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

In 1791, on the death of Tillet, he was admitted a member of the academy of sciences, and on the abolition of the academy, he was chosen one of the original members of the national institute which was substituted in its place. In 1792 he went to La Fere to assist at the trials of a new kind of gunpowder. Being obliged to spend the greatest part of the day in the open air, in a cold raw day, his health, naturally delicate, was considerably impaired. But he had gradually recovered almost completely, when he fell a sacrifice to the science to which he had devoted the whole of his attention. He breathed at different times, and during long periods, oxyiruriatic acid gas. The consequence was a consumption, which wasted him rapidly, and at last carried him off on the 21st July 17.V7, in the thirty-sixth year of his age.

Short as the period of his life was, the services which he rendered to chemistry were by no means inconsiderable. His analyses are always precise, and his dissertations written with that perspicuity which marks the clear thinker, and the master of his subject. His fondness for the science was extreme; he continued his labours to the very last, and even on his death-bed spoke of them with satisfaction. His constitution was always weak, and his character marked with timidity; but his mind was remarkably active, and his conduct irreproachable.

, one of the few who have been able to unite attention to business, with the love and cultivation of letters, was born at Paris in 1630, and bred to the law, but always in strict intimacy with Boileau, Bignon, Lamoignon, and the other great men of his time. He was first counsellor of the Châtelet, then in the parliament, afterwards president of the fourth chamber of requests, and next Prévôt des Marchands. To this place he was nominated in 1668, and signalized his situation there by building a quay at Paris, which still retains his name. Being much approved in this office, be was appointed in 1683 to succeed the famous Colbert in that of controllergeneral of the finances. He held this place only six years, after which he resigned it, and in 1697 retired from court entirely, to lead a life of meditation and devotion. He died in August 1711, at the age of eighty-one. Though the life of Pelletier was so much occupied by business, he either produced or was concerned in several publications. 1. Extracts and Collections from the fathers, the ecclesiastical writers, and from scripture, made with great judgment, in several volumes, 12mo. 2. Editions of the “Comes Theologus,” and “Comes Juridicus,” of Peter Pithou, who was his maternal great grandfather. 3. “Comes Senectutis,” and 4. “Comes Rusticus,” both in 12mo, and written in imitation of the former works of Pithou, consist chiefly of the thoughts of various authors. 5. The best edition of the Body of Canon Law, in Latin, with the notes of Peter and Francis Pithou, in 2 vols, fol. 6. An edition of the Observations of Peter Pithou on the Code and on the Novellae.

, a celebrated French physician, born at Mans in 1517, was eminent also as a scholar, and became principal of the colleges of Bayeux and Mans at Paris, where he died in 1582. His writings have not retained all the estimation which they possessed in his time; but they are numerous. 1. Commentaries on Euclid, written in Latin, 8vo. 2. “De dimensione circuli,” Basil. 1563, fol. 3. “Disquisitiones Geometricae,” Lugd. 1567, 8vo, with some other works of this kind. 4. “Dialogue de POrtografe e prononciacion Frangoase,” Lyon, 1555, 8vo, in which, as may be seen by the title, he proposes to write words as they are pronounced; a theoretical improvement, but attended with too many difficulties in practice to b& adopted in any country. Mr. "James Elphinston made similar attempts, with similar success, in England. 5. Two or three collections of very bad poetry. 6. A description of Savoy. 7. A translation of Horace’s Art of Poetry. 8. A French Art of Poetry written in prose. He published also on his own profession, 9. A small treatise in Latin, on the Plague. And 10. A Concordance of several passages in Galen, with some detached treatises, 1559, one vol. 4to.

, a learned German divine and reformer, was born Jan. 8, 1478, at Ruffach, in Alsatia. His family name was Kursiner, or Kirsner, but the name Pellican, which means the same thing in Latin as Kirsner in German, and is in neither very significant, was given him by his maternal uncle. Pellican began his studies at Ruffach in his sixth year, and under an excellent master, who inspired him with a love for literature; yet his difficulties were many, as, among other hindrances, he was obliged to write down every thing taught him, printing being then in its infancy, and no elementary treatise had issued from the press. His maternal uncle already mentioned, who lived at Heidelberg, and had often been rector of the university, hearing of the progress his nephew made in his studies, sent for him to that seminary, where he applied to the belles lettres and logic for about sixteen months, which was probably as long as his uncle could afford to maintain him. He returned therefore in Sept. 1492 to his parents, who were poor, and could give him little support, but got some employment as assistant to a schoolmaster, and had, what was then of great importance to him, the power of borrowing books from the convent of the Cordeliers. His frequent visits for this purpose brought on an acquaintance with those holy fathers, who conceived a very high opinion of Pellican, now in his sixteenth year, and appear to have found little difficulty in persuading him to enter their order, which accordingly he did in January 1493, but against the consent of his relations. He then commenced his theological studies, and in the following year was admitted to the order of subdeacon. In 1496, at the request of his uncle, he was sent to Tubingen, and recommended to Paul Scriptor, a very learned professor of philosophy and mathematics, under whom he profited much, and who conceived a great affection for his pupil. In 1499, meeting with a converted Jew, who was now one of his own order, Pellican expressed his wish to learn Hebrew, and with the assistance of this Jew accomplished the elementary part, although not without great difficulty. Melchior Adam mentions his enthusiastic joy on receiving the loan of a part of the Bible in Hebrew. Reuchlin, who came to Tubingen in 1500, gave Pellican some assistance in this language; and with this, and other helps, certainly very difficult to be procured at that time, and by indefatigable industry, he at length acquired such knowledge of it, as to be accounted, after Reuchlin, the first Hebrew scholar in Germany.

