for painting forced him at length to change his pursuits. He learned his art of Rubens, and became a very good painter. History, landscape, and some architecture, were the principal objects of his application, and his learning frequently appeared in his productions. He painted several grand pictures in Antwerp, and the places thereabouts, for churches and palaces; and though he aimed at nothing more than the pleasure he took in the exercise of painting, yet when he died he left behind him a very great character for skill and merit in his art. He died in 1678, aged seventy-one. He left a son, John Erasmus Quellinus, called young Quellinus a painter whose works were esteemed, and may be seen in different parts of Flanders and a nephew, Artus Quellinus, who was an excellent artist in sculpture, and who executed the fine pieces of carved work in the town-hall at Amsterdam, engraved first by Hubert Quellinus. Young Quellinus was born in 1630, and died in 1715 and having studied at Rome, is generally thought to have surpassed his father.

, a Lutheran divine, and a strong opponent of the Roman Catholics, was born at Quedlimbourg, and died on May 22, 1688, at the age of seventy -one. He published, 1. A work entitled “Dialogus de Patriis illustrium virorum, Doctrina, et Scriptis,” Wittemberg, 1654 and 1691, 4to. This is an account of learned men, from Adam to the year 1600, but is superficial and inaccurate. 2. “Sepultura Veterum,” 1660, 8vo, and in 4to, Wittemberg. This is esteemed his best work. 3. “A System of Divinity for those who who adopt the Confession of Augsburg,” 1685, 4 vols. folio. 4. Several other works, more replete with proofs of learning than of correctness and good taste.

, a poet of Italy, who wrote both in his own language and in Latin, was born at Padua in 1546, and manifested a very early genius. By means of a ready conception and vast memory, he soon made himself master of several languages, and of no small store of other knowledge. He was confidentially employed bjr several popes, and was secretary of the sacred college under no less than five. Clement VIII. made him a canon of Padua; but Paul V. recalled him to Rome, where he loaded him with honourable offices. Querenghi continued to hold his employments under the succeeding popes, till he died at Rome, Sept. 1, 1633, at the age of eightyseven. There is a volume of his Latin poems, which was printed at Rome in 1629; and Italian poetry, published also at Rome in 1616.

, born at Nantes April 15, 1702, was a journalist of some celebrity in France, a scholar attached to the study of the ancients, an enemy to bad taste, to the affectation of introducing new terms, and still more to the rage for new principles. He published, for twenty-two years, a periodical paper for the province of Brittany, entitled “Les petites Affiches” and during the same period, for five years, conducted the “Gazette de France,” the “Journal Etranger,” for two years“and took a part in the” Journal Encyclopedique." Notwithstanding these labours, he was the editor of many Latin and French authors, whose works he enriched by notes and prefaces, at once curious and instructive. He composed also works of his own and, besides those which he published, left several in ms. among which was a regular Analysis of the literary journals on which he was for so many years employed. Towards the latter part of his life he acted as librarian to a rich financier named Beaujon, from whom he had a handsome salary, with an honourable and pleasing retreat in his house. He died April 22, 1780, very generally regretted.

His principal works, besides the periodical publications already mentioned, are, 1. “Les impostures innocentes,” a little novel, the production of his youth, but calculated to make the public regret that he did not more employ himself in works of imagination. 2. “Le Testament de l'Abbe des Fontaines,” 1746, 12mo, a pamphlet of no great merit. 3. “Le Code Lyrique, ou reglement pour l‘Opera de Paris/’ 1743, 12mo. 4.” Collection Historique,“or Memoirs towards the History of the War which terminated in 1748, 12mo, 1757. 5. A Continuation of the Abbe Prevot’s” History of Voyages." 6. A translation of the Abbe Marsy’s Latin Poem on Painting, which is executed with fidelity and elegance. Among the editions which he published was one of Lucretius, 1744, 12mo, with notes, which have been esteemed also Phaedrus and Anacreon.

, an Italian poet, was born at Monopolis in the kingdom of Naples; and acquired in his early years a great facility in extempore verses. He went to Rome about 1514, with a poem of twenty thousand lines, called Alexias. Some young gentlemen of that city professed great friendship to him they treated him in the country, and at a feast crowned him arch-poet so that he was not known afterwards by any other name. Leo X. who, upon certain occasions, was not averse to buffoonery, delighted in his company, and caused him to be served with meat from his own table and Querno, being an excellent parasite, humoured him very exactly. He was obliged to make a distich extempore, upon whatever subject was given him even though he was at the time ill of the gout, with which he was extremely troubled. Once, when the fit was on him, he made this verse, “Archipoeta facit versus pro mille poetis,” and, as he hesitated in composing the second, the pope readily and wittily added, “Et pro mille aliis Archipoeta bibit.” Querno, hastening to repair his fault, cried, “Porrige, quod faciat mihi carmina docta, Falernum,” to which the pope instantly replied, “Hoc vinum enervat, debilitatque pedes,” alluding either to the gout in his feet, or to the feet of his verses. After the taking of Rome, he retired to Naples, where he suffered much during the wars in 1528, and died there in the hospital. He used to say, “He had found a thousand wolves, after he had lost one lion.”

, a celebrated French physician, was born at Merey, near Mont fort- Lamaury, a small town of the isle of France, in the year 1694. He was the son of a labourer, and worked in the fields till he was sixteen years of age; though he afterwards became first physician in ordinary to the king of France, a member of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, and of the Royal Society of London. He did not even learn to read till the period above-mentioned, when one of the books in which he first delighted was the “Maison Rustique.” The surgeon of the village gave him a slight knowledge of Greek and Latin, with some of the first principles of his art after which he repaired to the capital, where he completed his knowledge of it. Having obtained the requisite qualifications, he first practised his profession at Mantes but M. de la Peyronie, having discovered his talents, and thinking them lost in a small town, invited him to Paris, to be secretary to an academy of surgery, which he was desirous to establish. To the first collection of memoirs published by this society Quesnay prefixed a preface, which is considered as one of the compietest performances of the kind. The gout at length disqualified him for the practice of surgery, and he applied himself to medicine, wherein he became no less eminent. Towards the latter end of life his early taste for agricultural studies revived, and he became a leading man in the sect of ceconomists, who afterwards made so bad a use of their influence, by circulating democratical principles. Quesnay had many good qualities, among which were humanity and charity, with a strong mind and philosophical equality of temper, under the pains of the gout. He lived to the age of eighty, and in his very last years involved himself so deeply in mathematical studies that he fancied he had discovered at once the two great problems, of the trisection of an angle, and the quadrature of the circle. He died in December 1774. Louis XV“. was much attached to Quesnay, called him” son penseur,“his thinker; and, in allusion to that name, gave him three pansies, or” pensees," for his arms.

His first essay on blood-letting was published in 1730, under the title of “Observations sur les Effets de la Saignee, avec des Remarques critiques sur la Traité de Silva” and a second edition, considerably enlarged, was printed in 1750. He had published another work, entitled “L'Art de Guerir par la Saigne*e,” Paris, 1736, in which he recommends blood-letting in many diseases. In the same year appeared his “Essai Physique sur i'Economie Animale,” in two volumes 12mo, reprinted in 1747, in three volumes. This work, however, was deemed very imperfect by Haller, and is in fact characterized by a love of hypothesis, rather than by the details of experience and observation. In 1743, his “Preface des Memoires de T Academic de Chirurgie,” already mentioned. In 1744 he published his “Recherches critiques et historiques sur TOrigine, sur les divers Etats, et sur les Progres, de la Chirurgie en France,” which called forth some replies oa the alleged inaccuracy of some of the historical statements. His other publications were entitled, “Testament de M. de la Peyronie du 18 Avril, 1747” Examen impartial des Contestations! des Medecins et des Chirurgiens de Paris,“1748, 12mo;” Memoire présenté au Roi par son premier Chirurgien, ou l‘on examine la Sagesse de l’Ancienne Legislation sur l'Etat de la Chirurgie en France,“4to” Traité de la Suppuration,“12mo and” Traité de la Gangrene,“12mo; all in the year 1749. And lastly, his” Traité des Fievres continues," 1753, in two volumes.

, a brave French officer, was born in 1610, of a noble family in Normandy. He was trained up to the marine service under his father, who was an experienced captain, and distinguished himself from the age of seventeen. He went into Sweden in 1644, and was there made major-general of the fleet, and afterwards viceadmiral. In this last character, he engaged in the famous battle, when the Danes were entirely defeated, and took their admiral’s ship, called the Patience, in which the Danish admiral was killed. Being recalled to France in 1647, he commanded one of the squadrons sent on the Neapolitan expedition; and, in 1650, when the French navy was reduced to a very low state, fitted out several vessels, at his own expence, at the first commotions at Bourdeaux. The Spaniards arrived in the river at the same time, but be entered notwithstanding, to which circumstance the surrender of the town was principally owing and equal success attended him in the last wars of Sicily. He defeated the Dutch in three different engagements, in the last of which the famous Ruyter was killed by a cannon ball; and he disabled the Tripoli ships so as to compel that republic to conclude a peace very glorious for France. Some years after this he forced Algiers and Genoa to implore his majesty’s mercy, and set at liberty a great number of Christian slaves. In short, Asia, Africa, and Europe, were Witness to his valour, and resound still with his exploits. Though a protestant, the king rewarded his services by giving the territory of Bouchet, near d'Etampes, (one of the finest in the kingdom) to him and his heirs for ever, and raised it to a marquisate on condition that it should be called Du Quesne, to perpetuate this great man’s memory. He died February 2, 1688, aged 73, leaving four sons, who have all distinguished themselves. Henry, the eldest, published “Reflections on the Eucharist,” 1718, 4to, a work much valued by the Protestants. He died in 1722, aged 71 He had also several brothers, all of whom died in the service.

, a celebrated French ecclesiastic, was born July 14, 1634, at Paris. He entered the congregation of the Oratory, Nov. 17, 1657, and devoted himself wholly to the study of Scripture, and the Fathers, and the composition of works of piety. When scarcely twenty-eight, he was appointed first director of the Institution of his order, at Paris, under father Jourdain; and began, in that house, his famous book of “Moral Reflections” on each verse of the New Testament, for the use of young pupils of the Oratory. This work originallyconsisted only of some devout meditations on our Saviour’s words; but M. de Lomenie, who, from being minister and secretary of state, had entered the Oratory, the marquis de Laigue, and other pious persons, being pleased with this beginning, requested father Quesnel to make similar reflections on every part of the four Gospels. Having complied, M. de Laigue mentioned the book to Felix de Vialart, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne and that prelate, who was. much celebrated for his piety, adopted the work in his diocese, and recommended the reading- of it by a mandate of November 9, 1671, after having had it printed at Paris by Pralard the same year, with consent of the archbishop Harlai, the royal privilege, and the approbation of the doctors. Father Quesnel afterwards assisted in a new edition of St. Leo’s works. When De Harlai banished father De Sainte Marthe, general of the Oratory, he obliged father Quesnel, who was much attached to him, to retire to Orleans 1681. The general assembly of the Oratory having ordered, in 1684, the signature of a form of doctrine, drawn up in 1678, respecting various points of philosophy and theology, father Quesnel refused to sign it, and withdrew into the Spanish Netherlands, in February 1685. He took advantage of the absurd mixture of philosophy and theology introduced into this form. After this he went to M. Arnauld at Brussels, residing with him till his death, and there finished the “Moral Reflections” on the whole New Testament; which, thus completed, was first published in 1693 and 1694, and approved in 1695, by cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, who recommended it by a mandate to his clergy and people. When the same prelate became archbishop of Paris, he employed some divines to examine these “Reflections” carefully and it was after this revisal that they were published at Paris, 1699. This edition is more ample than any other. The celebrated archbishop of Meaux was also engaged on the subject; and “The Justification of the Moral Reflections, against the Problem,” appeared under his name 1710. The famous Case of Conscience gave occasion for renewing the disputes about the signature of the Formulary, and the subject of Grace. Father Quesnel was arrested at Brussels, May 30, 1703, by order of the archbishop of Malines, and committed to prison but Don Livio, a young Spaniard, employed by the marquis d'Aremberg, released him September 13th following, and he remained concealed at Brussels till October 2; then quitted that place for Holland, where, arriving in April 1704, he published several pieces against the archbishop of Malines, who condemned him by a sentence dated November 10, 1704. This sentence father Quesnel attacked, and wrote in 1705 two tracts to prove it null one entitled, “Idee generale du Libelle, public en Latin,” &c. the other, “Anatomic de la Sentence de M. l'Archeveque de Malines.” Several pieces appeared, soon after, against the book of “Moral Reflections” two had been published before one entitled, “Le Pere Quesnel heretique” the other, “Le Pere Quesnel Seditieux.” These publications induced pope Clement XI. to condemn it altogether, by a decree of July 15, 1708; but this decree did not appease the contest, and father Quesnel refuted it with great warmth, 1709, in a work entitled “Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome, contre le Nouveau Testament de Chalons, accompagne de reflexions morales.” In the mean time, the bishops of Lucon, la Rochelle, and Gap, condemned his book by mandates, which were to be followed and supported by a letter addressed to the king, and signed by the greatest part of the French bishops. This was sent to them, ready drawn p but the plan was partly defeated for a packet intended by the abbe Bochart de Saron for the bishop of Clement, his uncle, and which contained a copy of the letter to the king, fell into the hands of cardinal de Noailles, and much contusion ensued. At length, the disputes on this subject still continuing, pope Clement XL at the solicitation of Louis XIV. published, September 8, 1713, the celebrated bull beginning with the words, “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” by which he condemned father Quesnel’s book, with 101 propositions extracted from it, and every thing that had been written, or that should be written, in its defence. This bull was received by the assembly of the French clergy, and registered in parliament, in 17 14, with modifications. Cardinal de Noailles, however, and seven other prelates refused, and lettres de cachet were issued by Louis XIV. against them but after his decease, the cardinal and several other bishops appealed from the bull to a general council, all which proceedings produced disputes in the French church that lasted nearly to the time of the revolution.

, an eminent Spanish satirist, was born at Madrid in 157O; and was a man of quality, as appears from his being styled knight of the order of St. James, which is the next in dignity to that of the Golden Fleece. He was one of the best writers of his age, and excelled equally in verse and prose. He excelled too inall the different kinds of poetry his heroic pieces, says Antonio, have great force and sublimity his lyrics great beauty and sweetness and his humorous pieces a certain easy air, pleasantry, and ingenuity of tone, which is delightful to a reader. His prose works are of two sorts, serious and comic the former consist of pieces written npon moral and religious subjects the latter are satirical, full of wit, vivacity, and humour, but not without a considerable portion of extravagance. All his printed works, for ie wrote a great deal which was never printed, are comprised in 3 vols. 4to, two of which consist of poetry, a third of pieces in prose. The “Parnasso Espagnol, or Spanish Parnassus,” under which general title all his poetry is included, was collected by the care of Joseph Gonzales de Salas, who, besides short notes interspersed throughout, prefixed dissertations to each distinct species. It was first published at Madrid, in 1650, 4to, and has since frequently been printed in Spain and the Low Countries. The humorous part of his prose-works has been translated into English, particularly “The Visions,” a satire upon corruption of manners in all ranks which has gone through. several editions. The remainder of his comic works, containing, “The Night Adventurer, or the Day-Hater,” “The Life of Paul the Spanish Sharper,” “”The Retentive Knight and his Epistles,“”The Dog and Fever,“”A Proclamation by Old Father Time,“” A Treatise of allThings whatsoever,“” Fortune in her Wits, or the Hour of all Men,“were translated from the Spanish, and published at London, in 1707, 8vo. Stevens, the translator, seems to have thought that he could not speak too highly of his author; he calls him” the great Quevedo, his works a real treasure the Spanish Ovid, from whom wit naturally flowed without study, and to whom it was as easy to write in verse as in prose." The severity of his satires, however, procured him many enemies, and brought him into great troubles. The count d'Olivares, favourite and prime minister to Philip IV. of Spain, imprisoned him for making too free with his administration and government; nor did he obtain his liberty till that minister was disgraced. He died in 1645, according to some; but, as others say, in 1647. He is said to have been very learned; and it is affirmed by his intimate friend, who wrote the preface to his volume of poems, that he understood the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, and French languages.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, in 1636, and in 1650 entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he became servitor in 1653, under the rectorship of Dr. Conant. After taking his first degreein arts in 1657, he returned to his native county, and was ordained according to the forms then in use. He first officiated at Ermington, in Devonshire, whence he was invited to be minister of Kingsbridge and Churchstow, in the same county, but afterwards removed to Brixton, whence he was ejected in 1662. He had some valuable preferments offered to him, if he would conform, but his opinions were fixed; for besides having been educated altogether among nonconformists, he had this additional difficulty, that he was one of those whom the law required to be re-ordained before admission into the church, their previous ordination being accounted invalid; but to this few, if any, of his brethren submitted. He continued for some time after his ejection to preach to his people but, incurring a prosecution, and being frequently imprisoned, he accepted an offer made in 1679, to be pastor of the English church at Middleburgh in Zealand. Here however were some dissensions which rendered his situation uncomfortable, and induced him to return to England in 1681, where he preached privately during the remainder of king Charles II.'s reign, and afterwards, taking advantage of king James’s indulgence, formed a congregation in Bartholomew Close. He died April 29, 1706, in the seventieth year of his age. His character for piety, learning, and usefulness in his ministry, was amply praised in two funeral sermons preached on occasion of his death, the one by Dr. Daniel Williams, the other by Mr. Freke. Besides three funeral Sermons, he published two tracts, the one, “The young man’s claim to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 1691; the other, “An answer to that case of conscience, Whether it be lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister?” But his most valuable work is his “Synodicon iiS Gallia Reformata, or the Acts, Decisions, Decrees, and Laws of the famous national councils of the reformed Churches in France, &c.” London, 1692, a large folio, composed of very interesting and authentic memorials, collected, probably, while he was in Zealand. It comprises a history of the rise and progress of the reformation in France down to the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, and well merits the attention of the students of ecclesiastical history at the present time. Mr. Quick left also three folio volumes of ms lives of eminent protestant divines, principally French, which he intended to publish, had he met with encouragement. The duke of Bedford is said to have been so pleased with this ms. that he meant to publish it at his own expence, but was prevented by death. What has become of it since, is not known.

, a French Dominican, and a very learned man, was born at Boulogne in 1661. He was well acquainted with the Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew languages and was critically skilled in the Holy Scriptures. Father Pezron, having attempted to establish the chronology of the Septuagint against that of the Hebrew text, found a powerful adversary in Le Quien who published a book in 1690, and afterwards another, against his “Amiquité des Terns rétablie,” a well-written work. Quien called his book “Antiquite des Terns detruite.” He applied himself assiduously to the study of the eastern churches, and that of England and wrote against Courayer upon the validity of the ordinations of the English bishops. In all this he was influenced by his zeal for popery, and to promote the glory of his church but he executed a work also for which both protestantism and learning were obliged to him, and on which account chiefly he is here noticed, an excellent edition in Greek and Latin of the works of Joannes Damascenus, 1712, 2 vols. folio. This did him great honour; and the notes and dissertations, which accompany his edition, shew him to have been one of the most learned men of his age. His excessive zeal for the credit of the Roman church made him publish another work in 4to, called “Panoplia contra schisma Graecorum” in which he endeavours to refute all those imputations of pride, ambition, avarice, and usurpation, that have so justly been brought against it. He projected, and had very far advanced, a very large work, which was to have exhibited an historical account of all the patriarchs and inferior prelates that have filled the sees in Africa and the East; and the first volume was printed at the Louvre, with this title, “Oriens Christianus in Africa,” when the author died at Paris in 17 S3.