In 1501, in his twenty-third year, he was ordained priest, and the following year he was appointed to teach theology in the convent of his order at Basil, and he likewise 'gave lectures on philosophy and astronomy. After remaining here for six years, he was in 1503 sent to Ruffach to. teach the same branches, and had Sebastian Munster for one- of his pupils in Hebrew and astronomy. In 1511 he was chosen guardian of the convent of Pfortzheim, where he taught theology until 1514, when Caspar Sazger, provincial of his order, engaged him as his secretary; and as this office required his attendance on the provincial in all his journeys, Pellican had many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the learned of his time, and particularly of transcribing from the libraries whatever might add to his stock of oriental and biblical literature, which appears now to have been the fixed object of his studies. On his return from Rouen, where he had been to assist at a chapter, he stopped three months at Basil, with leave of the provincial, to superintend an edition of the Psalter in four languages, which Froben had then at press.

Melchior Adam is rather prolix in his account of Pellican’s journeys with the provincial, little of which is interesting. It appears to have been in 1519 that he was appointed guardian at Basil, and where he met with the writings of the illustrious Luther, which, some say, converted him to the protestant faith; but it would be more correct to say that they served to confirm him in certain sentiments which he had for some time entertained, and was now so little afraid of avowing, that in 1522 he was accused of Lutheranism in a chapter of his order. By what means he defended himself we are not told, but it was with such success, that he obtained permission for some of the ablest of the students and preachers to read the works of Luther. The following year the provincial Sazger paying a visit at Basil, the professors of the university and some of the canons tendered complaints against Pellican and others, as being Lutherans, and contributing to the circulation of Luther’s works. Sazger was for deposing them, but the senate would not admit of it, and said that, if he obliged Pellican and his friends to leave the city for this cause, they, the senate, would take care to send every one of the order after them. Sazger took the hint, and left Basil, where Oecolampadius and Pellican being put into the situation of those professors who had been their accusers, Pellican entered on a course of lectures on the Bible, which formed the foundation of the commentaries he afterwards published in several volumes folio, from 1533 to 1537.

Pellican continued professor at Basil until 1526, when Zuinglius invited him to Zurich in the name of the senate of that city, to teach Hebrew. Although he had been for three years explaining the Hebrew Bible, yet he was modest enough to doubt his abilities for this office, and would have declined it had not his friends represented to him how much more effectually he might promote the reformation at Zurich than at Basil, where he was already in some danger from the enemies of the new principles. Accordingly he consented, and at Zurich thivw off the clerical dress he had usually worn for thirty-three years; and, as was generally done by the reformers, entered into the married state with a lady, who died ten years after (in 1536, when he married a second time). He continued to execute the office of professor of Hebrew at Zurich until his death, April 1, 1556, in the seventy-eighth year of his age.

Pellican was a man of extensive learning, and particularly an able biblical critic. His skill in the languages, and his critical talents, made his services of great importance in the publication of various works. Amerbach, the printer, employed him on the works of St. Augustine published in 1506, in 9 vols. folio; and he executed many translations, particularly of the Bible, or parts of it, the Chaldee paraphrases, &c. His works are said to have been published together in 7 volumes, folio; but, although they may amount, including his commentaries, to that number, there is no such collective edition.

, a French academician, and a man of genius, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family, and born at Beziers in 1624. His mother, who was left a widow very young, brought him up in the protestant religion, and sent him to Castres to learn the belles lettres of Morns, or More, a learned Scotsman, who was principal of a college of the protestants at that place, and father of the famous Alexander More. At twelve years of age he was removed to Montaubon to study philosophy; and thence to Toulouse, where he applied himself to the law. He acquired a good knowledge of the Latin, Greek, Spanish, and Italian languages; but his love for the belles lettres did not make him neglect the law, which he studied so diligently as to publish, when he was not quite one-and-tweiuy, “A Commentary upon the Institutes of Justinian,” Paris, 1645, 12mo. Some little time after he went to Paris, where the celebrated Conrart, to whom he had been recommended by the protestants of Castres, introduced him to the gentlemen of the academy who assembled at his house; but Pellisson soon returned to Castres, the residence of his family, and applied himself to the business of the bar. He had excited the admiration of all about him, and was going on in a most flourishing way, when the small-pox seized him, and disfigured his countenance so much that his friend mademoiselle de Scudery told him he had abused the common liberty of men to be ugly. Having come to Paris a second time, he had contracted a friendship for this ladv, and for many years, it is said, they did not fail either to see or write to each other every day. In 1652 he became secretary to the king; and the same year read his “History of the French Academy, from its establishment in 1635 to 1652,” to that society, who were so well pleased with it that they decreed him the first vacant place in the academy, and that, in the mean time, he should be empowered to come to all their meetings, and give his vote as an academician; with a proviso, however, that the like favour could not hereafter be granted to any person, upon any consideration whatever. This work of PtJlisson, which has always been reckoned a master-piece, was printed at Paris, 1653, in 8vo.

Fouquet, the celebrated superintendant of the finances, who well knew his merit and talents, made him his first clerk and confidant in 1657; and Pellisson, though much to his injury, always preserved the sincerest attachment to him. Two years after, he was made master of the accounts at Montpelier, and had scarcely returned from that place to Paris, when the disgrace of his patron Fouqnet involved him in much trouble, and in 1661 he was sent to the Bastile, and confined there above four years. Though a very strict watch was set over him, he found means to correspond with his friends, and even with Fouquet himself, from whom he also received letters. He used his utmost endeavours, and employed a thousand arts to serve this linister; and he composed in his behalf three famous pleadings, which, Voltaire says, “resemble those of the Roman orator the most of any thing in the French language. They are like many of Cicero’s orations a mixture of judicial and state affairs, treated with an art void of ostentation, and with all the ornaments of an affecting eloquence.” In the mean time, the public was so convinced of his innocence, and he was so esteemed in the midst of his misfortunes, that Tanaquil Faber dedicated his edition of Lucretius to him; and the very day that leave was given to see him, the duke de Montausier, and other persons of the first distinction, went to visit him in the Bastile. He was set at liberty in 1666; and, two years after, had the honour to attend Louis XIV. in his first expedition against the United Provinces, of which he wrote a history. In 1670 he abjured the protestant religion, for which, it is said, he was prepared, during his imprisonment, by reading books of controversy. Voltaire says, “he had the good fortune to be convinced of his errors, and to change his religion at a time when that change opened his way to fortune and preferment.” He took the ecclesiastical habit, obtained several benefices, and the place of master of the requests. The king settled on him a pension of 6000 livres; and, towards 1677, entrusted him with the revenues of some abbeys, to be employed in converting the protestants. He shewed great zeal in this work; but was averse to harsh measures. He published “Reflexions surles differens de la Religion” a new edition of which came out in 1687, augmented with an “Answer to the objections from England and Holland,' 7 in the same language. He employed also his intervals of leisure, for many years, in writing a large controversial volume upon the sacrament; but did not live to finish it, and the world has probably lost little by it. What he wrote on religious subjects does little credit to his pen. Even when he died, which was on Feb. 7, 1693, his religion was a matter of dispute; both papists and protestants claiming him for their own, while a third party thought he had no other religion than what he found necessary at court. He wrote some other works than those mentioned, both in prose and verse, but they have not been in request for many years. A selection, indeed, was published lately (in 1805), at Paris, somewhat in the manner of the compilations which appeared in this country about thirty years ago, under the name of” Beauties."

, an historical writer, was born Oct. 17, 1694, at Leipsic, but his family were originally of Lyons. Being appointed preceptor to the prince de Montbelliard’s son, with whom ho spent the years 1712 and 1713, at Geneva, he had an opportunity of attending Messrs. Turretin and Pictet’s theological lectures; and M. Lenfant, whose pupil he also was, consecrated him to the service of the altar. He became pastor of the French church at Berlin, counsellor to the Upper Consistory, member and librarian of the academy, and died 1757, aged sixty-three. His “Histoire des Celtes,” printed in Holland, 1740, and 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo, was reprinted at Paris, 1770, 3 vols. 12mo, or 2 vols. 4to, and is esteemed a work of accuracy and merit.

, a learned physician, mathematician, and mechanist, was born at London, in 1694. After studying grammar at a school, and the higher classics under Mr. John Ward, afterwards professor of rhetoric at Gresham college, he went to Leyden, and attended the lectures of the celebrated Boerhaave, to qualify himself for the profession of medicine. Here also, as well as in England, he constantly mixed with his professional studies those of the best mathematical authors, whom he contemplated with great effect. From hence he went to Paris, to perfect himself in the practice of anatomy, to which he readily attained, being naturally dexterous in all manual operations. Having obtained his main object, he returned to London, enriched also with other branches of scientific knowledge, and a choice collection of mathematical books, both ancient and modern, from the sale of the valuable library of the abbe Gallois, which took place during his stay in Paris. After his return he assiduously attended St. Thomas’s hospital, to acquire the London practice of physic, though he seldom afterwards practised, owing to his delicate state of health. In 1719 he returned to Leyden, to take his degree of M. D where he was kindly entertained by his friend Dr. Boerhaave. After his return to London, he became more intimately acquainted with Dr. Mead, sir I. Newton, and other eminent men, with whom he afterwards cultivated the most friendly connexions. Hence he was useful in assisting sir I. Newton in preparing a new edition of his “Principia,” in writing an account of his philosophical discoveries, in bringing forward Mr. Robins, and writing some pieces printed in the 2d volume of that gentleman’s collection of tracts, in Dr. Mead’s * Treatise on the Plague," and in his edition of Cowper on the Muscles, &c. Being chosen professor of physic in Gresham-college, he undertook to give a course of lectures on chemistry, which was improved every time he exhibited it, and was publisned in 1771, by his friend Dr. James Wilson. In this situation too, at the request of the college of physicians, he revised and reformed their pharmacopoeia, in a new and much improved edition. After a long and laborious life, spent in improving science, and assisting its cultivators, Dr. Pemberton died in 1771, at seventy-seven years of age.

Besides the doctor’s writings above-mentioned, he wrote numerous other pieces; as, 1. “Epistola ad Amicum de Cotesii inventis;” demonstrating Cotes’ s celebrated theorem, and showing how his theorems by ratios and logarithms may be done by the circle and hyperbola. 2. “Observations on Poetry,” especially the epic, occasioned by Glover’s “Leonidas.” 3. “A plan of a Free State, with a King at the head:” not published. 4. “Account of the ancient ode printed in the preface to West’s Pindar.” 5. “On the Dispute about Fluxions; in the 2d vol. of Robins’ works. 6.” On the Alteration of the Style and Calendar.“7.” On reducing the Weights and Measures to one standard.“8.” A Dissertation on Eclipses. 9. “On the Loci Plani,” &c. His numerous communications to the Royal Society, on a variety of interesting subjects, extend from the 32d to the 62d vol. of the Philos. Trans. He also carried on a long controversy with Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, i. e. Dr. Jurin, in “The Works of the Learned,” vols. for 1737, 1738, and 1739.