Quien de la Neufville (James Le), a good historian, was born May 1, 1647, at Paris, and was the son of Peter Le Quien, a captain of horse, descended from an ancient Boulenois family. He made one campaign as a cadet in the regiment of French guards, and then quitted the service, meaning to attend the bar; but a considerable disappointment, which his father met with, deranged his plans, and obliged him to seek a resource in literary pursuits. By M. Pelisson’s advice, he applied chiefly to history, and published in 1700, a “General History of Portugal,” 2 vols. 4to, a valuable and well-written work, which obtained him a place in the academy pf inscriptions, 1706. This history is carried no farther than the death of Emmanuel I. 152 1.“M. de la Clede, secretary to the marechal de Coigni, published a” New History of Portugal,“1735, 2 vols. 4to, and 8 vols. 12mo, that comes down to the present time; in the preface to which he accuses M. Le Quien of having omitted several important facts, and passed slightly over many others. M. le Quien afterwards published a treatise on the origin of posts, entitled” L' Usage des Postes chez les Anciens et les Modernes," Paris, 1734, 12mo. This treatise procured him the direction of part of the posts in Flanders, and in France. He settled at Quesnoy, and remained there till 1713, when the abbe de Mornay, being appointed ambassador to Portugal, requested that he might accompany him, which was granted, and he received the most honourable marks of distinction on his arrival; the king of Portugal settled a pension of 1500 livres upon him, to be paid wherever he resided, created him a knight of the order of Christ, which is the chief of the three Portuguese orders, and worn by himself. His majesty also consulted him respecting the academy of history which he wished to establish, and did establish shortly after at Lisbon. Le Quien, flattered by the success of his Portuguese history, was anxious to finish it; but his too close application brought on a disorder, of which he died at Lisbon, May 20, 1728, aged 81, leaving two sons, the elder of whom was knight of St. Louis, and major of the dauphin foreign regiment, and the younger postmaster general at Bourdeaux.

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

Arriving at Rome, he paid his respects frequently to the marshal D'Etre*es, the French ambassador and was soon after received into his service, as secretary of the embassy. He seems to have returned with the marshal to France, after the death of cardinal Richelieu. While he was at Rome, he began his poem called “Callipsedia” the first edition of which was printed at Leyden, 1655, with this title, “Calvidii Leti Callipsedia, seu de pulchrae prolis habendae ratione.” Calvidius Letus is almost an anagram of his name. It is not known, what cause of offence he had with cardinal Mazarine; but it is certain, that he reflected very severely upon his eminence in this poem. The cardinal, however, sent for him and, after some kind expostulations, assured him of his esteem, and dismissed him with a promise of the next good abbey that should fall; which he accordingly conferred upon him a few months after this effectually removed all Quillet’s dislike, and he dedicated the second edition of his book to the cardinal, after having expunged the passages which had given him offence. The second edition of “Callipoedia” was printed at Paris, 1656, with many additions, and Quillet’s proper name to it: and the author subjoined two other pieces of Latin poetry, one “Ad Eudoxum,” which is n. fictitious name for some courtier; another, “In obitum Petri Gassendi, insignis Philosophi & Astronomi.” These are all the productions of Quillet which ever came from the press; although he wrote a long Latin poem in twelve books, entitled “Henriados,” in honour of Henry IV. of France, and translated all the satires of Juvenal into French.

The singular plan of the “Callipgedia,” the division pf the subject, the variety of its episodes, and the sprightliness of style, have procured it many readers; but the language is not always pure and correct, and the subject is certainly treated in a manner too licentious. De la Monnoye very justly thinks the great reception it has met with, owing principally to the subject; which, he says, is often treated in a very frivolous way, especially in the second book, where there are many lines concerning the different influences of the constellations; nor will this critic allow the versification to resemble either that of Lucretius or Virgil. A third edition of the “Callipaedia” was neatly printed at London in 1708, 8vo to which, besides the two little Latin poems above-mentioned, was subjoined “Scaevolse Sammarthani Paedotrophiae, sive de puerorum educatione, libri tres.” It was translated by Rowe.

Quillet died in 1661, aged 59; and left all his papers, together with five hundred crowns for the printing his Latin poem in honour of Henry IV. to Menage but this, on some account or other, was never executed.

, a celebrated actor, was born in Kingstreet, Covent-garden, the 24th Feb. 1693. His ancestors were of an ancient family in the kingdom of Ireland. His father, James Quin, was bred at Trinity-college, Dublin, whence he came to England, entered himself of Lincoln’s-inn, and was called to the bar; but his father, Mark Quin, who had been lord-mayor of Dublin in 1676, dying about that period, and leaving him a plentiful estate, he quitted England in 1700, for his native country; taking with him his son, the object of the present article.

The marriage of Mr. Quin’s father, was attended with circumstances which so materially affected the subsequent interest of his son, as probably very much to influence his destination in life. His mother was a reputed widow, who had been married to a person in the mercantile way, and who left her, to pursue some traffic or particular business in the West-Indies. He had been absent from her near seven years, without her having received any letter from, or the least information about him. He was even given out to be dead, which report was universally credited; she went into mourning for him; and some time after Mr. Quin’s father, who is said to have then possessed an estate of 1000l. a-year, paid his addresses to her and married her. The offspring of this marriage was Mr. Quin. His parents continued for some time in an undisturbed state of happiness, when the first husband returned, claimed his wife, and had her. Mr. Quin the elder retired with his son, to whom he is said to have left his property. Another, and more probable account is, that the estate was suffered to descend to the heir at law, and the illegitimacy of Mr. Quin being proved, he was dispossessed of it, and left to provide for himself.

Quin received his education at Dublin, under the care of Dr. Jones, until the death of his father in 1710, when the progress of it was interrupted, we may presume, by the litigations which arose about his estate. It is generally admitted, that he was deficient in literature and it has been said, that he laughed at those who read books by way of inquiry after knowledge, saying, he read men that the world was the best book. This account is believed to be founded in truth, and will prove the great strength of his natural understanding, which enabled him to establish so considerable a reputation as a man of sense and genius.

Deprived thus of the property he expected, and with no profession to support him, though he is said to have been intended for the law, Mr. Quin appears to have arrived at the age of twenty-one years. He had, therefore, nothing to rely upon but the exercise of his talents, and with these he soon supplied the deficiencies of fortune. The theatre at Dublin was then struggling for an establishment, and there he made his first essay. The part he performed was Abel in “The Committee,” in 1714; and he represented a few other characters, as Cleon in “Timon of Athens,” Prince of Tanais in “Tamerlane,” and others, but all of equal insignificance. After performing one season in Dublin, he was advised by Chetwood not to smother his rising genius in a kingdom where there was no great encouragement for merit. This advice he adopted, and came to London, where he was immediately received into the company at Drury-lane. It may be proper here to mention, that he repaid the friendship of Chetwood, by a recommendation which enabled that gentleman to follow him to the metropolis.

At that period it was usual for young actors to perform inferior characters, and to rise in the theatre as they displayed skill and improvement. In conformity to this practice, the parts which Quin had allotted to him were not calculated to procure much celebrity for him. He performed the Lieutenant of the Tower in Howe’s “Jane Grey,” the Steward in Gay’s “What d' ye call it,” and Vulture in “The Country Lasses;” all acted in 1715. In December 1716, he performed a part of more consequence, that of Antenor in Mrs. Centlivre’s “Cruel Gift;” but in the beginning of the next year we find him degraded to speak about a dozen lines in the character of the Second Player in “Three Hours after Marriage.”

Accident, however, had just before procured him an opportunity of displaying his talents, which he did not neglect. An order had been sent from the lord-chamberlain to revive the play of “Tamerlane” for the 4th of Nov. 1716—7 It had accordingly been got up with great magnificence. On the third night, Mr. Mills, who performed Bajazet, was suddenly taken ill, and applicatioa was made to Quin to read the part a task which he executed so much to the satisfaction of the audience, that he received a considerable share of applause. The next night he made himself perfect, and performed it with redoubled proofs of approbation. On this occasion he was complimented by several persons of distinction and dramatic taste, upon his early and rising genius. It does not appear that he derived any other advantage at that time from his success. Impatient, therefore, of his situation, and dissatisfied with his employers, he determined upon trying his fortune at Mr. Rich’s theatre, at Lincoln’s-Inn-fields, then under the management of Messrs. Keene and Christopher Bullock; and accordingly in 1717 quitted Drury-lane, after remaining there two seasons. Chetwood insinuates, that envy influenced some of the managers of Drury-lane to depress so rising an actor. Be that as it may, he continued at the theatre he had chosen seventeen years, and during that period supported, without discredit, the same characters which were then admirably performed at the rival theatre.

Soon after he quitted Drury-lane, an unfortunate transaction took place, which threatened to interrupt, if not entirely to stop his theatrical pursuits. This was an unlucky rencounter between him and Mr. Bowen, which ended fatally to the latter. From the evidence given at the trial it appeared, that on the 17th of April, 1718, about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Bowen and Mr. Quin met aecidentlly at the Fleece-tavern in Cornhill. They drank together in a friendly manner, and jested with each other for some time, until at length the conversation turned upon their performances on the stage. Bowen said, that Quin had acted Tamerlane in a loose sort of a manner; and Quin, in reply, observed, that his opponent had no occasion to value himself on his performance, since Mr. Johnson, who had but seldom acted it, represented Jacomo, in “The Libertine,” as well as he who had acted it often. These observations, probably, irritated them both, and the conversation changed, but to another subject not better calculated to produce good humour the honesty of each party. In the course of the altercation, Bowen asserted, that he was as honest a man as any in the world, which occasioned a story about his political tenets to be introduced by Quin and both parties being warm, a wager was laid on the subject, which was determined in favour of Quin, on his relating that Bowen sometimes drank the health of the duke of Ormond, and sometimes refused it at the same time asking the referee how he could be as honest a man as any in the world, who acted upon two different principles. The gentleman who acted as umpire then told Mr. Bowen, that if he insisted upon his claim to be as honest a man as any in the world, he must give it against him. Here the dispute seemed to have ended, nothing in the rest of the conversation indicating any remains of resentment in either party. Soon afterwards, however, Mr. Bowen arose, threw down some money for his reckoning, and left the company. In about a quarter of an hour Mr. Quin was called out by a porter sent by Bowen, and both Quin and Bowen went together, first to the Swan tavern, and then to the Pope’s-head tavern, where a rencounter took place, and Bowen received a wound, of which he died on the 20th of April following. In the course of the evidence it was sworn, that Bowen, after he had received the wound, declared that he had had justice done him, that there had been nothing but fair play, and that if he died, he freely forgave his antagonist. On this evidence Quin was, on the 10th of July, found guilty of manslaughter only, and soon after returned to his employment on the stage*.

This unhappy incident was not calculated to impress a favourable opinion of Quin on the public mind: he lived to erase the impression it had made by many acts of benevolence, and kindness to those with whom he was connected. The theatre in which Quin was established, had not the patronage of the public in any degree equal to its rival at Drury-lane, nor had it the good fortune to acquire those advantages which fashion liberally confers on its favourites, until several years after. The performances, however, though not equal to those at Drury-lane, were

Mr. Ryan was at the Sun Eating-house, appear that Mr. Ryan was obliged to

companies by drawing his sword on verdict, self-defence, persons whom, he did not know, came far from deserving censure. In the season of 1718-19, Mr. Quin performed in Buckingham’s “Scipio Africanus,” and in 1719-2O, “Sir Walter Raleigh,” in Dr. Sewell’s play of that name and in the year had, as it appears, two benefits, “The Provok'd Wife,” 31st of January, before any other performer, and again, “The Squire of Alsatia,” on the 17th of April. The succeeding season he performed in Buckingham’s “Henry the Fourth of France,” in “Richard II.” as altered by Theobald, and in “The Imperial Captives,” of Mottley. The season of 1720-21 was very favourable to his reputation as an actor. On the 22d of October, “The Merry Wives of Windsor” was revived, in which he first played Falstaff, with great increase of fame. This play, which was well supported by Ryan, in Ford; Spiller, in Dr. Cains; Boheme, in Justice Shallow; and Griffin, in Sir Hugh Evans; was acted nineteen times during the season, a proof that it had made a very favourable impression on the public. In the season of 1721-22, he performed in Mitchell’s* or rather Hill’s “Fatal Extravagance,” Sturmy’s “Love and Duty,” Philips’s “Hibernia freed.” The season of 1722-3 produced Fenton’s “Mariamne,” the most successful play that theatre had known, in which Mr. Quin performed Sohemus. In the next year, 1723-24, he acted in Jefferys’ “Edwin,” and in Philips’s “Belisarius.” The season of 1725 produced no new play in which Mr. Quin had any part but on the revival of “Every Man in his Humour,” he represented Old Knowell and it is not unworthy of observation, that Kitely, afterwards so admirably performed by Mr. Garrick, was assigned to Mr. Hippesley, the Shuter or Edwin of his day. In 1726, he performed in Southern’s “Money’s the Mistress” and, in 1727, in Welsted’s “Dissembled Wanton,” and Frowde’s “Fall of Saguntum.”

For a year or more before this period, Lincoln’s Innfields theatre had, by the assistance of some pantomimes, as the “Necromancer,” “Harlequin Sorcerer,” “Apollo and Daphne,” &c. been more frequented than at any time since it was opened. In the year 1728, was offered to the public a piece which was so eminently successful, as since to have introduced a new species of drama, the comic opera, and therefore deserves particular notice. This was “The Beggar’s Opera,” first acted on the 29th of January, 1728. Quin, whose knowledge of the public taste cannot be questioned, was so doubtful of its success before it was acted, that he refused the part of Macheath, which was therefore given to Walker. Two years afterwards, 19th of March, 1730, Mr. Quin had the “Beggar’s Opera” for his benefit, and performed the part of Macheath himself, and received the sum of 2061. 9s. 6d. which was several pounds more than any one night at the common prices had produced at that theatre. His benefit the preceding year brought him only 102l. 185. Od. and the succeeding only 129l. 35. Od. The season of 1728 had been so occupied by “The Beggar’s Opera,” that no new piece was exhibited in which Quin performed. In that of 1728-29 he performed in Barford’s “Virgin Queen,” in Madden’s Themistocles,“and in Mrs. Heywood’s” Frederic duke of Brunswick.“In 1729-30 there was no new play in which he performed. In 1730-31 he assisted in Tracey’s” Periander,“in Frowde’s” Philotas,“in Jeffreys’” Merope,“and in Theobald’s” Orestes;“and in the next season, 1731-2, in Kelly’s” Married Philosopher."

On the 7th of December, 1732, Covent-garden theatre was opened, and the company belonging to Lincoln’s-inn fields removed thither. In the course of this season, Mr. Quin was called upon to exercise his talents in singing, and accordingly performed Lycomedes, in Gay’s posthumous opera of “Achilles,” eighteen nights. The next season concluded his service at Covent-garden. At this juncture the deaths of Wilks, Booth, and Oldfield, and the succession of Gibber, had thrown the management of Drury-lane theatre into raw and unexperienced hands. Mr. Highmore, a gentleman of fortune, who had been tempted to intermeddle in it, had sustained so great a loss, as to oblige him jto sell his interest to the best bidder. By this event the Drury-lane theatre came into the possession of Charles Fleetwood, esq. who, it is said, purchased it in concert with, and at the recommendation of Mr. Rich. But a difference arising between these gentlemen, the former determined to seduce from his antagonist his best performer, and the principal support of his theatre. Availing himself of this quarrel, Mr. Quin left Covent-garden, and in the beginning of the season 1734-5 removed to the rival theatre, “on such terms,” says Gibber, “as no hired actor had before received.”

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

From the time of Quin’s establishment at Drury-lane until the appearance of Garrick in 1741, he was generally allowed the foremost rank in his profession. The elder Mills, who succeeded to Booth, was declining; and Milward, an actor of some merit, had not risen to the height of his excellence, which, however, was not at the best very great and Boheme was dead. His only competitor seems to have been Delane, whose merits -were soon lost in indolent indulgence. In the Life of Theophilus Gibber, just quoted, the character of this actor, compared with that of Quin, is drawn in a very impartial manner.

In the year 1735, Aaron Hill, in a periodical paper, called “The Prompter,” attacked some of the principal actors of the stage, and particularly Colley Gibber and Mr. Quin. “Gibber,” says Mr. Davies, “laughed, but Quin was angry and meeting Mr. Hill in the Court of Requests, a scuffle ensued between them, which ended in the exchange of a few blows.” Quin was hardly settled at Drury-lane before he became embroiled in a dispute relative to Mods. Poitier and Mad. Roland, then two celebrated dancers, for whose neglect of duty it had fallen to his lot to apologize. On the 12th of December, the following advertisement appeared in the newspapers " Whereas on Saturday last, the audience of the theatre-royal in Drury-lane was greatly incensed at their disappointment in M. Poitier and Mad. Roland’s not dancing, as their names were in the bills for the day and Mr. Quin, seeing no way to appease the resentment then shewn, but by relating the real messages sent from the theatre to know the reasons why they did not come to perform, and the answers returned: and whereas there were two advertisements in the Daily Post of Tuesday last, insinuating that Mr. Quin had with malice accused the said Poitier and Mad. Roland I therefore think it (injustice to Mr. Quin) incumbent on me to assure the public, that Mr. Quin has conducted himself in this point towards the abovementioned with the strictest regard to truth and justice; and as Mr. Quin has acted in this affair in my behalf, I think myself obliged to return him thanks for so doing.

In the season of 1735, Quin performed in Lillo’s “Christian Hero,” and Fielding’s “Universal Gallant;” and in the succeeding one he first performed Falstaff in the “Second Part of Henry IV.” for his own benefit. In 1737 he performed in Miller’s “Universal Passion,” and in 1737-8 in the same author’s “Art and Nature.” It was in this season also that he performed Comus, and had the first opportunity of promoting the interest of his friend Thomson, in the tragedy of “Agamemnon.” The author of “The Actor,” (Dr. Hill) I 755, p. 235, says of him in the part of Comus “In this Mr. Quin, by the force of dignity alone, hid all his natural defects, and supported the part at such a height, that none have been received in it since.” He then proceeds to particular criticisms, which are rather bombastical, and adds “There was in all this very little of gesture the look, the elevated posture, and the brow of majesty, did all. This was most just; for as the hero of tragedy exceeds the gentleman of comedy, and therefore in his general deportment is to use fewer gestures the deity of the masque exceeds the hero in dignity, and therefore is to be yet more sparing.”

He says afterwards, at p. 189, “The language of Milton, the most sublime of any in oar tongue, seemed formed for the mouth of this player, and he did justice to the sentiments, which in that author are always equal to the language., If he was a hero in Pyrrhus, he was, as it became him, in Comus, a demi-god. Mr. Quin was old when he performed this part, and his natural manner grave he was therefore unfit in common things for a youthful god of revels yet did he command our attention and applause in the part, in spite of these and all his other disadvantages. In the place of youth he had dignity, and for vivacity he gave us grandeur. The author had connected them in the character; and whatever young and spirited player shall attempt it after him, we shall remember his manner, faulty as it was, in what he could not help in what nature, not want of judgment, misrepresented it so as to set the other if) contempt.”

which Quin performed, and that was “Mustapha,” by Mr.

Mallet which, according to Mr. Davies, was said to glance

of Solyman the magnificent, and Rustan his vizier. On the night of its exhibition were assembled all the chiefs in opposition to the court and many speeches were applied by the audience to the supposed grievances of the times, and to persons and characters. The play was in general well acted particularly the parts of Solyman and Mustapha by Quin and Milward. Mr. Pope was present in the boxes, and at the end of the play went behind the scenes, a place which he had not visited for some years. He expressed himself well pleased with his entertainment; and particularly addressed himself to Quih, who was greatly flattered with the distinction paid him by so great a man and when Pope’s servant brought his master’s scarlet cloke, Quin insisted upon the honour of putting it on.

It was in the year 1739, on the 9th of March, that Mr. Quin was engaged in another dispute with one of his brethren; which by one who had already been convicted of manslaughter (however contemptible the person who was the party in the difference might be) could not be viewed with indifference. This person was no other than the celebrated Mr. Theophilus Gibber, who at that period, owing to seme disgraceful circumstances relative to his conduct to his wife, was not held in the most respectable light. Quin’s sarcasm on him was too gross to be here inserted. It may, however, be read in the “Apology for Mr. Gibber’s Life,” ascribed to Fielding. The circumstances of the duel we shall relate in the words of one of the periodical writers of the times. “About seven o‘clock a duel was fought in the Piazza, Covent Garden, between Mr. Quin and Mr. Gibber; the former pulling the latter out of the Bedford coffee-house, to answer for some words he had used in a letter to Mr. Fleetwood, relating to his refusing to act a part in King Lear for Mr. Quin’s benefit on Thursday se’nnight. Mr. Gibber was slightly wounded in the arm, and Mr. Quin wounded in his fingers after each had their wounds dressed, they came into the Bedford coffee-house and abused one another; but the company prevented further mischief.”

In the season of 1739-40 there was acted at Drury-lane theatre, on the 12th of November, a tragedy, entitled “The Fatal Retirement,” by a Mr. Anthony Brown, which received its condemnation on the first night. In this play Quin had been solicited to perform, which he refused and the ill-success which attended the piece irritated the author and his friends so much, that they ascribed its failure to the absence of Quin, and, in consequence of it, repeatedly insulted him for several nights afterwards when he appeared on the stage. This illiberal treatment he at length resented, and determined to repel. Coming forward, therefore, he addressed the audience, and informed them, “that at the request of the author he had read his piece before it was acted, and given him his sincere opinion of it; that it was the very worst play he had ever read in his life, and for that reason had refused to act in it.” This spirited explanation was received with great applause, and for the future entirely silenced the opposition to him. In this season he performed in Lillo’s “Elmerick.”

The next season, that of 1740-41, concluded Quin’s engagement at Drury-lane. In that period no new play was produced but on the revival of “As you like it,” and “The Merchant of Venice,” he performed, for the first time, the parts of Jaques and Antonio, having declined the part of the Jew, which was offered to him, and accepted by Mr. Macklin. The irregular conduct of the manager, Mr. Fleetwood, was at this time such, that it can excite but little surprise that a man like Quin should find his situation so uneasy as to be induced to relinquish it. In the summer of 1741, Mr. Quin, Mrs. Clive, Mr. Ryan, and Mademoiselle Chateauneuf, then esteemed the best female dancer in Europe, made an excursion to Dublin. Quin had been there before, in the month of June, 1739, accompanied by Mr. Giffard, and received at his benefit 126l. at that time esteemed a great sum.

On his second visit Quin opened with his favourite part of Cato, to as crowded an audience as the theatre could contain. Mrs. Clive next appeared in Lappet in “The Miser.” She certainly was one of the best that ever played it. And Mr. Ryan came forward in lago to Quin’s Othello. With such excellent performers, we may naturally suppose the plays were admirably sustained. Perhaps it will scarcely be credited, that so finished a comic actress as Mrs. Clive could so far mistake her abilities, as to play Lady Townly to Quin’s Lord Townly and Mr. Ryan’s Manly Cordelia to Quin’s Lear and Ryan’s Edgar, &c. However she made ample amends by her performance of Nell, the Virgin Unmasqued, the Country Wife, and Euphrosyne in “Comus,” which was got up on purpose, and acted for the first time in Ireland, Quin seems to have attended the Dublin company to Cork and Limerick and the next season 1741-42, we find him performing in Dublin, where he acted the part of Justice Balance in “The Recruiting Officer,” at the opening of the theatre in October, on a government night. He afterwards performed Jaques, Apemantus, Richard, Cato, Sir John Brute, and Falstaff, unsupported by any performer of eminence. In December, however, Mrs. Gibber arrived, and performed Indiana to his young Bevil and afterwards they were frequently in the same play, as in Chamont and Monimia, in the “Orphan” Comus and the Lady, Duke and Isabella, in “Measure for Measure” Fryar and Queen, in 1 “The Spanish Friar;” Horatio and Calista, in the “Fair Penitent,” &c. &c. with uncommon applause, and generally to crowded houses. The state of the Irish stage was then so low, that it was often found that the whole receipt of the house was not more than sufficient to discharge Quiri’s engagement and so attentive was he to his own interest, and so rigid in demanding its execution, that we are told by good authority he refused to let the curtain be drawn up till the money was regularly brought to him.

He left Dublin in Feb. 1741-2, and on the 25th of March assisted the widow and four children of Milward the actor (who died the 6th of February preceding), and performed Cato for their benefit. On his arrival in London he found the attention of the theatrical public entirely occupied by the merits of Mr. Garrick, who in October preceding had begun his theatrical career, and was then performing with prodigious success at Goodman’s-fields. The fame of the new performer afforded no pleasure to Quin, who sarcastically observed that “Garrick was a new religion, and that Whitefield was followed for a time; but 'they would all come to church again.” This observation produced a well-known epigram by Mr. Garrick. In the season of 1742-3, Quin returned to his former master, Rich, at Covent-garden theatre, where he opposed Garrick at Drurylane it must be added, with very little success. But though the applause the latter obtained from the public was not agreeable to Quin, yet we find that a scheme was proposed and agreed to, though not carried into execution, in the summer of 1743, for them to perform together for their mutual benefit a few nights at Lincoln’s-inn-fields theatre. On the failure of this plan, Quin went to Dublin, where he had the mortification to find the fame of Mr. Sheridan, then new to the stage, more adverse to him than even Garrick’s had been 'in London. Instead of making a profitable bargain in Dublin, as he hoped, he found the managers of the theatres there entirely indisposed to admit him. After staying there a short time, he returned to Londorj, without effecting the purpose of his journey, and in no good humour with the new performers.

In the season of 1743-4, Quin, we believe, passed without engagement; but in that of 1744-5 he was at Coventgarclen again, and performed King John, in Gibber’s “Papal Tyranny.” The next year seems to have been devoted to repose whether from indolence, or inability to obtain the terms he required from the managers, is not very apparent. Both may have united. It was some of these periods of relaxation that gave occasion to his friend Thomson, who had been gradually writing the “Castle of Indolence” for fourteen or fifteen years, to introduce him in a stanza in the Mansion of Idleness.

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

“The town often wished to see these great actors fairly matched in two characters of almost equal importance. The Fair Penitent presented an opportunity to display their several merits, though it must be owned that the balance was as much in favour of Quin, as the advocate of virtue is superior in argument to the defender of profligacy. The shouts of applause when Horatio and Lothario met on the stage together (14th Nov. 1746), in the second act, were so loud, and so often repeated, before the audience permitted them to speak, that the combatants seemed to be disconcerted. It was observed, that Quin changed colour, and Garrick seemed to be embarrassed and it must be owned, that these actors were never less masters of themselves than on the first night of the contest for pre-eminence. Quin was too proud to own his feelings on the occasion; but Mr. Garrick was heard to say,” I believe Quin was as much frightened as myself.“The play was repeatedly acted, and with constant applause, to very brilliant audiences; nor is it to be wondered at; for, besides the novelty of seeing the two rival actors in the same tragedy, the Fair Penitent was admirably played by Mrs. Gibber.”

It was in this season that Mr. Garrick produced “Miss in her Teens,” the success of which is said by Mr. Davies to have occasioned no small mortification to Mr. Quin. He, however, did not think it prudent to refuse Mr. Garrick’s offer of performing it at his benefit and accordingly the following letter was prefixed to all Quin’s advertisements: "Sir,

It was this season also in which “The Suspicious Husband” appeared. The part of Mr. Strickland was offered to Mr. Quin, but be refused it and in consequence it fell to the lot of Mr. Bridgewater, who obtained great reputation by his performance of it.

At the end of the season Quin retired to Bath, which he had probably chosen already for his final retreat being, as he said, “a good convenient home to lounge away the dregs of life in,” The manager and he were not on good terms, and each seems to have determined to remain in sullen silence till the other should make a proposal. In November, however, Quin thought proper to make a slight advance which Rich repelled, and Quin remained therefore during the winter unemployed, and it has been asserted that Garrick was instrumental in preventing his engagement, The fire in Cornhill, March 1748, gave him, however, an opportunity at once of shewing himself, and his readiness to succour distress. He acted Othello at Covent-garden, for the benefit of the sufferers, having quitted Bath on purpose, and produced a large receipt. Soon after, he had a benefit for himself.

For the season of 1748-9 he was engaged again, and on the 13th of January 1749 the tragedy of Coriolanus, by Thomson, who died in the preceding August, was brought out at Covent-garden. Quin, whose intimacy with him. has been already mentioned, acted the principal part, and spoke the celebrated prologue, written by lord Lyttelton. When he pronounced the following lines, which are in themselves pathetic, all the endearments of a long friendship rose at once to his imagination, and he justified them by his real tears.

A deep sigh filled up the judicious break in the last line, and the audience felt the complete effect of the strongest sympathy. About the same time Cato was performed at Leicester-house by the family of Frederick prince of Wales, and Quin, whom the prince strongly patronized, was employed to instruct the young performers. From his judgment in the English language, he was also engaged to teach his present majesty, and the other royal children, a correct mode of pronunciation, and delivery on which account, when the theatrical veteran was afterwards informed of the graceful manner in which the king pronounced his first speech in parliament, he is said to have exclaimed with eagerness, “I taught the boy”

The next season opened with a very powerful company at Covent-garden, and it is said that Garrick endeavoured, but in vain, to detach Quin from that house. His benefit was Othello, in which, for that night, he acted lago, wTiile Barry took the part of Othello. This was on the 18th of March 1751, only three days before the death of his patron the prince of Wales and the house, notwithstanding the novelty arising from the change of parts, was thin. On the 10th of May he performed Horatio in the Fail- Penitent, and with that character concluded his performances as a hired acton He now carried into execution his plan of retiring to Bath, but visited London in the two succeeding seasons, to perform Falstaff for the benefit of his old friend Ryan. The last time of his appearance on the stage was the 19th of March 1753, on which night the stage, pit, and boxes, were all at the advanced price of 5s. The next year, finding himself disabled by the loss of his teeth, he declined giving his former assistance, saying, in his characteristic manner, lt I will not whistle Falstaff for any body but I hope the town will be kind to my friend Ryan they cannot serve an honester man." He exerted himself, however, to dispose of tickets for him, and continued his attention to the end of Ryan’s life. Mr. Davies says, in hi* Life of Garrick, that to make up the loss of his own annual performance, he presented his friend with no less a sum than 500l.

Quin had always observed a prudent ceconomy, which enabled him, while on the stage, to assert a character of independence, and, when he quitted it, secured to him a competent provision. There is no reason to suppose that he repented withdrawing from the public eye, though in 1760 Nash was persuaded, probably by some wags, to fancy that Quin intended to supplant him in his office of master of the ceremonies. Towards the latter end of his life, when all competition for fame had ceased, he began to be on terms of friendly intercourse with Garrick; after which he made occasional visits to Hampton. It was on a visit there that an eruption first appeared in his hand, which the physicians feared would turn to a mortification. This was prevented by large quantities of bark; but his spirits were greatly affected by the apprehension, and when the first danger was surmounted a fever came on, of which he died, at his house at Bath, in his 73d year, Jan. 21, 1766. When he found his last hour approaching, he said, “I could wish this last tragic scene was over, but I hope to go through it with becoming dignity.”

It remains to say a few words on the character of Quin. He has been represented by some persons as stern, haughty, luxurious, and avaricious. Dr. Smollet, who probably knew him well, says of him, in his Humphrey Clinker, “How far he may relax in his hour of jollity I cannot pretend to* say; but his general conversation is conducted by the nicest rules of propriety, and Mr. James Quin is certainly one-of the best-bred men in the kingdom. He is not only a most agreeable companion, but fas I am credibly informed) a very honest man highly susceptible of friendship warm, steady, and even generous in his attachments disdaining flattery, and incapable of meanness and dissimulation. Were I to judge, however, from Quin’s eye alone, I should take him to be proud, insolent, and cruel. There is something remarkably severe and forbidding in. his aspect, and I have been told he was ever disposed to insult his inferiors and dependents. Perhaps that report tias influenced my opinion of his looks. You know we are the fools of prejudice.” It appears that the unfavourable parts of his character have been generally exaggerated, and that he had many excellent qualities. His wit was strong, but frequently coarse, though it is probable that many of the gross things which have been repeated as his, have been invented to suit his supposed manner. Perhaps the following character, which is said to have been written, by one of the last of his friends, approaches more nearly to truth than any other. \- "'

"Mr. Quin was a man of strong, pointed sense, with strong passions and a bad temper yet in good-humour he was an excellent companion, and better bred than many who valued themselves upon good-manners. It is true, when he drank freely, which was often the case, he forgot himself, and there was a sediment of brutality in him when you shook the bottle; but he made you ample amends by his pleasantry and good sense when he was sober. He told a story admirably and concisely, and his expressions were strongly marked; however, he often had an assumed character, and spoke in blank verse, which procured him respect from some, but exposed him to ridicule from others, who had discernment to see through his pomp and affectation. He was sensual, and loved good eating, but not so much as was generally reported with some exaggeration; and he was luxurious in his descriptions of those turtle and venison feasts to which he was invited. He was in his dealing a very honest fair man, yet he understood his interest, knew how to deal with the managers, and nevef made a bad bargain with them in truth, it was not an easy matter to over-reach a man of his capacity and penetration, united with a knowledge of mankind. He was not so much an ill-natured as an ill-humoured man, and he was capable of friendship. His airs of importance and his gait was absurd so that he might be said to walk in blank verse as well as talk but his good sense corrected him, and he did not continue long in the fits. I have heard him represented as a cringing fawning fellow to lords and great men, bat I could never discover that mean disposition in him. I observed he was decent and respectful in high company, and had a very proper behaviour, without arrogance or diffidence, which made him more circumspect, and consequently less entertaining. He was not a deep scholar, but he seemed well acquainted with the works of Dryden, Milton, and Pope and he made a better figure in company, with his stock of reading, than any of the literary persons I have seen him with.

“It has been the fashion of late to run down his theatrical character but he stands unrivalled in his comic parts of Falstaff, the Spanish Fryar, Volpone, Sir John Brute, &c. and surely he had merit in Cato, Pierre, Zanga, Corioianus, and those stern manly characters which are now lost to our stage. He excelled where grief was too big for utterance, and he had strong feelings, though Churchill has pronounced that he had none. He had defects, and some bad habits, which he contracted early, and which were incurable in him as an actor.”

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

All the wits of the time tried to write down Quinault. Ignorant of music and its powers, they thought Lulli always right, and the poor, modest, unpretending Quinault always wrong. Posterity has long discovered the converse of this supposition to be the truth. Quinault’s great mistake and misfortune, says La Harpe, was the calling his pieces tragedies, and not operas. He would not then have been regarded as a rival of Racine, or have oifended classical hearers or readers with the little resemblance these compositions had to Greek and Roman dramas, or to the genuine tragedies of the moderns.

Quinault, however, was not without his consolations. Louis XIV. gave him a pension of 2000 livres he received 4000 livres from Lulli for each opera, and he married a rich wife. He was also elected into the French academy; and, in the name of that society, addressed the king on his return from the campaigns of 1675 and 1677. He was a man of a mild conciliating temper, and much respected in society. When sickness came on, he lamented the loss of the time he had bestowed on his operas, and resolved to write no more poetry, unless to celebrate the king, or for the glory of God. His country, men assure us that he died with fervent sentiments of religion and piety, Nov. 28, 1688, in the fifty-third year of his age. His works, consisting of his operas, some epigrams and miscellaneous poetry, were printed in 1739, 5 vols. 12mo.

, or, in French, Cinq-Arbres (John), a learned Hebrew scholar, was born at Aurillac in Auvergne, about the beginning of the sixteenth century. He studied the Oriental languages under Francis Vatable, and became professor of Hebrew and Syriac in the college of France in 1554, and dean of the royal professors, which high office he held at the time of his death in 1587. In 1546 he published his “Hebrew Grammar,” to which was added a short treatise on the Hebrew points. This was often reprinted both in France and elsewhere in 4to, under the title “Linguae Hebraicae institutiones absolutissimae.” The edition of 1609, by father Vignal, besides valuable additions, a treatise on Hebrew poetry and syntax, has the advantage of a most beautiful type, cast by Lebé Quinquarboreus translated into Latin, with notes, the “Targum of Jonathan, son of Uziel, on Jeremiah,” which was published in 1549, and again in 1556, 4to, with additions, and the title “Targum in Osean, Joelem, Amosum,” &c. He also published in 1551 the gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, with the version and notes of Sebastian Munster, and translated into Latin several of the works of Avicenna.

, an illustrious rhetorician and critic of antiquity, and a most excellent author, was born in the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, about the year of Christ 42: Ausonius calls him Hispanum and Calagurritanum whence it has usually been supposed that he was a native of Calagurra, or Calahorra, in Spain. It is, however, certain that he was sent to Rome, even in his childhood, where he was educated, applying himself particularly to the cultivation of the art of oratory. In the year 61 Galba was sent by the emperor Nero into Spain, as governor of one of the provinces there; and Quintilian, being then nineteen years old, is supposed to have attended him, and to have taught rhetoric in the city of Calagurra while Galba continued in Spain. Hence it is, according to some, that he was called Calagurritanus, and not from his being born in that city; and they insist that he was born in Rome, all his kindred and connections belonging to that city, and his whole life from his infancy being spent there, except the seven years of Galba’s government in Spain but we are not of opinion that the memorable line of Martial, addressing him “Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togse,” greatly favours such a supposition.

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

The anonymous dialogue (t De Oratoribus, sive de causis, corrupts eloquentiaj,“has sometimes been printed with Quintilian’s works yet is generally ascribed to Tacitus, and is commonly printed with the works of that historian and the late Mr. Melmoth, in his” Fitzosborne’s Letters,“seems inclined to give it to the younger Pliny” because,“says he,” it exactly coincides with his age, is addressed to one of his particular friends and correspondents, and is marked with some similar expressions and sentiments. But as arguments of this kind are always more imposing than solid,“he wisely leaves it as” a piece, concerning the. author of which nothing satisfactory can be collected,“only” that it is evidently a composition of that period in which he flourished." It was. ascribed to Quintilianj because he actually wrote a book upon the same subject, and with the same title, as he himself declares yet the critics are convinced by sufficient arguments, that the dialogue, or rather fragment of a dialogue, now extant, is not that of which Quintilian speaks.

Quintilian spent the latter part of his life with great dignity and honour. Some imagine that he was consul but the words of Ausonius, on which they ground their supposition, shew that he did not possess the consulship, but only the consular ornaments“honestamenta nominis potius quam insignia potestatis” and we may add, that no mention is made of his name in the “Fasti Consulares.” It is certain that he was preceptor to the grandsons of the emperor Domitian’s sister. Though Quintilian’s outward condition and circumstances were prosperous and flourishing, yet he laboured under many domestic afflictions. In his forty-first year he married a wife who was but twelve years old, and lost her when she was nineteen. He bestows the highest applauses on her, and was inconsolable for her loss. She left him two sons, one of whom died at five years old, and the other at ten, who was the eldest, and possessed extraordinary talents. He soon after, however, married a second wife, and by her he had a daughter, whom he lived to see married who also, at the time of her marriage, received a handsome dowry from the younger Pliny, who had been his scholar, in consideration, as we are told, that she was married to a person of superior rank, who of course required more with her than her father’s circumstances would admit. Quintilian lived to be fourscore years of age, or upwards, as is pretty certainly determined although the time of his death is not recorded. He appears, from his works, and from what we are able to collect of him, to have been a man of great innocence and integrity of life. His “Oratorial Institutions” contain a great number of excellent moral instructions; and it is a main principle inculcated in them, that “none but a good man can make a good orator.”

One blemish, however, there lies upon Quintilian’s character, which cannot be passed over; and that is, his excessive flattery of Domitian, whom he calls a God, and says, that he ought to be invoked in the first place. He calls him also a most holy censor of manners, and says, that there is in him a certain supereminent splendour of virtues. This sort of panegyric must needs be highly offensive to all who have read the history of that detestable emperor nor can any excuse be made for Quintilian, but the necessity he was under, for the sake of self-preservation, of offering this incense to a prince most greedy of flattery and who might probably expect it the more from one on whom he had conferred particular favours, as he certainly had on Quintilian. Martial, Statius, and Julius Frontinus, have flattered this emperor in the same manner.