After his death, many valuable pieces were found among his papers, viz. A short History of Trigonometry, from Menelaus to Napier. A Comment on an English translation of Newton’s Pi incipia. Demonstrations of the Spherics and Spherical Projections, enough to compose a treatise on those subjects. A Dissertation on Archimedes’ s Screw. Improvements in Gauging. In a given latitude to find the point of the Ecliptic that ascends the slowest. To find when the Oblique Ascension differs most from the arch to which it belongs. On the principles of Mercator’s and Middle-latitude sailing. To find the HeJiacal Rising of a Star. To compute the Moon’s Parallax. To determine the Course of a Cornet in a Parabolic Orbit. And others, all neatly performed. On the whole, Dr. Pemberton appears to have been a clear and industriout author, but his writings are too diffuse and laboured.

, a learned divine, was born, according to Fuller, in Sussex, but more probably at Egerton, in Kent, in 1591, and was educated at Magdalen college, Oxford, on one of the exhibitions of John Baker, of Mayfield, in Sussex, esq. Wood informs us that having completed his degree of bachelor by determination, in 1613, he removed to Magdalen-hall, where he became a noted reader and tutor, took the degree of M. A. entered into orders, was made divinity reader of that house, became a famous preacher, a well-studied artist, a skilful linguist, a good orator, an expert mathematician, and an ornament to the society. “All which accomplishments,” he adds, “were knit together in a body of about thirtytwo years of age, which had it lived to the age of man, might have proved a prodigy of learning.” As he was a zealous Calvinist, he may be ranked among the puritans, but he was not a nonconformist. He died while on a visit to his tutor, Richard Capel, who was at this time minister of Eastington, in Gloucestershire, in the thirty-second year of his age, April 14, 1623. His works, all of which were separately printed after his death, were collected in 1 vol. fol. in 1635, and reprinted four or five times; but this volume does not include his Latin works, “De formarum origine;” “De Sensibus internis,” and “Enchiridion Oratorium,” Bishop Wilkins includes Pemble’s Sermons in the list of the best of his age.

, a celebrated mathematician, who descended from an illustrious family of Aix, was born at Moustiers, in the diocese of Riez, in Provence, in 1530. He studied the belles lettres under Ramus, but is said to have afterwards instructed his master in mathematics, which science he taught with great credit in the royal college at Paris. He died Aug. 23, 1560, aged thirty. M. Pena left a Latin translation of Euclid’s “Catoptrica,” with a curious preface, and also employed his pen upon that geometrician’s other works, and upon an edition of the “Spherica” of Theodosius, Greek and Latin, Paris, 1558, 4to, c.

, a learned judge, was born in Moorfields, May 16, 1675, and, as the anonymous author of his life says, was baptised by the name of Thomas son of Thomas Pengelly; but others have supposed that he was a natural son of Richard Cromwell the protector, For this supposition we find no other foundation than that Cromwell, who lived very privately in the neighbourhood, had known Mr. Pengelly from his youth, afterwards kept up a friendship with him, and died at his seat at Cheshunt, in August 1712. Mr. Pengelly was brought up to the bar, and becoming eminent in his profession, was made a serjeant May 6, 1710; knighted May 1, 1719, and in June following appointed his majesty’s prime Serjeant at law, on the decease of sir Thomas Powis. He sat as member for Cockermouth, in Cumberland, in the parliaments called in 1714 and 1722. He was made chief baron of the exchequer Oct. 16, 1726, on the death of sir Jeffery Gilbert; and his conduct on the bench corresponded with the high reputation he had acquired at the bar. He died of an infectious fever, caught at Taunton assizes, April 14, 1730. He excelled in profound learning, spirit, justice, and generosity, and dared to offend the most powerful, if he thought their conduct reprehensible. He was a florid, yet convincing orator, an excellent judge, a pious Christian, and an accomplished, sprightly companion. By a humane codicil in his will, dated in 1729, he left a considerable part of his fortune to procure the discharge of persons confined for debt, which was accordingly done by his executor Mr. Webb. There is a copy of this will published in his life, but the name of his residuary legatee is for some reason omitted. The anonymous history of Oliver Cromwell, first printed in 1724, has been supposed to have been written by him, but this is doubtful. It has been also attributed to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London.

, a writer of considerable estimation among the people called Quakers, was the son of an alderman of London during Cromwell’s time, who was lord mayor in 1642, and appointed one of the judges on the trial of the king. For this he was at the restoration prosecuted, and died in the Tower. Isaac the son, was born about 1617, and in his education is said to have had the advantages which the schools and universities of his country could give; but what school or university had the honour of his education, is not mentioned. From his father’s station, we are told, he had a reasonable prospect of rising in the world, but chose a life devoted to religion and retirement; and, as he has himself said, received impressions of piety from his childhood. He is represented by himself and his sect, as one who passed much of the early part of his life in a state of spiritual affliction, perceiving in himself, and in the world at large, a want of that vital religion and communion with the divine nature, which he believed the holy men of ancient time to have possessed. Whatever he read in the Scripture, as opened to his understanding, he determined fully to practise, and was contented to bear the reproach, opposition, and suffering which it occasioned. It appears also, that he met with opposition from his relations, and, among the rest, from his father; but he declares that his heart was preserved in love to them amidst all he suffered from them. On his first hearing of the Quakers, he thought them a poor, weak, and contemptible people, although, while his judgment seemed to reject them, the conferences which he occasionally had with them, seemed to increase his secret attachment. At length, in 1658, he became fully satisfied respecting them, partly through the preaching of George Fox; and became himself an unshaken and constant asserter of their peculiar tenets, as a minister and author.