, a famous French gardener, was born at Poietiers in 1626. After a course of philosophy, he applied himself to the law, and went to Paris in order to be admitted an advocate. He had much natural eloquence, improved by learning; and acquitted himself so well at the bar as to gain the admiration and esteem of the chief magistrates. Tamboneau, president of the chamber of accounts, being informed of his merit, engaged him to undertake the preceptorship of his only son, which Quiutinie executed entirely to his satisfaction applying his leisure hours in the mean time to the study of agriculture, towards which he always had a strong inclination. He read Columella, Varro, Virgil, and all authors ancient or modern, who had written on the subject and gained new lights by a journey which he made with his pupil into Italy. All the gardens in Rome and about it were open to him; and he never failed to make the most useful observations, constantly joining practice with theory. On his return to Paris, Tamboneau entirely gave up to him his garden, to manage as he pleased; and Quintinie applied himself to so intense a study of the operations of nature in this way, that he soon became famous all over France. He made many curious and useful experiments. He was the first who proved it useless to join fibres to the roots of trees when transplanted, and discovered a sure and infallible method of pruning trees, so as to make them not only bear fruit, but bear it in whatever part the owner chuses, and even produce it equally throughout all the branches; which had never before been tried, nor even believed to be possible. The prince of Condé, who is said to have joined the pacific love of agriculture to a restless spirit for war, took great pleasure in conversing with Quintinie. He came to England about 1673; and, during his stay here paid a visit to Mr.Evelyn, who prevailed on him to communicate some directions concerning melons, for the cultivation of which Quintinie was remarkably famous. They were transmitted to Mr. Evelyn from Pans; and afterwards, in 1693, published by him in the Philosophical Transactions. Charles II. or, as his biographers say, James II. made Quintinie an offer of a considerable pension if he would stay and take upon him the direction of his gardens; but Quintinie chose to serve his own king, Louis XIV. who erected for him a new office of director-general of all his majesty’s fruit and kitchen gardens. The royal gardens, while Quintinie lived, were the admiration of the curious; and when he died, the king himself was much affected, and could not forbear saying to his widow, that “he had as great a loss as she had, and never expected to have it repaired.” Quintinie died veryold, but we know not in what year. He greatly improved the art of gardening, and transplanting trees and his book, entitled " Directions for the Management of Fruit and Kitchen Gardens, 7 ' 1725, 2 vols. 4to, contains precepts which have been followed by all Europe.

, or rather Quintus Smyrneus, was a Greek poet, who wrote a supplement to Homer’s Iliad, in 14 books, in which a relation is given of the Trojan war from the death of Hector to the destruction of Troy. He is supposed, from the style of his work, to have lived in the fifth century, but nothing certain can be collected concerning his person and country; but some say he was a native of Smyrna, and hence the name of Smyrneus. His poem was first made known by cardinal Bessarion, who discovered it in St. Nicholas’ church, near Otranto in Calabria, from which circumstance the author was named Quintus Calaber. It was published at Venice, by Aldus, but there is no date attached to the title-page; it is supposed to be 1521. The other editions are those of Freigius, Basil, 1569; of Rhodomannus, Hanover, 1604; of De Pauw, Leyden, 1734; and of Bandinius, Gr. Lat. et Ital. Florence, 1765.

, a Venetian cardinal, celebrated as an historian, a philologer, and an antiquary, was born in 1684, or, according to some authors, in 1680. He entered very early into an abbey of Benedictines at Florence, and there studied with so much ardour as to lay in a vast store of literature of every kind, under Salvini, Bellini, and other eminent instructors. The famous Magliabecchi introduced to him all foreigners illustrious for their talents, and it was thus that he became acquainted with sir Isaac Newton and Montfaucon. Not contented with this confined intercourse with the learned, he began to travel in 1710, and went through Germany to Holland, where he conversed with Basnage, Le Clerc, Kuster, Gronovius, and Perizonius. He then crossed into England, where he was honourably received by Bentley, Newton, the two Burnets, Cave, Potter, and others. Passing afterwards into France, he formed an intimate friendship with the amiable and illustrious Fenelon and became known to all the principal literati of that country. - The exact account of the travels of Quirini would contain, in fact, the literary history of Europe at that period. Being raised to the, dignity of cardinal, he waited on Benedict XIII. to thank him for that distinction. “It is not for you,” said that pope, “to thank me for raising you to this elevation, it is rather my part to thank you, for having by your merit reduced me to the necessity of making you a cardinal.” Quirini spread in every part the fame of his learning, and of his liberality. He was admitted into almost all the learned societies of Europe, and in various parts built churches, and contributed largely to other public works. To the library of the Vatican he presented his own collection of. books, which was so extensive as to require the addition of a large room to contain it. What is most extraordinary is, that though a Dominican and a cardinal, he was of a most tolerant disposition, and was every where beloved by the Protestants. He died in the 'beginning of January 1755.

, a German Lutheran divine and professor, was born at Rostock in 1584, and studied first at home, and then at Berlin, and at Frankfort on the Oder. He afterwards travelled through Holland, Brabant, and Flanders, as tutor to the son of a patrician of Lubeck. In 1614, his learning and abilities having pointed him out as a fit person to fill the divinity chair at Rostock, he was created doctor of divinity, and paid a visit to the universities of Leipsic, Wirtemberg, Jena, &c. He obtained other preferments in the church, particularly the archdeaconry of St. Mary’s at Rostock. In 1645, he was appointed pastor of the same church, and superintendant of the churches in the district of that city. During Grotius’s last fatal illness at Rostock he was called in as a clergyman, and from him we have the particulars of the last moments of that celebrated scholar some of which particulars, Burigny informs us, were misrepresented or misunderstood. Quistorp died May 2, 164S, at the age of sixtyfour. He was the author of “Annotationes in omnes Libros Biblicos;” “Cornmentarius in Epistolas Sancti Pauli,” and several other works. He left a son of the same name, who was born at Rostock in 1624, and died in 1669. He became pastor, professor of divinity, and rector of the university of that city, and published some works, “Catechesis Anti-papistica,” “Pia desideria,” &c. Another John Nicholas Quistorp, probably of the same family, died in 1715, and left some works on controversial subjects.

, a celebrated archbishop of Mentz, and one of the most learned divines in the ninth century, was born in the year 785 at Mentz, or rather at Fulda, and descended from one of the most noble families in that country. Mackenzie, however, has inserted him among his Scotch writers, but without much apparent authority. The parents of Rabanus sent him, at ten years old, to the monastery of Fulda, where he was instructed in learning and virtue, and afterwards studied underthe famous Alcuinus, at Tours. In this situation he made so rapid a progress, as to acquire great reputation from his writings at the age of thirty. On his return to Fulda he was chosen abbot there, and reconciled the emperor Louis le Débonnaire to his children. Rabanus wrote a letter of consolation to this prince when unjustly deposed, and published a tract on the respect due from children to their parents, and from subjects to their princes, which may be found in “Marca de Concordiâ,” published by Baluze. He succeeded Orgar, archbishop o Mentz, in the year 847, but was so much a bigot, as to procure the condemnation of Godeschalc. He died at his estate of Winsel, in the year 856, aged sixty-eight, after having bequeathed his library to the abbeys of Fulda and St. Alban’s, leaving a great number of works printed at Cologn, 1627, 6 vols. in 3 folio. The principal are, 1. “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” the greatest part of which are mere extracts from the fathers, as was the usual method among commentators in his time. 2. A poem in honour of the holy cross, of which there is a neat edition printed at Augsburg, 1605, in folio; but the most rare is that printed at Phorcheim, in ædibus Thomæ Anselim, 1503, curiously ornamented. Of the frontispiece the first figure is that of Albinus, abbot of Fulda, who presents Rabanus to the pope, with a poetical piece entitled “Intercessio Albini;” Rabanus appears next, presenting his book to the pope, with a poetical piece, entitled “Commendatio Papæ,” Then follows a kind of dedication to the emperor Louis le Débonnaire, who is delineated on this dedication holding a shield in one hand, and a cross in the other, his head surrounded with glory all the letters comprised in these ornamented lines, form a discourse foreign to the dedication. The poem is in the same style on each of the 28 pages of which it consists, are figures of the cross, stars, cherubim, seraphim, &c. The last represents a cross, with the author adoring it; the letters comprised in this cross form various pious exclamations. 3. A treatise on “the Instruction of the Clergy.” 4. A treatise on “the Ecclesiastical Calendar,” in which he points out the method of distinguishing the leap years, and marking the inductions. 5. A book “on the sight of God, purity of Jieart, and the manner of doing penance.” 6. A large work, entitled “De Universe, sive Etymologiarum Opus.” 7. “Homilies.” 8. “A Martyrology,” &c. But a treatise on “Vices and Virtues,” which is attributed to Rabanus Maurus, was written by Halitgarius bishop of Orleans. His treatise “against the Jews,” may be found in Martenne’s “Thesaurus;” and some other small tracts in the “Miscellanea” of Baluze, and Father Sirmond’s works. Rabanus was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and his character in this respect has been highly extolled both by Dupin and Mosheim.

, a celebrated French wit, was the son of an apothecary, and born about 1483, at Chinon, in the province of Touraine. He was bred up in a convent of Franciscan friars in Poictou, the convent of Fontenaile-Comte, and received into their order. His strong inclination and taste for literature and the sciences made him transcend the bounds which restrained the learned in his times so that he not only became a great linguist, but an adept in all branches of knowledge. His uncommon capacity and merit soon excited the jealousy of his brethren. Hence he was envied by some others, through ignorance, thought him a conjuror; and all hated and abused him, particularly because he studied Greek; the novelty of that language making them esteem it, not only barbarous, but antichristian. This we collect from a Greek epistle of Budaeus to Rabelais, in which he praises him highly for his great knowledge in that tongue, and exclaims against the stupidity and malice of the friars. Having endured their persecutions for a long time, he obtained permission of pope Clement VII. to leave the society of St. Francis, and to enter into that of St. Benedict but his mercurial temper prevailing, he did not find any more satisfaction among the Benedictines, than he had found among the Franciscans, so that after a short time he left them also. Changing the regular habit for that which is worn by secular priests, he rambled up and down for a. while and then fixed at Montpellier, where he took the degrees in physic, and practised with great reputation. He was universally admired for his wit and great learning, and became a man of such estimation, that the university of that place, when deprived of its privileges, deputed him to Paris to obtain the restitution of them, by application to the chancellor Du Prat, who was so pleased with him, and so much admired his accomplishments, that he easily granted all that he solicited. He returned to Montpellier and the service he did the university upon this occasion, is given as a reason why all the candidates for degrees in physic there, are, upon their admission to them, formally invested with a robe, which Rabelais left; this ceremony having been instituted in honour of him.

In 1532, he published at Lyons some pieces of Hippocrates and Galen, with a dedication to the bishop of Mailezais in which he tells him, that he had read lectures upon the aphorisms of Hippocrates, and the “ars medica” of Galen, before numerous audiences in the university of Montpellier. This was the last year of his cootinuance in that place for the year after he went to Lyons, where he became physician to the hospital, and joined lectures with practice for some years following. John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, with whom he had been acquainted in his early years, going to Rome in? 1534, upon the business of Henry VIITs divorce from Catherine of Spain, and passing through Lyons, carried Rabelais with him, in quality of his physician who returned home, however, in about six months. He had sometime before quitted his religious connections for the sake of leading a life more suitable to his taste and humour; but now renewed them, and in a second journey to Rome, obtained in 1536, by his interest with some cardinals, a brief from pope Paul III. to qualify him for holding ecclesiastical benefices. John du Bellay, had procured the abbey of St. Maur near Paris to be secularized; and into this was Rabelais, now a Benedictine monk, received as a secular canon. Here he is supposed to have begun his famous romance, entitled “The lives, heroic deeds, and sayings of Gargantua and Pantagruel.” He continued ifi this retreat till 1545, when Du Bellay, his friend and patron, and now a cardinal, nominated him to the cure of Meudon, which he is said to have filled with great zeal and application to the end of his life. His profound knowledge and skill in physic made him doubly useful to the people under his care and he was ready upon all occasions to relieve them under indispositions of body as well as mind. He died in 1553. As he was a great wit, many witticisms and facetious sayings are laid to his charge, of which he knew nothing and many ridiculous circumstances are related of him by some of his biographers, to which probably little credit is due.

He published several productions but his chef tfteuvre is “The History of Gacgantua and Pantagruel;” a most extravagant satire, in the form of a romance, upon monks, priests, popes, and fools and knaves of all kinds. Wit and learning are scattered here in great profusion, but in a manner so wild and irregular, and with a strong mixture of obscenity, coarse and puerile jests, profane allusions, and low raillery, that, while some have regarded it as a firstrate effort of human wit, and, like Homer’s poems, as an inexhaustible source of learning, science, and knowledge, others have affirmed it to be nothing but an unintelligible rhapsody, a heap of foolish conceits, without meaning, without coherence a collection of gross impieties and obscenities. There seems to be much truth in both these opinions, and throughout the whole such a degree of obscurity, where he is supposed to allude to persons or events, that no commentary can easily satisfy the reader’s curiosity *. The monks, who were supposed to be the chief object of his satire, gave some opposition to it when it first began to be published, for it was published by parts

says, “Rabelais was not the inventor and unknown.” This may be true, but

when the characters, the facts, and the the perusal of Rabelais. in 1535; but this opposition was soon overruled by the powerful patronage of Rabelais among the great. The best edition of his works is that with cuts, and the notes of Le Duchat, 5 vols. 12mo, and De Monnoye, 1741, in 3 vols, 4to. Mr. Motteux published an English translation of it at London, 1708, with a preface and notes, in which he endeavours to shew, that Rabelais has painted the history of his own time, under an ingenious fiction and borrowed names. Ozell published afterwards a new translation, with Duchat’s notes, 5 vols. 12mo, printed afterwards in 4 vols. We know not which is worst in point of vulgar obscenity of style, both are execrable.

, a German satirist, was born in 1714, at Wachau, an estate and manor near Leipsic, of which his father was lord. As he was educated for the law, and was employed for the greatest part of his life in public 'business, his literary performances must have been the amusement of his leisure hours. He appeared first in print, in 1741, as an associate in a periodical work jentitled “Amusements of Wit and Reason,” to which some of the most eminent men of his age were contributors, and among these Gellert, with whom he had a lasting friendship. About this time, he was made comptroller of the taxes in the district of Leipsic, an office which required constant attention, and obliged him to be frequently riding from place to place; and on these journeys, as a relaxation from business of a very different kind, he says, in one of his letters, all his satires were written. He published four volumes of them, and in his preface to the last, which is dated 1755, he professes his resolution to publish no more during his life. This determination, he says, is extorted from him by the multiplicity of business in which he is involved, by the impression which the loss of his best friends had made on his mind, and by his disgust at the impertinence of some of his readers; who, though he had avoided every thing personal, were continually applying his general characters to individuals. He had then been made secretary to the board of taxes at Dresden, and was afterwards involved in the calamities which that city suffered when besieged by the king of Prussia. During this siege, his house, his manuscripts, and alf his property, were destroyed; which misfortune he bore with a temper of mind truly philosophical and his letters on this occasion, which were afterwards published without his knowledge, show that it did not deprive him of his usual cheerfulness nor did this disposition deject him even in his last illness. He died of an apoplexy in March 1771. He is represented by his biographer Weiss, as an amiable and virtuous man, strict in his own conduct, but indulgent to that of others. He had a deep sense of religion, which he could not bear to hear ridiculed: and whenever any thing of this kind was attempted in his presence, he generally punished the scoffer with such sarcastic raillery as rendered him an object of contempt. He was remarkably temperate, though very fond of lively and cheerful conversation, in which he excelled; but he never would accept of any invitation which he thought was given with a view to exhibit him as a man of wit, and he was averse to all compliments paid to him as such; he knew how to preserve the respect due to him even while he promoted mirth and conviviality, for he never suffered these qualities to exceed the bounds of virtue and decency.

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

, a French poet, was born at Roche-Racan in Touraine in 1.589. At sixteen, he was made one of the pages to Henry IV. and, as he began to amuse himself with writing verses, he became acquainted with Malherbe, who, amidst his advices, reproached him with being too negligent and incorrect in his versification but Boileau, who has passed the same censure on him, affirms that he had more genius than his master; and was as capable of writing in the Epic as in the Lyric style, in which last he was allowed to excel. Menage has also spoken highly of Racan, in his additions and alterations to his " Remarques sur les Poesies de Malherbe. >T Racan had little or no education, and no learning. On quitting the office of page, he entered into the army but this, more to obligee his father, the marquis of Racan, than out of any inclination of his own and therefore, after two or three campaigns, he returned to Paris, where he married, and devoted himself to poetry. His works, the best edition of which is that of Paris, 1724, 2 vols. 8vo, consist of sacred odes, pastorals, letters, and memoirs of the life of Malherbe, prefixed to many editions of the works of that poet. He was chosen one of the members of the French academy, at the time of its foundation; and died in 1670, aged eighty-one.

, a French ecclesiastical historian, was born November 25, 1708, at Chauny. He completed his studies at the Mazarine college at Paris, where he acquired great skill in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and ecclesiastical history, and was sent for by M. de la Croix-Castries, archbishop of Albi, in 1729, to re-establish the college at Rabastens. Here he remained two years, and under his care the college became flourishing but, being afterwards banished by the intrigues of the Jesuits, for his attachment to the anti-constitutionists, retired to M. Colbert at Montpellier, who employed him in superintending the college of Lunel. This situation he privately quitted in a short time, to avoid some rigorous orders and, going to Paris, undertook the education of some young men at the college of Harcourt but this place too he was obliged to quit in 1734, by cardinal Fleury’s order; from which time he lived sequestered from the world, wholly occupied in his retreat in study and devotion. M. de Caylus, bishop of Auxerre, being determined to attach M.Racine to himself, gave him a canonryat Auxerre, and admitted him to sacred orders, all which, however, occasioned no change in. his way of life. He died at Paris, worn out by application, May 15, 1755, aged 47, and was buried at St. Severin. His principal works are, four tracts relative to the dispute which had arisen concerning “Fear and Confidence,” written with so much moderation, that they pleased all parties; and an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” 13 vols. 12mo and 4to. This work has been extremely admired, particularly by the opponents of the bull Unigenitus, and of the Jesuits, who are treated in it with great severity, as they had been the cause of all his troubles. He intended to have continued his Abridgment down to the year 1750 at least, had he lived longer; and a history of the first 33 years of the eighteenth century has been published by one of his friends, 2 vols. 12mo; and some Reflections, by M. Racine, on Ecclesiastical History, have also appeared, 2 vols. 12mo, which are a summary of his Abridgment.

, an illustrious French poet, was born at La Ferte-Milon in 1639, and educated at Port Royal, where he gave the greatest proofs of uncommon abilities and genius. During three years’ continuance there, he made a most rapid progress in the Greek and Latin languages, and every species of polite literature. He was an early reader of Sophocles and Euripides and so fond of these authors, as to have committed their plays to memory, and delighted to repeat their striking beauties. While thus studying the models of antiquity, we are told that he accidentally met with the Greek romance of Heliodorus, “of the Loves of Theagenes and Chariclea,” and was reading it when his director, surprising him, took the book and threw it into the fire. Racine found means to get another copy, which underwent the same fate; and after that a third, which, having a prodigious memory, he got by heart; and then, carrying it to his director, said, “You may now burn this, as you have burned the two former.”

Leaving Port Royal, he went to Paris, and studied logic some time in the college of Harcourt. He had already composed some little pieces of French poetry, but it was in 1660, when all the poets were celebrating the marriage of the king, that he first discovered himself to the public. His “La Nymphe de la Seine,” written upon that occasion, was highly approved by Chapelain and so powerfully recommended by him to Colbert, that the minister sent Racine a hundred pistoles from the king, and settled a pension on him, as a man of letters, of 600 livres, which was paid him to the day of his death. The narrowness of his circumstances had obliged him to retire to Usez, where an uncle, who was canon regular and vicar general there, offered to resign to him a priory of his order which he then possessed, if he would become a regular; and he still wore the ecclesiastical habit, when he wrote the tragedy of “Theagenes,” which he presented to Moliere and that of the “Freres Ennemis,” in 1664, the subject of which was given him by Moliere.