He married about 1648 Mary Springett, a widow, whose daughter, by her former husband, became the wife of William Penn. He resided on his own estate, called the Grange, at Chalfont, in Buckinghamshire. It does not appear that he travelled much as a minister; for of six imprisonments which he suffered, during the reign of Charles II. five were in his own county. The first was in 1661, when the nation was alarmed on account of the fifth monarchy men, which occasioned much disturbance to the meetings of Dissenters. He was taken from a meeting in his own family, and committed to Aylesbury gaol, where, although a weakly man, he was kept for seventeen weeks (great part of which was in winter) in a cold room without a fire-place, by which means he became unable to turn himself in bed. In 1664, he was again taken out of a meeting, and remained a second time prisoner in the same gaol for nearly the same time. In 1665, he was taken up at Amersham as he was attending the corpse of a friend to the burial-ground of the Quakers. The concourse of that people who walked after it in the street, seems to have been construed into a conventicle, for he was committed to Aylesbury gaol for one month only, on the Conventicle Act, in order to banishment. It is remarkable that the justice, because it was not then convenient to end him from Amersham to Aylesbury, dismissed him on his word to come iigain the next day but one, when he accordingly casne, and was committed: as did on the samft occasion several other Quakers. The same year he was arrested in his house by a soldier without a warrant, and carried before a deputy-lieutenant, by whom he was again sent to his old quarters at Aylesbury; and, though the pestilence was suspected to be in the gaol, and no crime was laid to his charge, he was kept there till a person died of it. After about nine months’ confinement he was discharged; but when he had been at home about three weeks, a party of soldiers came and seized him in bed, carrying him again to prison at Aylesbury. The cold, damp, and unhealthiness of the room, again gave him a fit of illness, which lasted some months. At length he was brought by Habeas Corpus to the bar of the King’s-bench, and (with the wonder of the court that a man should be so long imprisoned for nothing) he was discharged in 1668. During one of these imprisonments his estate was seized, and his wife and family turned out of his house.

In 1670, he was imprisoned a sixth time. He was visiting some of Ins friends, confined at that time in Readinggaol; on which he was taken before a justice and confined there himself. Kllwood relates, that during this confinement, which lasted a year and nine months, he incurred a premunire, as did many of the Quakers. For being from time to time examined at the assizes, it was common to tender them the o;tli of allegiance, which they refusing, from their scruple to swear at all, they became criminals in the view of \[\e law when they went out of court, however innocent they might have been on their coming in. It seems probable, that the political principles of the father had some share in occasioning the sufferings of the son; v\ho, from his writings, appears to have been of a meek and quiet spirit. He died at Goodnestone-courr, Sussex, in 1679, being about sixty-three years of age. Ell wood says, that his disposition was courteous and affable his ordinary discourse cheerful and pleasant, neither morose nor light, but innocently sweet, and tempered wuh such a serious gravity, as rendered his conversation both delightful and profitable. His numerous writings were collected into one volume folio, and published 1681; afterwards reprinted in two volumes 4to, and next in 4 vols. 8vo. Some select pieces have also been reprinted, and lately, some of his letters, 1796, in octavo; many of them, are dated from Aylesbury. They breathe a spirit of genuine philanthropy, but, being deeply tinctured with mysticism, have been more sought for by such as are fond of that species of writing, than by other readers.

, afterwards sir William Penn, knt. admiral of England, and one of the commanders at the taking of Jamaica, was born at Bristol in 1621, of an ancient family. He was addicted from his youth to maritime affairs; and before he had reached his thirty-second year, went through the various promotions of captain; rear-admiral of Ireland; vice-admiral of Ireland; admiral to the Straits; vice-admiral of England; and general in the first Dutch war, and commander in chief under the duke of York, in the signal victory over the Dutch in 1665, on which occasion he was knighted. On his return he was elected into parliament for the town of Weymouth; in 1660, commissioner of the admiralty and navy, governor of the fort and town of Kinsale, vice-admiral of Murtster, and a member of that provincial council. He then took leave of the sea, but still continued his other employments till 1669; when, through bodily infirmities, he withdrew to Wanstead in Essex, and there died in 1670. Though he was thus engaged, both under the parliament and king, he took no part in the civil war, but adhered to the duifes of his profession. Besides the reputation of a great and patriot officer, he acquired credit for having improved the naval service in several important departments. He was the author of several little tracts on this subject, some of which are preserved in the British Museum. The monument erected to his memory by his wife in RadclifFe church, Bristol, contains a short account of his life and promotions. But in Thurloe’s State Papers there are minutes of his proceedings in America, not mentioned on his monument, which he delivered to Oliver Cromwell’s council in Sept. 1655. He arrived at Portsmouth in August, and thence wrote to Cromwell, who returned him no answer: and, upon his first appearing before the council, he was committed to the Tower, for leaving his command without leave, to the hazard of the army; but soon after discharged.

, the son of the preceding, was born in the parish of St. Catherine, near the Tower of London, Oct. 14, 1644. He was sent to school at Chigwell in Essex, which was near his father’s residence at Wanstead; and afterwards, in his twelfth year, to a private school on Tower-hill; and he had also the advantage of a domestic tutor. Penn relates, in a conference he had with some religious persons on the continent, that “the Lord,” as he expresses it, “first appeared to him about the twelfth year of his age; and that, between that and the fifteenth, the Lord visited him, and gave him divine impressions of himself.” Wood informs us, that during the time of Penn’s residence at this school at Chigwell, “being retired in a chamber alone, he was so suddenly surprized with an inward comfort, and (as he thought) an external glory in the room, that he has many times said how from that time he had the seal of divinity and immortality; that there was a God, and that the soul of man was capable of enjoying his divine communications.” It appears, that before this time, he had been impressed by the preaching of one Thomas Loe, a quaker, but no particulars of the circumstance are known; it is however incidentally mentioned, that it was by the same person that he was afterwards confirmed in his design of uniting himself with that sect.