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

Racine’s dramatic character embroiled him at this time with the gentlemen of Port Royal. Mr. Nicole, the Jeremy Collier of France, in his “Visionaires & Imagifiaires,” had thrown out occasionally soine poignant strokes against the writers of romance and poets of the theatre, whom he called the public poisoners, not of bodies, but of souls “des empoisonneurs publics, non des corps, mais desames.” Racine, considering himself as included in this censure, addressed a very animated letter to Nicole; in which, without entering deeply into a defence of his brethren, he endeavoured to turn into ridicule the solitaires and religious of the Port Royal. M. du Bois and Barbier Daucour having each of them replied to this letter, Racine opposed them in a second, all which, originally published in 1666, are to be found in the edition of Racine’s works 1728, and also in the last editions of the works of Boileau. In 1668, he published“Les Plaideurs,” a comedy, and a close imitation of Aristophanes and “Andromache,” a tragedy, which was much applauded and much criticised. Some however think it his first good tragedy. He continued to exhibit from time to time several excellent tragedies “Britannicus,” in 1670; “Berenice,” in 1671; “Bajazet,” in 1672 “Mithridates,” in 1673 “Iphigenia,” in 1675; “Phaedra,” in 1677. During this time, he met with all that opposition which envy and cabal are ever ready to set up against a superior genius; and one Pradon, a poet whose name is not otherwise worth remembering, was then employed by persons of the first distinction to have a “Phaedra” ready for the theatre against the time that Racine’s should appear.

After the publication of “Phaedra,” he took a resolution to quit the theatre for ever although he was still in full vigour, being not more than thirty-eight and the only person who was capable of consoling Paris for the old age of Corneille. But he had imbibed in his infancy a deep sense of religion; and this, though it had been suppressed for a while by his connections with the theatre, and particularly with the famous actress Champmel6, by whom he had a son, now returned in full force. While under this impression that his past life had been erroneous, he resolved to write no more plays, and according to the kind of penitence which he thought prescribed by his religion, actually formed a design of becoming a Carthusian friar. His religious director, however, distrusting perhaps this extraordinary zeal, advised him to moderate it, to marry, and settle in the world, with which proposal Racine complied and immediately took to wife the daughter of the treasurer of Amiens, by whom he had seven children. His next concern was to reconcile himself, as he did very sincerely, with the gentlemen of Port Royal, whose censures on dramatic writers he acknowledged to be most just. He made peace at first with Nicole, who received him with open arms and Boiieau introduced him to Arnaud, who also embraced him tenderly, and forgave all his satire.

He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1673, in the room of La Mothe le Vayer, deceased; but spoiled the speech he made upon that occasion, by pronouncing it with too much timidity. He had always lived in friendship with Boiieau, and they exchanged opinions on each other’s works with the greatest freedom and candour, and without any reserve. In 1677 a design was formed of uniting talents which in fact neither possessed. In that year Racine was nominated with Boiieau, to write the history of Louis XIV. and the public expected great

> things from two writers of such distinction, but they were disappointed. “Boiieau and Racine,” says de Valincour, “after having for some time laboured at this work, perceived that it was entirely opposite to their genius and they judged also, with reason, that the history of such a prince neither could nor ought to be written in less than an hundred years after his death, unless it were to be made up of extracts from gazettes, and such-like materials.”

Though Racine had made it a point of conscience never to meddle any more with poetry, yet he was again invited to resume his dramatic character by madame de Maintenon, who intreated him to compose some tragedy fit to be played by her young ladies at the convent of St. Cyr, and to take the subject from the Bible. Racine accordingly composed “Esther” which, being first represented at St. Cyr, was afterwards acted at Versailles, before the king, in 1689. “It appears to me very remarkable,” says Voltaire, “that this tragedy had then universal success and that two years after, l Athaliah,‘ though performed by the same persons, had none. It happened quite contrary, when these pieces were played at Paris, long after the death of the author and when prejudice and partiality had ceased. ’ Athaliah,‘ represented in 1717, was received, as it deserved to be, with transport; and ’Esther,‘ in 1721, inspired nothing but coldness, and never appeared again. But at that time there were no courtiers who complaisamly acknowledged 4 Esther’ in madam de Maintenon, and with equal malignity saw Vashti” in madam de Montespan ‘ Human’ in M. de Louvois and, above all, the persecution of the Hugoriots by this minister, in the proscription of the Hebrews.“This author goes on, in his own style, censuring the story of Esther itself, as uninteresting, and, he is pleased to say, improbable, and then adds” But, notwithstanding the badness of the subject, thirty verses of ‘ Esther’ are of more value than many tragedies which have had great success."

Offended at the bad reception of “Athaliah,” he was more disgusted than' ever with poetry, and now renounced it totally. He spent the latter years of his life in composing a History of the house of Port Royal, the place of his education which is well drawn up, in an elegant style, and was published in 1767, in two vols. 12mo. Too great sensibility, say his friends, but more properly an impotence of spirit, shortened the days of this poet. Though he had conversed much with the court, he had not learned to disguise his real sentiments. Having drawn up a well-reasoned and well-written memorial upon the miseries of the people, and the means of relieving them, he one day lent it to Madam de Maintenon to read when the king coming in, and demanding what and whose it was, commended the zeal of Racine, but disapproved of his meddling with things that did not concern him; and said, with an angry tone, “Because he knows how to make good verses, does he think he knows every thing and would he be a minister of state, because he is a great poet” These words hurt Racine greatly he conceived dreadful ideas of the king’s displeasure, and this brought on a fever, which surpassed the power of medicine; for he died of it, after being grievously afflicted with pains, in 1699. The king, who was sensible of his great merit, and always loved him, sent often to him in his illness; an-d finding, after his death, that he had died poor, settled a handsome pension upon his family. He was interred at Port Royal, according to his will and, upon the destruction of that monastery in 1708, his remains were carried to St. Stephen du Mont, at Paris. He was middle-sized, and of an agreeable and open countenance; was a great jester, but was restrained by piety, in the latter years of his life, from indulging this talent; and, when warmed in conversation, had so lively and persuasive an eloquence, that he himself often lamented his not having been an advocate in parliament. Of his works his countrymen have reason to be proud no modern stage has been honoured, in such quick succession, by two such writers as Corneille and Racine. Fonteneiie’s parallel between them we have already given (see Corneille, vol. X. p. 269.), but it is thought too partial to Corneille. We shall content ourselves with saying, after Perrault, that “If Corneille surpassed Racine in heroic sentiments and the grand character of his personages, he was inferior to him in moving the passions, and in purity of language.”

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1692. He was also a distinguished poet, but adopted the ecclesiastical habit, and in 1720 published his poem “On Grace.” From his retirement, D'Aguesseau brought him again into the world, and cardinal Fleury afterwards gave him a place in the finances; on which he married, and lived happily, till the loss of an only son threw him into a deep melancholy. He died in 1763, at the age of 71. His poetical writings are, “Poems on Religion and Grace;” “Odes,” of which the diction is splendid, and the sentiments elevated; “Epistles,” and a “Translation of Milton’s Paradise Lost.” In prose he wrote “Reflexions sur la Poesie” “Memoires sur la Vie de Jean Racine” “Remarques sur les Tragedies de J. Racine.” Besides these, he contributed several dissertations to the Memoires of the Academy of Inscriptions, of which he was a member. His works were collected and published in 6 vols. 12mo.

, an eminent English physician, was born at Wakefield in Yorkshire, where his father possessed a moderate estate, in 1650. He was taught Greek and Latin at a school in the same town and, at fifteen years of age, was sent to University college, in Oxford. In 1669, he took his first degree in arts; but no fellowship becoming vacant there, he removed to Lincoln college, where he was elected into one. He applied himself to physic, and ran through the necessary courses of botany, chemistry, and anatomy in all which, having excellent parts, he quickly made a very great progress. He took the degree of M. A. in 1672, and then proceeded in the medical faculty. It is remarkable, that he recommended himself more by ready wit and vivacity, than by any extraordinary acquisitions in learning; and, in the prosecution of physic, he rarely looked further than to the pieces of Dr. Willis, who was then practising in London with a very distinguished character. He had few books of Any kind so few, that when Dr. Bathurst, head of Trinity college, asked him once in a surprise, “where his study was” RadclifTe, pointing to a few phials, a skeleton, and an herbal, replied, <* Sir, this is Radclitfe’s library.“In 1675 he proceeded M. B. and immediately began to practise. He never paid any regard to the rules universally followed, but censured them, as often as he saw occasion, with great freedom and acrimony which drew all the old practitioners upon him, with whom he waged an everlasting war. Yet his reputation increased with his experience and before he had been two years established, his business was very extensive, and among those of the highest rank. About this time, Dr. Marshall, rector of Lincoln college, opposed his application for a faculty-place in the college, which was to serve as a dispensation from taking holy orders, which the statutes required him to do, if he kept his fellowship. This was owing to some witticisms which Raclclirle, according to his manner, had pointed at the doctor. The church, however, being inconsistent with his present situation and views, he chose to resign his fellowship, which he did in 1677. He would have kept his chambers, and resided there as a commoner; but Dr. Marshall being still irreconcilable, he quitted the college, and took lodgings elsewhere, tn 1682 he went out M.D. but continued two years longer at Oxford, increasing both in wealth and fame. In 1684 he went to London, and settled in Bow-street, Covent-garden. Dr. Lower was there the reigning physician but his interest beginning to decline on account of his whig principles, as they were called, Radcliffe had almost an open field and, in less than a year, got into high practice, to which perhaps his conversation contributed as much as his reputed skill in his profession, for few men had more pleasantry and ready wit. In 1686, the princess Anne of Denmark made him her physician. In 1687, wealth jlo wing in upon him very plentifully, he had a mind to testify his gratitude to University college, where he had received the best part of his education; and, with this intent, caused the East window, over the altar, to be put up at his own expence. It is esteemed a beautiful piece, representing the nativity of our Saviour, painted upon glass; and appears to be his gift, by the following inscription under it:” D. D. Joan. Radcliffe, M. D. hujus Collegii quondam Socius, A. D. M.DCLXXXVII.“He is called” Socius;" not that he was really a fellow, but, being senior scholar, had the same privileges, though not an equal revenue, with the fellows. In 1638, when prince George of Denmark joined the prince of Orange and the princess, his consort, retired to Nottingham, the doctor was pressed, by bishop Compton, to attend her in quality of his office, she being also pregnant of the duke of Gloucester; but, not choosing to declare himself in that critical state of public affairs, nor favouring the measures then in agitation, he excused himself on account of the multiplicity of his patients.

After the Revolution, he was often sent for to king William, and the great persons about his court; and this he must have owed entirely to his reputation, for it does not appear that he ever inclined to be a courtier. In 1692 he ventured 5000l. in an interloper, which was bound for the East Indies, with the prospect of a large return but lost it, the ship being taken by the French. When the news was brought him, he said that “he had nothing to do, but go up so many pair of stairs to make himself whole again/' In 1693, he entered upon a treaty of marriage with the only daughter of a wealthy citizen, and was near bringing the affair to a conclusion, when it was discovered that the young lady had an intrigue with her father’s book-keeper. This disappointment in his first love would not suffer him ever after to think of the sex in that light he even acquired a degree of insensibility, if not aversion for them and often declared, that” he wished for an act of parliament, whereby nurses only should be entitled to prescribe to them.' 7 In 1694, queen Mary caught the small-pox and died. “The physician’s part,” says bishop Burnet, u was universally condemned and her death was imputed to the negligence or unskilfulness of Dr. Radcliffe. He was called for; and it appeared, but too evidently, that his opinion was chiefly considered, and most depended on. Other physicians were afterwards called, but not till it was too late."

Soon after, he lost the favour of the princess Anne, by neglecting- to obey her call, from his too great attachment to the bottle, and another physician was elected into his place. In 1699, king William returning from Holland, and being indisposed, sent for Radcliffe; and, shewing him his swoln ancles, while the rest of his body was emaciated and skeleton-like, said, “What think you of these?” “Why truly,” replied the physician, “I would not have your majesty’s two legs for your three kingdoms” which freedom lost the king’s favour, and no intercessions could ever recover it. When queen Anne came to the throne, the earl of Godolphin used all his endeavours to reinstate him in his former post of chief physician but she would not be prevailed upon, alledging, that Radcliffe would send her word again, “that her ailments were nothing but the vapours.” Still he was consulted in all cases of emergency and. critical conjuncture; and though not admitted as the queen’s domestic physician, he received large sums for his prescriptions.

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

He continued, however, in full business, increasing in wealth and eccentric temper, to the end of his days always carrying on, as we have before observed, war with his brethren the physicians, who never considered him in any other light than that of an active, ingenious, adventuring empiric, whom constant practice brought at length to some skill in his profession. One of the projects of “Martin Scriblerus” was, by a stamp upon blistering-plasters and melilot by the yard, to raise money for the government, and give it to Radcliffe and others to farm. In Martin’s “Map of Diseases,” which was “thicker set with towns than any Flanders map,” Radcliffe was painted at the corner, contending for the universal empire of this world, and the rest of the physicians opposing his ambitious designs, with a project of a treaty of partition to settle peace.

In 1713 he was elected into parliament for the town of Buckingham. In the last illness of queen Anne, he was sent for to Carshalton, about noon, by order of the council. He said, “he had taken physic, and could not come.” Mr. Ford, from whose letter to Dr. Swift this anecdote is taken, observes, “In all probability he had saved her life for I am told the late lord Gower had been often in the same condition, wtth the gout in his head.” In the account that is given of Dr. Radcliffe in the “Biographia Britannica,” it is said, that the queen was struck with death the twenty-eighth of July that Dr. Radcliffe’s name was not once mentioned, either by the queen or “any lord of the council” only that lady Masham sent to him, without their knowledge, two hours before the queen’s death. In this letter from Mr. Ford to dean Swift, which is dated the thirty-first of July, it is said, that the queen’s disorder began between eight and nine the morning before, which was the thirtieth and that about noon, the same day, Radcliffe was sent for by an order of council. These accounts being contradictory, the reader will probably want some assistance to determine what were the facts. As to the time when the queen was taken ill, Mr. Ford’s account is most likely to be true, as he was upon the spot, and in a situation which insured him the best intelligence. As to the time when the doctor was sent for, the account in the Biog. Brit, is manifestly wrong for if the doctor had been sent for only two hours before the queen’s death, which happened incontestably on the first of August, Mr. Ford could not have mentioned the fact on the 31st of July, when his letter was dated. Whether Radcliffe was sent for by lady Masham, or by order of council, h therefore the only point to be determined. That he was generally reported to have been sent for by order of council is certain but a letter is printed in the “Biographia,” said to have been written by the doctor to one of his friends, which, supposing it to be genuine, will prove, that the doctor maintained the contrary. On the 5th of August, four days after the queen’s death, a member of the House of Commons, a friend of the doctor’s, who was also a member, and one who always voted on the same side, moved, that he might be summoned to attend in his place, in order to be censured for not attending on her majesty. Upon this occasion the doctor is said to have written the following letter to another of his friends

"I could not have thought that so old an acquaintance and so good a friend, as sir J n always professed himself, would have made such a motion against me. God knows my will to do her majesty any service has ever got the start of my ability; and I have nothing that gives me greater anxiety and trouble than the death of that great and glorious princess. I must do that justice to the physicians that attended her in her illness, from a sight of the method that was taken for her preservation by Dr. Mead, as to declare nothing was omitted for her preservation but the people about her (the plagues of Egypt fall on them) put it out of the power of physic to be of any benefit to her. I know the nature of attending crowned heads in their last moments too well to be fond of waiting upon them, without being sent for by a proper authority. You have heard of pardons being signed for physicians, beforea sovereign’s demise however, ill as I was, I would have went to the queen in a horse-litter, had either her majesty, or those in commission next to her, commanded me so to do. You may tell sir J n as much, and assure him from me, that his zeal for her majesty will not excuse his ill usage of a friend, who has drank many a hundred bottles with him, and cannot, even after this breach of a good understanding that ever was preserved between us, but have a very good esteem for him. I must also desire you to thank Tom Chapman for his speech in my behalf, since I hear it is the first he ever made, which is taken more kindly and to acquaint him, that I should be glad to see him at Carshalton, since I fear (for so the gout tells me) that we shall never more sit in the House of Commons together. I am, &c.

But, whatever credit may now be paid to this letter, of however it may now be thought to justify the doctor’s refusal to attend her majesty, he became at that time so much the object of popular resentment, that he was apprehensive of being assassinated; as appears by the following letter, directed to Dr. Mead, at Child’s coffee-house, in St. Paul’s church-yard:

Radcliffe died on the first of November the same year, having survived the queen just three months and it is said, that the dread he had of the populace, and the want of company in the country village, which he did not dare to leave, shortened his life, when just sixty-four years old. He was carried to Oxford, and buried in St. Mary’s church in that city.

He had a great respect for the clergy; and shewed much judgment in bestowing his patronage. He gave the rectory of Headbourne-worthy, Hants, to the learned and pious Dr. Bingham and it was through his solicitation that the headship of St. Mary hall, at Oxford, was conferred on the celebrated Dr. Hudson whom he so much esteemed, that it has been generally supposed it was to the persuasion of Dr. Hudson, that the university was indebted for the noble benefactions of Dr. Radcliffe for the Library and Infirmary which bear his name and for an annual income of 600l. for two travelling fellowships. To University college also he gave, besides the window over the altar-piece already mentioned, the money which built the master’s lodge there, making one side of the Eastern quadrangle.

We do not find that he ever attempted to write any thing, and probably he would not have succeeded as an author. He was believed to have been very little conversant in books, which made Dr. Garth say, humourously enough, that “for Radcliffe to leave a library, was as if an eunuch should found a seraglio.” A most curious but ungracious portrait is given of him by Dr. Mandeville, in his “Essay on Charity Schools,” subjoined to his “Fable of the Bees.” What, however, the late Dr. Mead has recorded of him, is no small testimony in his favour; namely, that he was deservedly at the head of his profession, on account of his great medical penetration and experience."

His caprice in his profession seems to have been unbounded. When the lady of sir John Trevor, the master of the Rolls, was dying, in the summer of 1704, she was given over by Radcliffe as incurable. The master, thinking it a compliment to Radcliffe not to join any of the London physicians with him, sent to Oxford for Dr. Breach, an old crony, to consult on that occasion which made such a breach with Radcliffe that he set out in a few days for Bath where he is represented “as delighting scarce in any other company but that of papists.”

The lady of sir John Holt he attended, in a bad illness, with unusual diligence, out of pique to the husband, who was supposed not to be over-fond of her.

When Mr. Harley was stabbed by Guiscard, Swift complains, that, by the caprice of Radcliffe, who would admit none but his own surgeon, he had “not been well looked after;” and adds in another place, “Mr. Harley has had an ill surgeon, by the caprice of that puppy Dr. Radcliffe; which has kept him back so long.”

May 26, 1704, he carried some cause against an apothecary, by the aid of the solicitor-general Harcourt; and “two days before,” Atterbury says, “a play was acted, wherein the doctor was extremely ridiculed upon that head of his quarrel with the apothecary. A great number of persons of quality were present among- the rest, the duchess of Marlborough and the maids of honour. The passages where the doctor was affronted were received with the utmost applause.”

In 1709, he was ridiculed by Steele, in the “Tatler,” under the title of “the mourning Æsculapius, the languishing hopeless lover of the divine Hebe, emblem of youth and beauty.” After curing the lady of a severe fever, he fell violently in love with her; but was rejected. The story is thus related in the “Biographia Britannica” “The lady who made the doctor, at this advanced age, stand in need of a physician himself, was, it is said, of great beauty, wealth, and quality and too attractive not to inspire the coldest heart with the warmest sentiments. After he had made a cure of her, he could not but imagine, as naturally he might, that her ladyship would entertain a favourable opinion of him. But the lady, however grateful she might be for the care he had taken of her health, divulged the secret, and one of her confidants revealed it to Steele, who, on account of party, was so ill-natured as to write the ridicule of it in the Tatler.”