In 1660, he was entered a gentleman-commoner at Christchurch, Oxford where, although he is said to have taken great delight, at the times of recreation, in manly sports, he, with some other students, withdrew from the national forms of worship, and held private meetings, where they both preached and prayed among themselves. This gave great offence to the heads of the college, and Penn, at the age of sixteen, was fined for nonconformity; but, having then a degree of that inflexibility, where he thought himself right, which he shewed on subsequent occasions, he not only persisted in his religious exercises, but in his zeal joined a party who tore in pieces the surplices of every student whom they met with one on: an outrage so flagrant, that he was expelled from the college.

On his return home his lot was not more easy. His father, observing his delight to be in the company of sober and religious people, such as in the gay and licentious reign of Charles II. was more likely to prevent, than to promote, his rising in the world, endeavoured by severity to divert him from his purpose. Penn, as he relates himself, was whipped, beaten, and finally turned out of doors, in 1662. The father, however, either relenting, or hoping to gain his point by other means, sent his son to Paris, in company with some persons of quality who were travelling that way. In France he continued some time, and returned so well skilled in the language, and in the embellishments of a polite behaviour, that he was joyfully received by his father. During his residence in Paris he was assaulted in the street one evening by a person with a drawn sword, on account of a supposed affront; but, among other accomplishments of a gay man, he had become so good a swordsman as to disarm his antagonist. In one of his writings he very rationally condemns this barbarous practice, reflecting how small a proportion the omission of a piece of respect bears to the loss of life; which in this case might have been consequent upon the rencounter.

After his return from France, he was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, with the view of studying the law, and continued there till the memorable year 1665, when the plague raged in London. In 1666, his father committed to him the care of a considerable estate in Ireland, which occasioned him, for a time, to reside in that kingdom. At Cork he was informed, by one of the people called Quakers, that Thomas Loe, whose preaching had affected him so early in life, was shortly to be at a meeting in that city. To this meeting he went. It is said that Loe, who preached in the meeting, began his declaration with these words: “There is a faith that overcomes the world, and there is a faith that is overcome by the world.” The manner in which Loe enlarged upon this exordium is not known; but the effect was the conviction of young Penn, who afterwards constantly attended the meetings of the Quakers, notwithstanding all obstacles. The year after his arrival in Ireland he was, with many others, taken from a meeting at Cork, and carried before the mayor, by whom he was committed to prison; but was soon released, on application to the earl of Orrery. This was his first imprisonment, at which time he was about twenty-three years of age; and it tended to strengthen the ties of his union with a people whom he believed to suffer innocently. His father, understanding his attachment to the Quakers, remanded him home; and though there was yet no great alteration in his dress, yet his serious deportment evincing the religious state of his mind, confirmed the fears of his father, and gave occasion to a species of conflict between them not easily described. The father felt great affection for an accomplished and dutiful son, and ardently desired the promotion of his temporal interests, which he feared would be obstructed by the way of life he had embraced. The son was sensible of the duty he owed to his parent, and afflicted in believing that he could not obey him but at the risk of his eternal welfare. At length the father would have compounded with the son, and suffered him to retain the simplicity of his manners to all others, if he would consent to be uncovered before the king, the duke (afterwards James II.), and himself. Penn desired time to consider of this requisition; and having employed it in fasting and supplication, in order, as he conceived, to know the divine will, he humbly signified to his father that he could not comply with it. After this, the father being utterly disappointed in his expectations, could no longer endure the sight of his son, and a second time drove him from his family. In this seclusion he comforted himself with the promise of Christ, to those who leave house or parents for his sake. His support, outwardly, was the charity of his friends, and some supplies privately sent him by his mother; but, by degrees, his father, becoming convinced of his integrity by his perseverance, permitted him to return to the family; and, though he did not give him open countenance, he privately used his interest to get him released, when imprisoned for his attendance at the Quakers’ meetings.

In 1668, he first appeared both as a minister and an author among the Quakers. We shall not pretend to give the titles of all his numerous tracts. His first piece has this title, which is very characteristic of the man “Truth exalted, in a short but sure testimony against all those religions, faiths, and worships, that have been formed and followed in the darkness of apostacy; and for that glorious light which is now risen and shines forth in the life and doctrine of the despised Quakers, as the alone good old way of life and salvation; presented to princes, priests, and people, that they may repent, believe, and obey. By William Penn whom Divine love constrains, in an holy contempt, to trample on Egypt’s glory, not fearing the king’s wrath, having beheld the majesty of him who is invisible.” The same year, on occasion of a dispute with Thomas Vincent, a Presbyterian, Penn wrote his “Sandy foundation shaken which occasioned him to be imprisoned a second time in the Tower of London, where he remained about seven months; and from which he obtained his release also, by another book entitled” Innocency with her open face,“in which he vindicated himself from the charges which had been cast on him for the former treatise. In the Tower also he wrote his famous” No Cross no Crown,“or rather, probably, the first edition of it, of which the title was different. It may be esteemed his master-piece, and contains a strong picture of Christian morality. The complete title is,” No Cross, no Crown; a Discourse, shewing the nature and discipline of the holy Cross of Christ; and that the denying of Self, and daily bearing of Christ’s Cross, is the alone way to the Rest and Kingdom of God. To which are added, the living and dying testimonies of many persons of fame and learning, both of ancient and modern times, in favour of this treatise.“It has gone through several editions, and has been lately translated into French. After his release, he again visited Ireland, where his time was employed, not only in his father’s business, but in his own function as a minister among the Quakers, and in applications to the government for their relief from suffering; in which application he succeeded so well, as to obtain, in 1670, an order of council for their general release from prison. The same year he returned to London, and experienced that suffering from which his influence had rescued his friends in Ireland. The Conventicle-act came out this year, by which the meetings of Dissenters were forbidden under severe penalties. The Quakers, however, believing it their religious duty, continued to meet as usual; and when sometimes forcibly kept out of their meeting-houses, they assembled as near to them as they could in the street. At one of these open and public meetings in Gracechurchstreet, Penn preached, for which he was committed to Newgate, his third imprisonment; and at the next session at the Old Bailey, together with William Mead, was indicted for- 4 * being present at, and preaching to an unlawful, sed-tious, and riotous assembly.” He pleaded his own cause, made a long and vigorous defence, though menaced and ill treated by the recorder, and was finally acquitted by the jury, who first brought in a verdict of “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-street;” and when that was not admitted, a verdict of “Not guilty.” He was, nevertheless, detained in Newgate, and the jury fined. The trial was soon after published, under the title of “The People’s ancient and just liberties asserted, in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead, at the Sessions held at the Old Bailey in London, the st, 3d, 4th, and 5th of September, 1670, against the most arbitrary procedure of that Court/' This trial is inserted in his works, and at once affords a proof of his legal knowledge and firmness, and of the oppression of the times. The pretence for the detention of Penn in Newgate was for his fines, which were imposed on him for what was called contempt of court: but he was liberated by his father’s privately paying these fines. His paternal kindness now seems to have returned, and flowed abundantly; for he died this year, fully reconciled to his son, and left him in possession of a plentiful estate: it is said, about 1,500l. per annum. Penn, in his” No Cross, no Crown,“p. 473, edit. xiii. 1789), has collected some of his father’s dying expressions; among which we find this remarkable one, in the mouth of a man who had so much opposed the religious conduct of his son” Son William 1 let nothing in this world tempt you to wrong your conscience: 1 charge you, do nothing against your conscience. So will you keep peace at home, which will be a feast to you in a day of trouble."

Near this time he held a public dispute at Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, with a Baptist teacher, concerning the universality of the divine light. He also wrote a letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford, on account of the abuse which his friends suffered there from the junior scholars. And during his residence this winter at Penn, in Buckinghamshire, he published his “Seasonable Caveat against Popery,” though it was the religion of the queen and of the heir-apparent. This has been brought to prove the unreasonableness of the clamour that was afterwards raised against him, that he favoured Popery: an aspersion to which Burnet gave some ear, but which Tillotson retracted. Near the close of the year, he was led to his fourth imprisonment. A serjeant and soldiers waited at a meeting until he stood up and preached; then the serjeant arrested him, and he was led before the lieutenant of the Tower, by whom, on the act for restraining nonconformists from inhabiting in corporations, he was again committed, for six months, to Newgate. During his confinement, he wrote several treatises; and also addressed the parliament, which was then about to take measures for enforcing the Conventicle Act with greater severity. Shortly after the release of Penn from this imprisonment, he travelled, in the exercise of his ministry, in Holland and Germany. Few particulars of this journey are preserved; but it is alluded to in the account of a subsequent one which he published.

In 1672, he married Guliehna Maria Springett, whose father having been killed at the siege of Bamber, in the civil wars, and her mother having married Isaac Penington of Chaifont, Bucks, in his family (which was a place of general resort for Quakers in that county) Gulielma had her education, and probably became acquainted with Penn. After his marriage he resided at Rickmansworth, in Hertfordshire. The same year he wrote several controversial pieces; and, among the rest, one against Muggleton. In this employment, about this time, he seems to have spent much of his leisure. In 1674, he ventured to write to the king, complaining of the severity of some justices, and others, to the Quakers; and some time after he presented to the king, and to both houses of parliament, a book entitled “The continued Gry of the oppressed for Justice; giving an account of the cruel and unjust proceedings against the persons and estates of many of the people called Quakers.” In 1675 he held a public dispute near Rickmansworth, with the famous Richard Baxter.

In 1677, in company with George Fox and Robert Barclay, he again set sail on a religious visit to the Continent. He travelled by Rotterdam, Leyden, and Haerlem, to Amsterdam, at which place, hearing of a persecution of the Quakers at Dantzick, he wrote to the king of Poland an expostulatory letter on their behalf. He then, after some further stay at Amsterdam, proceeded by Osnabrug to Herwerden, or Herford, the residence of the princess Elizabeth, daughter of the king of Bohemia, and granddaughter of James I.