This article shall be closed with an extract from the Richardsoniana “Dr. Radcliffe told Dr. Mead, ‘ Mead, I love you, and now I will tell you a sure secret to make your fortune; use all mankind ill.’ And it certainly was his own practice. He owned he was avaricious, even to spunging, whenever he any way could, at a tavern reckoning, a sixpence, or shilling, among the rest of the company, under pretence of * hating (as he ever did) to change a guinea, because (said he) it slips away so fast.‘ He could never be brought to pay bills without much following and importunity nor then if there appeared any chance of wearying them out. A paviour, after long and fruitless attempts, caught him just getting out of his chariot at his own door, in Bloomsbury-square, and set upon him. ’ Why, you rascal,‘ said the doctor, * do you pretend to be paid for such a piece of work why you have spoiled my pavement, and then covered it over with earth to hide your bad work.’ ‘ Doctor,’ said the paviour, 4 mine is not the only bad work that the earth hides’ ‘ You dog you,’ said the doctor, ‘ are you a wit you must be poor, come in’ and paid him. Nobody,” adds Mr. Richardson, “ever practised this rule, * of using all mankind ill,' kss than Dr. Mead (who told me himself the story, and) who, as I have been informed by great physicians, got as much again by his practice as Dr. Radcliffe did.”

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Inicbenhen, in the Tyrol, in 1561. He was educated among, and joined the society of the Jesuits in his twentieth year. After having, through a long life, borne the reputation of a man of piety and erudition, and an able teacher, he died December 22, 1634, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. He was author or editor of various works connected with his profession, and of some of classical criticism. Among these are the “Alexandrian Chronicle,” 1615, 4to “Bavaria Sancta,” Monac. 1615—27, 3 vols. folio, with plates bySadeler; “Bavaria Pia,” ibid, 1628, folio, with plates by the same an excellent edition of “Martial,” Mentz, 1627, folio, and another of “Quintus Curtius.”

, a printer at Gloucester, deserves notice here as the founder of that useful institution the Sunday School, and as a man whose character is to be praised for general4>enevoleuce. The live* of such men, however, seldom afford many particulars, and Mr. Raikes, living constantly at his native place in the regular employment of his trade, may be said to have passed his days in comparative retirement. He was born at Gloucester in 1735. His father was of the same business as himself, a printer, and conducted, for many years, with successful merit, the “Gloucester Journal.” The education Mr. Raikes received was liberal, and calculated for his future designation in life, and at a proper age he was taught his father’s business, which he carried on throughout the whole of his life with great reputation.

Having prospered in the course of trade, he began early to look round for objects of benevolence, and first found them in the prisons. To relieve such, he employed his pen, his influence, and his property, and discovering that ignorance was the principal cause of those offences which render imprisonment necessary, he formed a plan of giving these unfortunate men moral and religious instruction, and regular employment, which proved highly beneficial and consolatory. But that for which he has been most highly and deservedly praised js the institution of the Sunday schools, which he planned in 1781, and which are now so common as to require no description. He comjnenced this benevolent undertaking in concert with the rev. Mr. Stock, a clergyman of Gloucester, and although some improper disputes have arisen as to whom the right of founder belongs, it is well known that these two gentlemen never thought it worth while to contest the point, or to exchange a word on the subject, but continued during their lives to act in perfect concert and harmony and if there was any difference, it was not in zeal, but in the more extensive range of Mr. Raikes’s acquaintance, and the influence he possessed to induce persons of rank and opulence to assist in the plan.

Mr. Raikes was for some years a member of the court of assistants of the stationers’ company and died at Gloucester April 5, 1811, aged seventy-five. His brothers and nephews are well known to rank among the most eminent merchants in London.

, the most celebrated of the old masters in the art of engraving, was born at Bologna, as is generally supposed, about the year 1487 or 1488. His first master was Francesco Francia, or Raibolini, (See Francia,) a painter and engraver, from whom he learned the principles of drawing, and succeeded so well, that the name of Francia was added to his own. It does not appear from whom he learned engraving; but it must have been early, as the print of “Pyramus and Thisbe” is dated 1502, and this, as well as several of his first works from the designs of Francia, were probably executed before his departure from Bologna.

Being desirous of improving himself by travelling, he went to Venice, where he first met with the works of the German engravers, particularly a set of wood-cuts by Albert Durer, representing “the life and passion of our Saviour.” Vasari informs us that he copied these with so much exactness, that they were sold for the originals; that Albert Durer complained of the injury, and got no redress, unless an order that Marc Antonio should not, for the future, add the cypher or monogram of Albert Durer to any of the copies he might make from his engravings. Copying them, it appears, was not thought illegal, the only injury being that of appending the mark of the person whose works are copied. But what renders the story somewhat improbable is, that the prints of “the life and passion of our Saviour” by Marc Antonio, have no mark of Albert Durer, but the cypher of Marc Antonio only. Strutt thinks that Vasari has mistaken one set of prints for another, that is, for those of “the life of the Virgin,” which Antonio also copied, and to the last of which he added his own cypher, as well as the monogram of Albert Durer, some proof that his intention could not be to usurp the fame of the latter.

When Marc Antonio quitted Venice he went to Rome, where his merit soon recommended him to Raphael, who not only employed him to engrave a considerable number of his designs, but assisted him in tracing and correcting the outlines upon the plates. Raphael was so pleased with his performances that he sent many specimens of them, as a complimentary present to Albert Durer, which he thought well worthy of his acceptance. Antonio’s great reputation brought many young artists to Rome, where he formed a school that soon eclipsed those of Germany; and in the process of time it was considered to be as necessary for an engraver, as for a painter, to visit Italy the Italian style of engraving became the standard of excellence, and at the conclusion of the sixteenth century, the German manner was almost totally disused. Among his scholars the most successful was Agostino de Musis, and Marc de Ravenna.

After the death of Raphael, Marc Antonio was employed by Julio Romano. This connection was unfortunate, for he disgraced himself and his profession by engraving that painter’s abominable designs to accompany Aretine’s infamous verses. For this pope Clement VII. sent him to prison, from which he was released with great difficulty by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medici and Baccio Bandinelli, the sculptor. The exquisite merit of his “martyrdom of St. Laurence,” at length reconciled the pope to him, who pardoned his offence entirely, and took him under his protection. He had now attained his highest reputation, and had accumulated wealth, but lost the latter entirely in 1527, when Rome was taken by the Spanish army. After this misfortune he retired to Bologna, where perhaps he died, but when is not known. The last print we have of his is dated 1539, after which he cannot be traced with certainty. Strutt considers him as one of the most extraordinary engravers that ever lived. The purity of his outlines, the correctness with which the extremities of his figures are marked, and the beauty and character which appear in the heads, prove him to have been a man of great taste and solid judgment, as well as a perfect master of drawing. These beauties, without doubt, appear most striking in his works from Raphael, a circumstance which seemsr greatly to confirm the report of his being much assisted by that great master. Strutt has given a list of the best of Marc Antonio’s prints, which however are rarely to be met with in their original state.

, a pious and exemplary bishop of Carlisle, was born April 20, 1608, at Bliton, a village in Lincolnshire near Gainsborough. His father, Thomas, was at this time rector of Bliton, and afterwards of Wintringham in the same county; both which preferments he owed to the Wrays of Glentworth. He married Rebecca Allen, daughter of the rev. David Allen, rector of Ludbrough, a very learned lady, who had been successfully taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by her father. Under such parents he had the advantage of a religious as well as learned education. For the latter purpose he was sent first to Fillingham, and next, in 16 19, to the public school of Gainsborough, whence, in April 1620, he was removed to Peterborough in Northamptonshire, and put under the tuition of Dr. John Williams, afterwards archbishop of York, but then a prebendary of Peterborough, and a good friend of old Mr. Rainbow. In order to have the farther advantage of this gentleman’s protection, he was sent, in June 1621, to Westminster school, Dr. Williams being then dean of Westminster. In all these places his progress was marked by great diligence and proficiency in his studies, and a conduct which did credit to the instructions of his parents.

In July 1623, he was entered of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, of which his elder brother was now a member, and afterwards died a fellow. Here he remained until June 1, 1625, when he removed to Magdalen college, Cambridge, in order to enjoy one of the scholarships then founded by the countess dowager of Warwick, who herself nominated him to the same. In 1627 he took his degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1630, and soon after was appointed by the great patron, of his family, sir John Wray, to be master of the free-school at Kirton, three or four miles from Bliton, his native place. Hi* testimonials from the university proved that he was more than sufficient foe this situation. He had indeed, while at college, distinguished himself on one or two occasions by an uncommon display of talent, particularly when the Tripos delivered a scurrilous speech, and being interrupted, Mr. Rainbow was ordered, without any preparation, to take his place. On this occasion he delivered an extempore speech with so much delicacy of wit, and chastened satire, as to receive universal approbation.

Kirton school; to which he had now removed, was never much to his liking, and he therefore soon left it, and came to London. When he was admitted to orders does not appear, but we first hear of his preaching at Glentworth in 1632. In London he first took up his residence in Eulier’s Rents, but in three months removed to Sion college for the sake of the library there. He also became a candidate for the preachership of Lincoln’s-inn, but was not successful. In June of that year, however, he was appointed curate at the Savoy, and being invited back to his college by Dr. Smith the master, and some others of the society, he was, in 1634, admitted to a fellowship. After his return to the university, he appears to have resided occasionally, or for some stated time, annually, at London, where, in the year above mentioned, he preached one sermon, printed at the request of his friends, and another in 1639 hut it was at the university that his sermons were most admired, and his hearers most numerous. Here too, as in the case of the tripos, he was suddenly called upon to supply the place of a gentleman who was unexpectedly absent, and acquitted himself with great credit, in an extempore discourse. He does not, however, appear to have reviewed his early sermons with much pleasure, finding that he had indulged too much in a declamatory kind of style, which he did not think becoming in such compositions, nor to be preferred to the plain exposition of the doctrinal parts of the Holy Scriptures. With the same conscientious feeling, when he became a college tutor in 1635, he added to other branches of instruction, a knowledge of the foundation and superstructure of religion and so acceptable was his mode of teaching, that the master of the college recommended to his care, the sons of some noblemen, particularly Theophilus earl of Suffolk. In 1639, he was chosen dean of his college, and the following year attended James earl of Suffolk, son to Theophilus, to the Long parliament. In 1642, on the death of Dr. Smith, he was elected master of Magdalen college, with the concurrence of the earl. In 1646 he took his degree of D. D. and chose for the subject of his thesis a defence of the principles of the church of England, as containing every thing necessary to salvation. For some time he does not appear to have been molested for this attempt to support a church which the majority were endeavouring to pull down. In 1650, however, when he refused to sign a protestation Against the king, he was deprived of the mastership, which he was very willing to give up rather than comply with the party in power. His steady friend, however, the earl of Suffolk, gave him the small living of Little Chesterford near Audley Inn in Essex, in 1652, but this he held only by his lordship’s presentation, as he determined never to submit to an examination by the republican triers, as they were called.

Unpromising as his situation now was, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. Smith, his predecessor in the mastership of the college. In performing his duties as a parish priest, he used a selection from the common prayerbook, with which his hearers, many of whom had never read them* were very much pleased. He also regularly visited and catechised his flock, and by works of charity gradually gained upon their affections. In 1659, he accepted the rectory of Benefield in Northamptonshire, from the earl of Warwick, but still on condition of having nothing to do with the triers; and here likewise he became very popular.

On the restoration, in 1660, he was replaced in the mastership of Magdalen college, appointed chaplain to the king, and the year following was promoted to the deanery of Peterborough. In 1662, being elected vice-chancellor of the university, which obliged him to reside there, he greatly contributed to restore proper discipline. In 1664, he was appointed bishop of Carlisle, so much against his inclination, that it required the utmost importunity of his friends to reconcile him to a station for which his modesty made him think he was unfit. After consecration, although the expences attending his entrance on this office were very considerable, he immediately resigned all his other preferments but when he found in what a state his predecessor (Dr. Stern) had left the episcopal residence, Rose castle, he thought it his duty, however unwillingly, to sue him for dilapidations. He then, at great ex pence, repaired the castle, and rebuilt the chapel entirely. His more serious attention, however, was bestowed on the various duties of his office, both with respect to the clergy and people. To the former, in particular, he set an example of diligence in preaching, catechising, &c. and in hospitality. He had prayers four times a day in his family. After continuing this course for twenty years, he became a martyr to the stone and gout, with alternate fits of both which he had long been afflicted. He died at Hose castle, March 26, 1684, in his seventy-sixth year, and was interred in Dalston church-yard, where a plain stone intimates only his name and title. He printed three occasional sermons one we have already mentioned, which was preached at St. Paul’s cross, Sept. 28, 1634, entitled “Labour forbidden and commanded” the second was on the funeral of Susannah, countess of Suffolk, preached May 13, 1649, and printed with some elegies by Drs. Collins and Duport. This Baxter recommended to be reprinted among Clark’s Lives. The third was on the funeral of the celebrated Anne countess of Pembroke, Dorset, and Montgomery, at Appleby in Westmoreland, April 14, 1676. He appears to have been a man of polite manners, uncommon learning, and of exemplary piety and charity. In 1670, he joined with Dr. Wilkins, bishop of Chester, in opposing the conventicle act.

, an eminent scholar and teacher, was born May 20, 1760. He received the first rudiments of his education under his father, the rev. Matthew Raine, who was for many years a schoolmaster of ability and reputation at Hackforth near Richmond in Yorkshire. In June 1772, he was admitted on the foundation of the Charter-house, to which he was nominated by the king at the request of lord Holderness. After distinguishing himself, as a boy, he was elected, in 1778, to a Charter-house exhibition at Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow in 1783, having taken the degree of B. A. in 1782. He engaged for some time in tuition at the university, and had several distinguished pupils. In 1791, he was elected schoolmaster of the Charter-house, his only opponent being Charles Burney, D. D. whose talents as a scholar were even then generally acknowledged, and are now perhaps unrivalled.

Mr. Raine having been advanced to this important station, for which no man was ever better qualified, he proceeded to take the degree of D. D. in 1798. In 1809, he was elected preacher to the hon. society of GrayVinn, and in the year following, was presented by the governors of the Charter-house to the rectory of Little Hallingbury in Essex, whither he had intended to retire at the close of 1811. But in the early part of the year, his frame was so weakened by a violent fit of the gout, added to his cares and anxiety for the school, and the labour which he bestowed on his compositions for the pulpit, that on a recurrence of his disorder, at the close of the summer, he was unable to throw it out, and died of suppressed gout, Sept. 17, 1810. His remains are deposited in Charter-house chapel, and a monument with an inscription written by Dr. Parr, has been erected to his memory by his scholars. The present school-room, built during his mastership, and the improvements made by him in the dormitory, will long remain as proofs of the attention which Dr. Raine paid to the discipline and good order of the school and such was the mildness and sweetness of his disposition, that his pupils loved and revered him while at school, and were Jus friends through life.

In the pulpit, the excellent choice and arrangement of his subject, and the graceful dignity of his manner, combined with a superior eloquence and harmony of voice, commanded the attention of his hearers, and whenever he preached, the chapel of GrayVinn was thronged by a numerous and enlightened audience. But his labours were not confined to the school and the pulpit. He was one of the first and most active managers of the London Institution and the “Society of Schoolmasters” is mainly in-r debted to his generous support for its present respectability and importance.

Among his intimate friends were all the first scholars of the day; and none was more indebted to the friendship of Dr. Raine than professor Person, whose successor in the professorial chair it was no little satisfaction to Dr. Raine to have educated under his own care at the Charter-house.

The literary world have much cause to regret the premature death of Dr. Raine. He had turned his thoughts to many subjects of great interest to the classical scholar, but his delicacy was so great, that he scrupled to publish without more mature consideration than his employment gave him leisure to bestow on them. He published only two sermons, at the request of those before whom they were preached; one preached at Kingston-upoii-Thames, Feb. 19, 1786, on the death of capt. Pierce, commander of the Halsewell East Indiaman the other, a York assize sermon, preached July 26, 1789, when the father of his pupil Walter Fawkes, esq. was high sheriff.

, one of the most learned and eminent divines of the sixteenth century, and a strenuous champion against popery, was the fifth son of Richard Rainolds of Pinho, or Penhoe, near Exeter in Devonshire, where he was born in 1549. He became first a student in Merton college, Oxford, in 1562, of which his uncle, Dr. Thomas Rainolds, had been warden in queen Mary’s time, but was ejected in 1559 for his adherence to popery, which appears to have been the religion of the family. In \5GJ he was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, and in October 1566, was chosen probationer fellow. In Oct. 1568, he took his degree of bachelor of arts, and in May 1572, that of master, being then senior of the act, and founder’s Greek 'lecturer in his college, in which last station he acquired great reputation by his lectures on Aristotle.

A story is told by Fuller and others, that Mr- Rainolds was at first a zealous papist, and his brother William a professed protestant; but that having frequently disputed together, the issue was a change* of principles on both sides, John becoming a zealous protestant, and William a papist. As no time is specified when this change took place, we may be permitted to entertain some doubts of its authenticity. John Rainolds entered the university at a very early age, and at a time when the reformed religion was so fully established and guarded there, that had he been a zealous papist, he could not have escaped censure but of this nothing is upon record on the contrary, his first public appearances were all in support of the doctrines of the reformation, and his established character appears to have given great weight to his opinions on matters in dispute at Oxford. In 1576, when he was only in his twenty-seventh year, we find him opposing the giving the degree of D. D. to Corrano (See Corrano) who was suspected of being unsound in certain doctrinal points. Wood has preserved a long letter of his on this subject, which shows him well versed in religious controversy, and decidedly for the doctrines of the reformers.

In June 1579, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in June 1585 that of doctor, and on both occasions maintained theses which had for their subject, the defence of the church of England in her separation from that of Rome. This was a point which he had carefully studied by a perusal of ecclesiastical records and histories. He held also a controversy with Hart, a champion for popery and on this, as well as well as every other occasiqn, acquitted himself with so much ability, that in 1586, when a new divinity lecture watf founded at Oxford by sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary of state, he desired that Dr. Rainolds might be the first lecturer, and he was accordingly chosen. Wood and Collier, whose prejudices against the reformation are sometimes but thinly disguised, represent the design of the founder and of others in the university with whom he consulted, as being “to make the difference between the churches wide enough”-*-“to make the religion of the church of Rome more odious, and the difference betwixt them and the protestants to appear more irreconcileable,” &c. The intention, however, plainly was, to counteract the industry of the popish party in propagating their opinions and seducing the students of the university, in which they were too frequently successful. And Wood allows that the founder o? this lecture, “that he might not fail of his purpose to rout the papists and their religion,” could not have chosen a fitter person, for Rainolds was a man of infinite reading, and of a vast memory. He accordingly read this lecture in the divinity school thrice a week in full term, and had a crowded auditory. Wood says erroneously, that when appointed to this lecture he was dean of Lincoln; but this dignity was not conferred upon him until 1593, (not 1598 as Wood says). It was the gift of the queen, who was much pleased with the report of his services in opposing popery, and offered him a bishopric but he preferred a college life, where he thought he could do most good by training up a race of defenders of the reformation, a measure then of great importance. That he might have no temptation to relax in this care, he, in 1598, exchanged the deanery of Lincoln for the presidentship of Corpus Christ! college, and was elected Dec. 11 of that year, and soon after removed to the president’s lodgings at Corpus, from some chambers which he had been allowed in Queen’s college. To Corpus Christ! he became an eminent benefactor by restoring their finances, which had been impoverished by the neglect or avarice of some of his predecessors, at the same time that he made more effectual provision for the scholars, chaplains, and clerks, that he might retain in college such as were useful. He also repaired the chapel, hall, and library; but his more particular attention was paid to the rules of discipline, and the proficiency of the students in learning and religion.

In 1603, when the Hampton-court conference took place, we find him ranged on the puritan side; on this occasion, he was their spokesman, and it may therefore be necessary to give some account of what he proposed, as this will enable the reader in some measure to determine how far the puritans of the following reign can claim him as their ancestor. At this conference, he proposed, 1. “That the Doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to God’s word.” 2. “That good Pastors might be planted in all churches to preach the same.” 3. “That the Church*government might be sincerely ministred according to God’s word.” 4. “That the book of Common Prayer might be fitted to the more increase of Piety.” With regard to the first he moved his majesty, that the book of “Articles of Religion” concluded in 1562, might be explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective. For example, whereas Art. 16, the words are these, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace;” notwithstanding the meaning may be sound, yet he desired, that because they may seem to be contrary to the doctrine of God’s Predestination and Election in the 17th Article, both these words might be explained with this or the like addition, “yet neither totally nor finally v and also that the nine assertions orthodoxall, as he termed them, i. e. the Lambeth articles, might be inserted into that book of articles. Secondly, where it is said in the 23d Article, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of preaching or administering the Sacraments” in the. congregation,“before he be. lawfully called, Dr. Rainolds took exception to these words,” in the congregation,“as implying a lawfulness for any whatsoever, * 4 out of the congregation,” to preach and administer the Sacraments, though he had no lawful calling thereunto. Thirdly, in the 25th Article, these words touching “Confirmation, grown partly of the corrupt following the Apostles,” being opposite to those in the collect of Confirmation in the Communion-book, “upon whom after the example of the Apostles,” argue, said he, a contrariety each to other; the first confessing confirmation to be a depraved imitation of the Apostles; the second grounding it upon their example, Acts viii. 19, as if the bishop by confirming of children, did by imposing of hands, as the Apostles in those places, give the visible Graces of the Holy Ghost. And therefore he desired, that both the contradiction might be considered, and this ground of Confirmation examined. Dr. Rainolds afterwards objected to a defect in the 37th Article, wherein, he said, these words, “The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land,” were not sufficient, unless it were added, “nor ought to have.” He next moved, that this proposition, “the intention of the minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament,” might be added to the book of Articles, the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential. And here again he repeated his request concerning the nine “orthodoxall assertions” concluded at Lambeth. He then complained, that the Catechism in the Common-Prayer-book was too brief; for which/reason one by Nowel, late dean of St. Paul’s, was added, and that too long for young novices to learn by heart. He requested, therefore, that one uniform Catechism might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received. He next took notice of the profanation of the Sabbath, and the contempt of his majesty’s proclamation for reforming that abuse; and desired some stronger remedy might be applied. His next request was for a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to the original of which he gave three instances. He then desired his majesty, that unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed, at least restrained, and imparted to a few. He proceeded now to the second point, and desired that learned ministers might be planted in every parish. He next went on to the fourth point relating to the Common -Prayer, and jcomplained of the imposing Subscription, since it was a great impediment to a learned ministry; and in treated, that “it might not be exacted as formerly, for which many good men were kept ont, others removed, and many disquieted. To subscribe according to the statutes of the realm, namely, to the articles of religion, and the king’s supremacy, they were not unwilling. Their reason of their backwardness to subscribe otherwise was, first, the books Apocryphal, which the Common-Prayer enjoined to be read in the church, albeit there are, in some of those chapters appointed, manifest errors, directly repugnant to tjie scriptures. . The next scruple against subscription was, that in the Common-Prayer it is twice set down, ‘Jesus said to his Disciples,’ when as by the text original it is plain, that he spake to the Pharisees. The third objection against subscription were ‘ Interrogatories in Baptism,’ propounded to infants.” Dr. Rainolds owned “the use of the Cross to have been ever since the Apostles time; but this was the difficulty, to prove it of that ancient use in Baptism.” He afterwards took exceptions at those words in the Office of Matrimony, “With my body I thee worship” and objected against the churching of women by the name of Purification. Under the third general head touching Discipline he took exception to the committing of ecclesiastical censures to lay-chancellors. “His reason was, that the statute made in king Henry’s time for their authority that way was abrogated in queen Mary’s time, and not revived in the late queen’s days, and abridged by the bishops themselves, 1571, ordering that the said lay-chancellors should not excommunicate in matters of correction, and anno 1584 and 1589, not in matters of instance, but to be done only by them, who had the power of the keys.” He then desired, that according to certain provincial constitutions, they of the clergy might have meetings once every three weeks first, in rural deaneries, and therein to have the liberty of prophesying, according as archbishop Grindal and other bishops desired of her late majesty. Secondly, that such things, as could not be resolved upon there, might be referred from thence to the episcopal synods, where the bishop with his Presbyteri should determine all such points as before could not be decided. Notwithstanding our author’s conduct at this conference, Dr. Simon Patrick observes, that he professed himself a conformist to the church of England, and died so. He remarks, that Dr. Richard Crakanthorp tells the archbishop of Spalato, that the doctor was no Puritan (as the archbishop called him). “For, first, be professed, that he appeared unwillingly in the cause at Hampton-court, and merely in obedience to the king’s command. And then he spoke not one word there against the hierarchy. Nay, he acknowledged it to be consonant to the word of God in his conference with Hart. And in an answer to Sanders’ s book of the ‘ Schism of England 7 (which is in the archbishop’s library) he professes, that he approves of the book of * consecrating and ordering bishops, priests, and deacons.’ He was also a strict observer of all the orders of the church and university both in public and his own college; wearing tbte square cap and surplice, kneeling at the Sacrament, and he himself commemorating their benefactors at the times their statutes appointed, and reading that chapter of Ecclesiasticus, which is on such occasions used. In a letter also of his to archbishop Bancroft (then in Dr. Crakanthorp’s hands), he professes himself conformable to the church of England, ‘ willingly and from his heart,’ his conscience admonishing him so to be. And thus he remained persuaded to his last breath, desiring to receive absolution according to the manner prescribed in our liturgy, when he lay on his death-bed which he did from Dr. Holland, the king’s professor in Oxford, kissing his hand in token of his love and joy, and within a few hours after resigned up his soul to God.”

Wood says, perhaps justly, that the “best matter” produced by this Hampton-court conference was the new translation of the Bible, which is now the authorized translation. It was begun in 1604, by forty- seven divines of Westminster and the two universities. Dr. Rainolds had too much reputation as a Greek and Hebrew scholar to be omitted from this list. Some of the prophets appear to have been the portion allotted to him, but his growing infirmities did not, it is thought, permit him to do much. The Oxford translators, however, used to meet at his lodging in Corpus college, once a week, and compared what they had done in his company. During this undertaking he was seized with the consumption of which he died, May 21, 1607, in the fifty -eighth year of his age.

“It must not be forgotten that this year died Dr. John Rainolds, president of Corpus, Christi college, one of so prodigious a memory that he might have been called a walking library; of so virtuous and holy life and conversation (as writers say) that he very well deserved to be redlettered so eminent and conspicuous, that as Nazianzen, speaketh of Athanasius, it might be said of him 'to name Rainolds is to commend virtue itself. 7 He had turned over (as I conceive) all writers, profane, ecclesiastical and divine, all the councils, fathers, and histories of the church. He was most excellent in all tongues which might be any way of use, or serve for ornament to a divine. He was of a sharp and nimble wit, of a grave and mature judgment, of indefatigable industry, exceeding therein Origen surnamed Adamantius. He was so well seen in all arts and sciences, as if he had speiit his whole time in each of them. Eminent also was he accounted for his conference had with king James and others at Hampton Court, though wronged by the publisher thereof, as he was often heard to say. A person also so much respected by the generality of the academicians for his learning and piety, that happy and honoured did they account themselves that could have discourse with him. At times of leisure he delighted much to talk with young towardly scholars, communicating his wisdom to the encouraging them in their studies, even to the last; A little before his death, when he could not do such good offices, he ordered his executors to have his books (except those he gave to his college and certain great persons), to be dispersed among them. There was no house of learning then in. Oxford, but certain scholars of each (some to the number of twenty, some less,) received of his bounty in that kind, as a catalogue of them (with the names of the said scholars) which I have lying by me sheweth.” This catalogue Wood prints in a note. It records the dispersion of a very considerable library among the students of the different colleges, to the amount of two hundred and eighty, many of whom became afterwards men of great eminence in the church. He also bequeathed some books to the Bodleian, and some to his relations. He was interred with great solemnity in the chapel of Corpus Christi college, where a monument was erected to his memory by his successor in the presidentship, Dr. Spenser, with the following inscription “Virtuti sacrum. Jo. Rainoldo S. Theol. D. eruditione, pietate, integritate incomparabile, hujus Coll. Pxaeses, qui obiit, c. Jo. Spenser auditor, successor, virtutum et sanctitatisadmirator H. M. amoris ergaposuit.” Dr. Rainolds wrote some controversial works published in his life-time, enumerated by Wood, and sermons on the prophecies of Obadiah and Haggai, which with some other pieces appeared after his death that on Jlaggai was published during the rebellion to enlist him on the side of those who were enemies to the church establishment, to which he ever appears to have been attached; although he may be ranked among doctrinal puritans. Motives for publication like these throw an air of suspicion upon the works, and incline us to doubt whether they now appear as he left them.

His brother, William Rainolds, above mentioned, was educated in Winchester school, and became fellow of New college in 1562. The story of his turning Roman Catholic in consequence of a dispute with his brother John, seems discredited by Wood and Dodd gives farther reason to question it, on the authority of father Parsons, who was tokl by Rainolds himself, that his first doubts on the subject were occasioned by perusing Jewell’s Works, and examining the authors quoted by that learned prelate. It is certain, however, that he left a benefice he had in Northamptonshire, and went to Rheims, where he could have the free exercise of his adopted religion, and was made professor of divinity and Hebrew. At last he returned to Antwerp, where he died in 1594. He wrote against Whitaker, and other works in the popish controversy. Two letters to him are printed with his brother John’s “Orationes,” Oxon. 16 14, 1628, 4to. There was a third brother, Edmund, educated at Corpus college, Oxford, who was ejected for popery in 1568. Dodd thinks the converting conference between the brothers was more likely to have been held between this Edmund and John, than between William and John. Edmund died in 1630, and was buried at Wolvercote, near Oxford, where he had an estate, and probably lived in privacy.

, or Raleigh, or'Rawlegh, an illustrious Englishman, was the fourth son, and the second by a third wife, of Walter Ralegh, esq. of Fardel, near Plymouth. His father was of an ancient knightly family, and his mother was Catharine, daughter of sir Philip Champernoun, of Modbury in Devonshire, relict of Otho Gilbert, of Compton, the father, by her, of sir Humphrey Gilbert, the celebrated navigator. Mr. Ralegh, upon his marriage with this lady, had retired to a farm called Hayes, in the parish of Budiey, where sir Walter was born in 1552. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Oriel college, Oxford, about 1568, where he soon distinguished himself by great force of natural parts, and an uncommon progress in academical learning but Wood is certainly mistaken in saying he stayed here three years for in 1569, when only seventeen, he formed one of the select troop of an hundred gentlemen whom queen Elizabeth permitted Henry Champernoun to transport to France, to assist the persecuted Protestants. Sir Walter appears to have been engaged for some years in military affairs, of which, however, we do not know the particulars. In 1575 or 1576, he was in London, exercising his poetical talents; for there is a commendatory poem by him prefixed, among others, to a satire called “The Steel Glass,” published by George Gascoigne, a poet of that age. This is dated from the Middle Temple, at which he then resided, but with no view of studying the law for he declared expressly, at his trial, that he had never studied it. On the contrary, his mind was still bent on military glory; and accordingly, in 1578, he went to the Netherlands, with the forces which were sent against the Spaniards, commanded by sir John Norris, and it is supposed he was at the battle of Rimenant, fought on Aug. 1. The following year, 1579, when sir Humphrey Gilbert, who was his brother by his mother’s side, had obtained a patent of the queen to plant and inhabit some Northern parts of America, he engaged in that adventure; but returned soon after, the attempt proving unsuccessful. In 1580, the pope having incited the Irish to rebellion, he had a captain’s commission under the lord deputy of Ireland, Arthur Grey, lord Grey de Wilton. Here he distinguished himself by his skill and bravery. In 1581, the earl of Ormond departing for England, his government of Munster was given to captain Ralegh, in commission with sir * William Morgan and captain Piers Ralegh resided chiefly at Lismore, and spent all this summer in the woods and country adjacent, in continual action with the rebels. At his return home, he was introduced to court, and, as Fuller relates, upon the following occasion. Her majesty, taking the air in a walk, stopped at a splashy place, in doubt whether to go on when Ralegh, dressed in a gay and genteel habit of those tirhes, immediately cast off and spread his new plush cloak on the ground n which her majesty gently treading, was conducted 6ver clean and dry. The truth is, Ralegh always made a very elegant appearance, as well in the splendor of attire, as the politeness of address; having a commanding figure, and a handsome and well-compacted person a strong natural wit, and a better judgment and that kind of courtly address which pleased Elizabeth, and led to herfaTOur. Such encouragement, however, did not reconcile hirn to an indolent life. In 1583 he set out with his brother sir H. Gilbert, in his expedition to Newfoundland but within a few days was obliged to return to Plymouth, his ship’s company -being seized with an infectious distemper and sir H. Gilbert was drowned in coming home, after he had taken possession of that country. These expeditions, however, being much to Ralegh’s taste, he still felt no discouragement; but in 1584 obtaining letters patent for discovering unknown countries, he set sail to America, and took possession of a place, to which queen Elizabeth gave the name of Virginia.

Upon his return, he was elected member of parliament for Devonshire, and soon after knighted; an honour (says his late biographer), which, from the sparing hand of that monarch, was- considered as high distinction. About this period, also, he was favoured by a licence to sell wines throughout the kingdom. In 1585, he appears several ways engaged in the laudable improvements of navigation; for, he was one of the colleagues of the fellowship for the discovery of the North-west passage. The same year, he sent his own fleet upon a second voyage to Virginia, and afterwards upon a third. It was this colony of Virginia which first brought tobacco to England; and sir Walter Ralegh, who first introduced it into use. Queen Elizabeth had no objection to it, as a valuable article of commerce but her successor, James I. held it in such abhorrence, as to use his utmost endeavours to explode the use of it. About the same time sir Walter was made seneschal of Cornwall and lord warden of the Stannaries.

Sir Walter was now become such a favourite with the queen, that they who had at first been his friends at court began to be alarmed, and to intrigue against him, particularly the earl of Leicester, his former patron, who is said to have grawn jealous of his influence with her majesty, eind ta have set up, in opposition to him, Robert Devereux, the young earl of Essex. To this he appears to have paid little attention, but constantly attended his public charge and employments, whether in town or country, as occasion required. He was, in 1586, a member of that parliament which decided the fate of Mary queen of Scots, in which he probably concurred. But still speculating on the consequences of the discovery of Virginia, he sent three ships upon a fourth voyage thither, in 1587. In 1588 he sent another fleet, upon a fifth voyage, to Virginia and the same year took a brave part in the destruction of the Spanish armada, sent to invade England. About this time he made an assignment to divers gentlemen and merchants of London, of all his rights in the colony of Virginia. This assignment is dated March 7, 1588-9.

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

About the same time, 1593, Ralegh had an illicit amour with a beautiful young lady, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Nicolas Throgmorton, an able statesman and ambassador which so offended the queen, that they were both confined for several months and, when set at liberty, forbidden the court. Sir Walter afterwards made the most honourable reparation he could, by marrying the object of his affection; and he always lived with her in the strictest conjugal harmony. The next year he was so entirely restored to the queen’s favour, that he obtained a grant from her majesty of the manor of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, which had been alienated from the see of Salisbury by bishop Caldwell, and was doubtless one of those church- lands, for accepting which he was censured, as mentioned above. During his disgrace he projected the discovery and conquest of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana, in South America; and, sending first an old experienced officer to collect information concerning it, he went thither himself jn 1595, destroyed the city of San Joseph, and took the Spanish governor. Upon his return, he mote a discourse t)f his discoveries in Guiana, which was printed in 1596, 4to, and afterwards inserted in the third volume of Hakluyt’s voyages, in Birch’s works of Ralegh, and in Mr. Cayley’s late “Life of Ralegh.” His second attempt on Guiana was conducted by Lawrence Keymis, who sailed in Jan. 1596, and returned in June following. An account of this also is to be found in Hakluyt. The same year, sir Walter had a chief command in the Cadiz action, under the earl of Essex, in which he took a very able and gallant part. In the “Island Voyage,” in 1597, which was aimed principally at the Spanish plate-fleets, Ralegh was one of the principal leaders and would have been completely successful, had he not been thwarted by the jealousy and presumption of Essex. This unhappy nobleman’s misfortunes were now coming on and Ralegh, who had long been at variance with him, contributed to hasten his fall, particularly by a most disgraceful and vindictive letter which he wrote to sir Robert Cecil, to prevent his showing any lenity to Essex. Sir E. Brydges, who has lately reprinted this letter, in his elegant memoir of sir Walter Ralegh, observes, that it exhibits an awful lesson for “Ralegh, in this dreadful letter, is pressing forward for a rival that snare by which he afterwards perished himself. He urges Cecil to get rid of Essex! By that riddance he himself became no longer necessary to Cecil, as a counterppise to Essex’s power.” “Then, I have no doubt it was,” adds sir Egerton, “that Cecil, become an adept in the abominable lesson of this letter, and conscious of his minor talents, but more persevering cunning, resolved to disencumber himself of the ascendant abilities, and aspiring and dangerous ambition of Ralegh.” But whatever share \ftalegh had in defeating the designs of Essex, his sun set at queen Elizabeth’s death, which happened March 24, 1602-3.

Upon the accession of king James, he lost his interest at court; was stripped of his preferments, and even accused, tried, and condemned for high treason. Various causes have been assigned for this strange reverse of fortune. In the first place, it has been observed, that the earl of Essex, in his life-time, had prejudiced king James against him and, after the earl’s death, there were circumstances implying, that secretary Cecil had likewise been his secret enemy. For, though Cecil and Ralegh joined against Essex, yet, when he was overthrown, they divided; and when king James came to England, sir Walter presented to him a memorial, in which he reflected upon Cecil in the affair of Essex ', and, vindicating himself, threw the whole blame upon the other. He farther laid open, at the end of it, the conduct of Cecil concerning Mary queen of Scots, his majesty’s mother and charged the death of that unfortunate princess on him which, however, only irritated Cecil the more againstRalegh, without producingany efFecton the king. But, what seems alone sufficient to have incensed the king against Ralegh was, his joining with that party of Englishman, who, jealous of the concourse of Scotchmen who came to court, wished to restrict his majesty in the employment of these his countrymen. We are toid, however, that the king received him for some time with great kindness; but this time must have been short, for on July 6, 1603, he was examined before the lords of the council at Westminster, and returned thence a private prisoner to his own house. He was indicted at Staines, September 21, and not long after committed to the Tower of London; whence he was carried to Winchester, tried there November 17, and condemned to die. That there was something of a treasonable conspiracy, called “Ralegh’s plot,” against the king was generally believed yet it never was proved that he was engaged in it and perhaps the best means to prove his innocence may be found in the very trial upon which he was condemned; in which the barbarous partiality and foul language of the attorney-general Coke broke out so glaringly, that he was exposed for it, even upon the public theatre. After this, Ralegh was kept near a month at Winchester, in daily expectation of death; and that he expected nothing less, is plain from an excellent letter he wrote to his wife, which is printed among his Works.

He was however reprieved, and committed prisoner to the Tower of London, where he lay many years, his lady living with him, and bringing him a second son, named Carew, within the year. His estate was at first restored to him, but taken again, and given to the king’s minion Robert Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. Ralegh found a great friend in Henry, the king’s eldest son, who laboured to procure him his estate, and had nearly effected it; but, that hopeful and discerning prince dying in 1612, all his views were at an end. The prince is reported to have said, that “no king but his father would keep such a bird in a cage.” During his confinement, he devoted the greatest part of his time to reading and writing, and indeed the productions, of his pen at this time are as many, a if original writing and compilation had been the whole pursuit of his life. His writings have been divided into poetical, epistolary, military, maritimal, geographical, political, philosophical, and historical. But, however excellent these miscellanies are allowed by others to be written, he considered them as trivial amusements compared to his grand work “The History of the World;” the first volume of which was published in 1614, folio, and extends to the end of the Macedonian empire. As to a report respecting the second volume of this history, which, it is said, he burned because the first had sold so slowly that it had ruined his bookseller, it is scarcely worth notice; for it appears that there was a second edition of it printed by the same bookseller, within three years after the first. According to his own evidence, he had certainly planned a second and third volume; but was persuaded to lay them aside by the death of prince Henry, to whose use they were dedicated, and the course of his life afterwards left no room for a labour of this magnitude. Of the “History” it has been said, that the design was equal to the great-ness of his mind, and the execution to the strength of his parts, and the variety of his learning. His style is pure, nervous and majestic; and much better suited to the dignity of history, than that of lord Bacon. Ralegh seems to have written for posterity, Bacon for the reign of James I. This admirable work of Ralegh has been thought a just model for the reformation of our language, yet is now little read or consulted.

Some have fancied, that the merit of this work procured his releasement from the Tower; but there seems little foundation for that opinion, since king James is known to have expressed some dislike to it. It is more likely that the king’s hopes from the mine-adventure to Guiana produced this effect; and accordingly we find sir Walter at large, after twelve years confinement, in March 1616. In August he received a commission from the king to go and explore the golden mines at Guiana. It is said that he was offered a formal pardon for Too/, but this he declined, by the sdvice of sir Francis Bacon, who said, “Sir, the knee-timber of your voyage is money. Spare your purse in this particular; for upon my life you have a sufficient pardon for all that is past already the king having, under his broad seal, made you admiral of your fleet, and given you power of martial law over your officers and soldiers.” Sir Walter set off from Plymouth July 1617 but his design, being by some secret means betrayed to the Spaniards, was defeated and, his eldest son Walter being killed by the Spaniards at St. /Thome, the town was burnt by captain Keymis, who, being reproached by Sir Walter for his ill conduct in this affair, committed suicide. On this, the Spanish ambassador Gundomar making heavy complaints to the king, as if the peace had been broken between Britain and Spain, a proclamation was published immediately against Ralegh and his proceedings, threatening punishment in an exemplary manner. Notwithstanding this, Ralegh, who landed at Plymouth in July 1618, and heard that the court was exasperated by the Spanish ambassador, firmly resolved to go to London. In this, however, he was anticipated by being arrested on his journey thither and finding, as he approached, that no apology could save him, repented of not having made his escape while he had it in his power. He attempted it indeed after ie was confined in the Tower, but was seized in a boat upon the Thames. It was found, however, that his life could not be touched for any thing which had been done at Guiana: therefore a privy seal was sent to the judges, forthwith to order execution, in consequence of his former attainder.

This manner of proceeding was thought extrajudicial at first; but at length he was brought, October 28, to the king’s bench bar at Westminster, and there asked, if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded? To this he said, that “he hoped the judgment he received to die so long since could not now be strained to take away his life; since, by his majesty’s commission for his late voyage, it was implied to be restored, in giving him power as marshal upon the life and death of others:” repeating the words of sir Francis Bacon. Notwithstanding this, sentence of death was passed upon him; and he was beheaded the next day, Thursday Oct. 29, 1618, in Old Palace-yard, when he suffered with great magnanimity. To some who deplored his misfortunes, he observed, that “the world itself is but a larger prison, out of which some are daily selected for execution.” When brought up for sentence, he had an ague fit, to which he now alluded, when on the scaffold, informing the spectators, that as he was the day before taken out of his bed in a strong fit of a fever, which much weakened him, if any disability of voice or dejection of countenance should appear in him, they would impute it rather to the disorder of his body than any dismayedness of mind. He concludes his speech with these words “And now I intreat, that you will all join with me in prayer to the great God of Heaven, whom I have grievously offended, being a man full of all vanity, who has lived a sinful life in such callings as have been most inducing to it; for I have been a soldier, a sailor, and a courtier, which are courses of wickedness and vice that his Almighty Goodness will forgive me; that he will cast away my sins from me, and that he will receive me into everlasting life. So I take my leave of you all, making my peace with God.”

The mode of his execution is thus related “Proclamation being made, that all men should depart the scaffold, he prepared himself for death, giving away his hat and cap and money to some attendants, who stood near him. When he took leave of the lords and other gentlemen, he intreated the lord Arundel to desire the king, that no scandalous writings to defame him might be published after his death; concluding, ‘I have a long journey to go; therefore must take leave.’ Then having put off his gown and doublet, he called to the headsman to shew him the axe which not being suddenly done, he said, ‘ I pr’ythee let me see it dost thou think that I am afraid of it?‘ Having fingered the edge of it a little, he returned it, and said smiling to the sheriff, ’ This is a sharp medicine, but it is a sound cure for all diseases’ and having intreated the company to pray to God to assist him and strengthen him, the executioner kneeled down and asked him forgiveness, which Ralegh, laying his hand upon his shoulder, granted. Then being asked, which way he would lay himself on the block, he answered, * So the heart be right, it is no matter which way the head lies.' - As he stooped to lay himself along, and reclined his head, his face being towards the east, the executioner spread his own cloak under him. After a little pause, he gave the sign, that he was ready for the stroke, by lifting up his hand, and his head was struck off at two blows, his body never shrinking nor moving. His head was shewed on each side of the scaffold, and then being put into a red leather bag, with his velvet night-gown thrown over it, was afterwards conveyed away in a mourning coach of his lady’s. His body was interred in St. Margaret’s Westminster; but his head was preserved by his family many years. The sacrificing such a man to the will of the court of Spain, a power detestable for the attempt of the armada, and contemptible by its defeat, has ever since been mentioned with general indignation. Burnet, speaking of certain errors in James I.'s reign, proceeds thus:” Besides these public actings, king James suffered much in the opinion of all people, by his strange way of using one of the greatest men of that age, sir Walter Ralegh; against whom the proceedings at first were censured, but the last part of them was thought both barbarous and illegal.“Arid a little farther:” the first condemnation of him was very black; but the executing him after so many years, and after an employment that had been given him, was counted a barbarous sacrificing him to the Spaniards."

Sir Walter’s death gave such disgust to the people, that the king published a declaration, in justification of the measure, which only increased the odium naturally generated by such highly disgraceful acts. But that the pleasure of Spain, and that only, was the cause, was confessed by one of the ministers, who wrote to Cottingham, our agent then in Spain, desiring him to represent to that court, “in how many actions of late, his majesty had strained upon the affections of his people, and especially in this last concerning sir Walter Ralegh,” whose character Cottingham was likewise desired to magnify, that Spain might see at what price James was willing to purchase her favour.

Sir Walter was tall, to the height of six feet, well shaped, and not too slender; his hair of a dark colour, and full; and the features and form of his face such as they appear before the last edition of his History in 1736. His jaste in dress, both civil and military, was magnificent. Of the latter sort, his armour was so rare, that we are told part of it was for its curiosity preserved in the Tower: and his civil wardrobe was richer, his clothes being adorned with jewels of great value. The truth is, the richness of his apparel was made matter of reproach to him; but, though he was undoubtedly pleased with the distinction, he was far from making it the end of his ambition: for, how much he excelled in arms abroad, counsel at home, and letters in general, history and his own writings have made sufficiently notorious. One great blot on his character we have already noticed. He was naturally ambitious, and he was bred in a school where scruples as to the means of gratification were not yet taught.

His works may be divided into classes, according to Oldys’s arrangement, 1. “Poetical: including his poems on Gascoigne’s Steel-Glass; The Excuse; The silent Lover; the Answer to Marloe’s Pastoral; with his poems of Cynthia, and two more on Spenser’s Fairy-Queen; The Lover’s Maze; a Farewei to Court; The Advice; which last three are printed in an old” Collection of several ingenious Poems and Songs by the wits of the age,“1660, in 8vo; another little poem, printed in the London Magazine for August 1734; several in the Ashmolean library at Oxford, namely,” Erroris Responsio,“and his” Answer, to the Lie,“&c. three pieces written just before his death, viz. his Pilgrim; his” Epigram in allusion to the Snuff' of a Candle,“and his Epitaph, printed in his” Remains.“There is likewise ascribed to him a satirical Elegy upon the death of the lord treasurer Cecil, earl of Salisbury, printed by Osborne in his Memoirs of king James, and said to be our author’s by Shirley in his Life of Ralegh, p. 179. Of his poems, a beautiful and correct, but limited edition, has lately been published by sir E. JBrydges, with a memoir of his life, written with the taste and feeling which distinguish all the productions of that gentleman’s pen. 2. Epistolary: viz. Letters, eight-and-twenty of which Mr. Oldys tells us he has seen in print and manuscript. 3. Military: these discourses relate either to the defence of England in particular, or contain general arguments and examples of the causes of war among mankind. On the former subject he seems to have drawn up several remonstrances, which have but sparingly and slowly come to light. However, as he had a principal hand in the determinations of the council of war for arming the nation when it was under immediate apprehensions of the Spanish invasion, there is reason to believe that he was the author of a treatise concerning” Notes of Direction“for such” Defence of the Kingdom,“written three years before that invasion. To this treatise was also joined a cc Direction for the best and most orderly retreat of an army, whether in campaign or straits.” And these were then presented in manuscript to the privy-council. One advice is, that since frontier forces are unlikely to prevent an enemy from landing, if they should land through the deficiency or absence of our shipping (for this is the force which Ralegh was ever for having first used against such foreign invasions) it were better by driving or clearing the country of provisions, and temporizing, to endeavour at growing stronger, and rendering the enemy weaker, than to hazard all by a confused and disorderly descent of the populace to oppose the first landing, as their custom was formerly. But this was one of the chief points, which a little before the approach of the Spanish armada was opposed by Thomas Digges, esq. muster-master-general of the queen’s forces in the Low Countries, in a “Discourse of the best order for repulsing a foreign Force,” &c. which he then published. This occasioned an Answer, which having been found in an old manuscript copy among others of sir Walter Ralegh’s discourses, and several circumstances agreeing with the orders in the council of war, as well as some passages in his “History of the World,” and his other writings, it was published by Nathaniel Booth, of Gray’s Inn, esq. at London, 1734, in 8vo, under this title: “A Military Discourse, whether it be better for England to give an invader present battle, or to temporize and defer the same,” &c. But Ralegh’s opinion upon this subject is more fully given in his Discourses of the original and fundamental cause of natural and necessary, arbitrary and customary, holy and civil wars; which, though published several years after his death, have sufficient marks of authenticity. 4. Maritimal: viz. his “Discourse of the invention of shipping,” &c. printed among his essays in 1650, in 8vo; his “Observations and Notes concerning the Royal Navy and Sea-service,” dedicated to prince Henry, printed likewise among his essays; his Letter to that prince concerning the model of a ship, printed among his Remains; his “Report of the truth of the Fight about the isles of Azores,” printed in 1591, in 4to, and reprinted by Hakluyt, vol. It.; his Relation of the Action at Cadiz, already mentioned; and his “Memorial touching Dover Port,” printed in a pamphlet, entitled “An Essay on ways and means to maintain the Honour and Safety of England,” published by sir Henry Sheers in 1701, in 4to. Sir Walter, in the introduction to his “Observations and Notes concerningthe Royal Navy and Sea-service,” men* tions a “Discourse of a maritimal voyage, with the passages and incidents therein,” which he bad formerly written to prince Henry; and in his “History of the World” he takes notice of another treatise, written to the same prince, “Of the art of War by Sea;” “a subject to my knowledge,” says he, “never handled by any man, ancient or modern; but God has spared me the labour of finishing it, by the loss of that brave prince; of which, like an eclipse of the sun, we shall find the effects hereafter.” 5. Geographical; viz. several discourses and papers of his concerning the discovery, planting, and settlement of Virginia, which were formerly in the hands of sir Francis Walsingham “A treatise of the West Indies;” “Considerations on the Voyage for Guiana,” a manuscript containing leaves in 4to, in the library of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and now in the British Museum “Discovery of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana,” pqblished by himself, and mentioned above. His “Journal of his second Voyage to Guiana,” which remains still in manuscript; and his “Apology” for the said voyage. 6. Political viz. “The Seat of Government,” shewing it to be upheld by the two great pillars of civil justice and martial policy; “Observations concerning the causes of the magnificency and o'pulency;” “The Prince; or Maxims of State,” printed at London, 1642, in 4to. Wood says that it is the same with “Aphorisms of State,” published by John Milton at London, in 1661, in 8vo. “The Cabinet-Council, containing the chief arts of Empire, and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. published by John Milton, esq. London, 1658, 8vo. In the second edition at London, 1692, 8vo, it is entitled “The Arts of Empire and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. “The Spaniard’s Cruelties to the English in Havanria” his “Consultation about the Peace with Spain” and our protecting the Netherlands, in manuscript. “The present state of Spain, with a most accurate account of his catholic majesty’s power and rights also the names and worth of the most considerable persons in that kingdom,” in manuscript; which seems to be a different piece from “The present state of Things, as they now stand between the three kingdoms, France, England, and Spain,” also in manuscript; “A Discourse on the Match propounded by the Savoyan between the lady Elizabeth and the prince of Piedmont,” and another on that “between, prince Henry of England and a daughter of Savoy,” both in manuscript “A Dialogue between a Jesuit and a i\ecusarit shewing how claugv rous their principles are to Christian Princes,” published by Philip Ralegh, esq. among jour author’s genuine Remains, at the end of an Abridgment of his History of the World, London, 1700, in 8vo; “A Dialogue between a counsellor of state and a justice of peace,” better known in the printed copies by the title of the “Prerogative of Parliaments,” dedicated to king James, and printed at Midelburge, 1628, in 4to, and reprinted in 1643 in 4to A “Discourse of the words Law and Right,” jn manuscript in the, Ashmolean library “Observations touching Trade and Commerce with the Hollander and other nations, as it was presented to king James; wherein is prqve.d, that our sea and land commodities serve to enrich and strengthen other countries against our own” printed in 1653, in 12mo. But it is doubtful whether this tract was written by our author. 7. Philosophical viz. “A treatise of the Soul” in manuscript in the Ashmolean library, His “Sceptic,” or Speculations printed among his Remains. “Instructions to his Son and Posterity,” 1632, in J2mo; and to this is subjoined “The dutiful Advice of a Joving Son to his aged Father:”. a treatise of “Mines, and the trial of Minerals;” and a “Collection of chymical and medicinal Receipts;” both which are in manuscript, 8. Jiistorical: viz. his “History of the World,” the best edition of which is that by Oldys, 1736, fol. with a life. Dr. Birch published a collection of his “Miscellaneous Works,” including most of the above, 1748, in 2 vols. 8vo. Mr. Cayley has lately published a very elaborate life of sir Walter, which includes every information as yet procurable, respecting this very extraordinary and unfortunate man.

His son, Carew, incidentally noticed above, was born in the Tower of London, in 1604, and was edupated at Wadham college, Oxford, After spending five years in the university he went to court; but meeting with no encouragement there, his friend, the earl of Pembroke, advised him to travel, as he did till the death of James, which happened about a year after. On his return he petitioned Parliament to restore him in blood; but, while this was under consideration, the king sent for him, and told him that he had promised to secure the manor of Sherborn to the lord Digby, it having been given by king James to that nobleman on the disgrace of Carr earl of Somerset. Mr. Ralegh, therefore, was under the necessity of complying with the royal pleasure, and to give up his inheritance. On this submission an act was passed for his restoration, a pension of 400l. a year was granted to him after the death of his mother, who had that sum paid during life in lieu of her jointure. About a year after this he married the widow *of sir Anthony Ashley, by whom he had two sons and three daughters, and soon after he was made one of the gentlemen of the king’s privy chamber. In 1645 he wrote a vindication of his father against some misrepresentations which Mr. James Howel had made relative to the mine-affair of Guiana. After the death of the king he again applied to Parliament for a restoration of his estate; but was not successful, although he published, in order to enforce the necessity of his claim, “A brief relation of sir Walter Ralegh’s Troubles.” In 1656 he printed his *' Observations on Sanderson’s History of king James," which were replied to by that historian with considerable asperity. In 1659, by the favour of General Monk, Mr. Ralegh was appointed governor of Jersey. King Charles II. would have conferred some mark of favour upon him, but he declined it. His son Walter, however, received the honour of knighthood from that monarch. Mr. Ralegh died in 1666, and was buried in his father’s grave at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Anthony Wood says that he had seen some sonnets of his composition, and certain ingenious discourses in ms.

, an eminent English divine in the seventeenth century, was second son of sir Carew Ralegh (elder brother of the celebrated sir Walter Ralegh.) His mother was relict of sir John Thynne, of Longleate, in Wiltshire, and daughter of sir William Wroughton, viceadmiral under sir John Dudley (afterwards duke of Northumberland) in the expedition against the Scots in 1544. He was born at Downton, in Wiltshire, in 1586, and educated in Winchester-school, whence he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, of which he became a commoner in Michaelmas term, 1602. In June 1605, he took the degree of B. A. and in June 1608, that of master and being a noted disputant, was made junior of the public act the same year, in which he distinguished himself to great advantage. About that time he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to William earl of Pembroke, in whose family he spent about two years, when he was collated by his lordship to the rectory of Chedzoy, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in the latter end of 1620. Being settled here, he married Mary, the daughter of sir Richard Gibbs, and sister of Dr. Charles Gibbs, prebendary of Westminster. He was afterwards collated to a minor prebend in the church of Wells, and to the rectory of Streat, with the chapel of Walton in Wiltshire. About the time of the death of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, which happened in 1630, he became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I, and by that title was created D. D. in 1636. January the 13th, 1641, he was admitted dean of Wells on the death of Dr. George Warburton. During the rebellion he was sequestered on account of his loyalty, and afterwards treated with the utmost barbarity. It being his month to wait on the king as his chaplain, the committee of Somersetshire raised the rabble, and commissioned the soldiers to plunder his parsonage-house at Chedzoy and in his absence they seized upon all his estate spiritual and temporal, drove away his cattle and horses, which they found upon his ground, and turned his family out of doors. His lady was forced to lie two nights in the corn-fields, it being a capital crime for any of the parishioners to afford them lodging. After this she went to Downton, in Wiltshire, the seat of sir Carew Ralegh, where her husband met her. The king’s party having had some success in the West, Dr. Ralegh had an opportunity to return to his family, and resettle at Chedzoy but the parliament party soon gained the ascendant by the defeat of the lord Goring, and he was obliged to take refuge at Bridgewater, then garrisoned by the king. Here he continued till that town was surrendered to Fairfax and Cromwell, when he was taken prisoner, and after much severe usage set upon a poor horse, with his legs tied under the belly of it, and so carried to his house at Chedzoy, which was then the head -quarters of Fairfax and Cromwell and being extremely sick through his former ill treatment, obtained the favour of continuing prisoner in his own house. But as soon as the generals marched, Henry Jeanes, who was solicitous for his rectory of Chedzoy, and afterwards succeeded him in it, entered violently into the house, took the doctor out of his bed, and carried him away prisoner with all his goods. His wife and children were exposed to such necessities, that they must have perished if colonel Ash. had not procured them the income of some small tenements, which the doctor had purchased at Chedzoy, After this Dr. Ralegh wa& sent prisoner to Ilchester, the county-gaol; thence to Banwell-house, and thence to the house belonging to the deanery in Wells, which was turned into a gaol and here, while endeavouring to secrete a letter which he had written to his wife, from impertinent curiosity, he was stabbed by David Barrett, a shoe-maker of that city, who was his keeper, and died of the wound October 10, 1646, and was interred on the 13th of the same month before the dean’s stall, in the choir of the cathedral of Wells. His papers, after his death, such as could be preserved, continued for above thirty years in obscurity, till at last coming into the hands of Dr. Simon Patrick (afterwards bishop of Ely) he published them at London, 1679, in 4to, under this title: “Reliquiae Raleghanae, being Discourses and Sermons on several subjects, by the reverend Dr. Walter Ralegh, dean of Wells, and chaplain in ordinary to his late majesty king Charles the First.” This editor tells us, that “besides the quickness of his wit and ready elocution, he was master of a very strong reason which won him the familiarity and friendship of those great men -who were the envy of the last age, and the wonder of this, the lord Falkland, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Chillingvvorth the last of which was wont to say (and no man was a better judge of it than himself) that Dr. Ralegh was the best disputant that ever he met withal; and indeed there is a very great acuteness easily to be observed in his writings, which would have appeared more if he had not been led, by the common vice of those times, to imitate too far a very eminent man (meaning, perhaps, bishop Andrews) rather than follow his own excellent genius.” He is said to have been a believer in the millenium, or reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, and to have written a book on that subject, which is lost. In 1719 the rev. Lawrence Howell published at Lond. 8vo, “Certain Queries proposed by Roman catholics, and answered by Dr. Walter Ralegh,” &c. which appears to be authentic.