It may not be amiss to mention, that the manner in which the ministers of the people called Quakers travel in the business of their ministry is simply this: Having a view of the country in which they believe themselves divinely required to minister, they proceed from place to place, according as their minds feel disposed, by the touches of the same influence which they conceived to have drawn them from their habitations. Their employment is visiting the meetings, and often the families of their friends and sometimes appointing move public meetings for the information of persons of other societies, whom also they visit, at their duty or inclination leads them. This seems to have been the case with Pcnn and his companions, whose principal business at HerwerJen was in visiting the princess and her family. She received them with great readiness, and they remained four days at her town, in which time they had many religious opportunities, both for worship and conference, with her and in her house, one of which was open to the inhabitants of the town. On leaving Herwerden, he took a circuit in Germany, by Cassel, Francfort, Chrisheim, Manheim, Mentz, Cologne (called by himself Cullen), Mulheim, Wesel, Cleve, and Nimeguen; and returned to Amsterdam in less than a month after he had loft it. After staying about three days, he again left it, and went by Horn, Worcum, Harlingen, Leenwarden, Lippenhus, Groningen, Embden, and Bremen, to his hospitable friend the princess Elizabeth at Herwerden; whence, after another stay of about four days, a second circuit brought him to Amsterdam; and from Holland he returned home, by Harwich and London, to his wife and family at Werminghurst, in Sussex. He concludes the narrative of his journey in thvse words: “I had that evening (viz. of his return) a sweet meeting among them, in which God’s blessed power made us truly glad together: and I can say, truly blessed are they who can cheerfully give up to serve the Lord. Great shall be the increase and growth of their treasure, which shall never end. To Him thai was, and is, and is to come; the eternal, holy, blessed, righteous, powerful, and faithful One; be glory, honour, and praise, dominion, and a kingdom, for ever and ever, Amen.” Marty remarkable circumstances occur in his account of the journey, particularly the religious sensibility and contrition of mind evinced by the princess, and by her friend and companion, Anna Maria, countess of Homes. But we must refer to Penn’s own account, which is in his works, and also separately extant. At the time of his return, and before his entering on this journey, his residence was at Werminghurst, in Sussex, an estate, probably, of his wife’s.

About the time of his return from the continent, his friends the Quakers, among other methods used at that time to harass them, were vexed by laws which had been made against Papists, and penalties of twenty pounds a month, or two-thirds of their estates (Stat. 23 and 29 Eliz.) Mr. Penn, on this occasion, presented (as it is said) a petition of the Quakers to each House of Parliament, and was twice allowed to speak on their behalf, in a committee, probably of the Commons, for a bill for the relief of the Quakers soon after passed that house; but, before it had passed the other house, it was set aside by a prorogation of parliament.

In 1681, king Charles, in consideration of the services of his father, the admiral, and of a debt due to him from the crown at his death, which that extravagant monarch had no other means of paying, granted to Penn a province in North America, lying on the West side of the Delaware, called the New Netherlands; but, on this occasion, denominated by the king, in respect to the grantee, Pennsylvania. Penn soon after published an account of the province, with the king’s patent, describing the country and its produce, and proposing easy terms of settlement to such as might be inclined to go thither. He also sent a letter to the native Indians, informing them of his desire to hold his possession, not only by the king’s grant, but with their consent and love, acknowledging the injustice which had been done them by Europeans, and assuring them of his peaceable intentions. He then drew up, in twenty-four articles, “The Fundamental Constitution of Pennsylvania;” and the following year he published the “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.” This having all the attractions of a popular form, and promising unlimited freedom to all religious sects, and, what was most of all agreeable to them, an emancipation from the expences of an established religion, many single persons, and some families, went to the new province. They soon began to clear and improve their lands, and to build a city, which Penn, keeping in view the principle of brotherly love, which is the strength of civil society, named Philadelphia. Commissioners were also appointed to treat with the Indians; and, in: 1682, he visited his newly-acquired territory. At this time he passed about two years in the province, adjusting its interior concerns, and establishing a friendly correspondence with his neighbours; but found it, at the same time, necessary to vindicate himself, in a spirited letter, from the accusation of ambition and the desire of wealth. The following year, 1683, he gave a more full description of Pennsylvania, in “A Letter addressed to the Committee of the Free Society of Traders to that province, residing in London.” He mentions, that two general assemblies had been held, and with such concord and dispatch, that they sat but three weeks, and at least seventy laws were passed, without one dissent in any material point. He also informs the traders, that the assembly had presented him with an impost on certain goods imported and exported; which impost, after his acknowledgments of their affection, he had freely remitted. He also says, after mentioning the establishment of courts of justice, that to prevent law-suits, three peace-makers had been chosen by every county-court, in the nature of common arbitrators. Before he left the province, he addressed an epistle of caution to his friends of the same religious persuasion settled in it; reminding them of the conspicuous station in which they were then placed; being transplanted from oppression, not only to liberty, but to power; and beseeching them to improve the opportunity which God had now put into their hands. Having thus settled his infant colony, he returned to his wife and family in England in 1684. Not many months after the return of Penn from his colony, Charles II. died, and the respect which James II. bore to the late admiral, who had recommended his son to his care, together with that monarch’s personal acquaintance with Penn himself, procured for him a free access at court. He therefore made use of the opportunity, thus afforded him, of soliciting relief for his persecuted friends, the Quakers, fifteen hundred of whom remained prisoners at the decease of Charles II. All this was meritorious; but the rest of Penn’s conduct seems not quite consistent. The nation, at this time, was justly alarmed, as well knowing the king’s inclination to popery; but Penn’s biographers tell us, that he had no such fears. He had long been intimate with the king, and had given credit to the protestations which James had repeatedly made, of his intention to establish liberty of conscience. On his accession, therefore, Penn took lodgings at Kensington; and his ready and frequent reception at court, drew on him the suspicion of being himself a Papist. Burnet, as was hinted before, so far leaned to this opinion, as to mention it in his history, and to declare that Penn was intimate with Petre the Jesuit, and employed by James II. in Holland, in 1686. Burnet also adds the following description of Penn’s character: “He was a talking vain man, who had long been in the king’s favour. He had such an opinion of his own faculty of persuading, that he thought none could stand before it, though he was singular in that opinion; for he had a tedious luscious way, that was not apt to overcome a man’s reason, though it might tire his patience.” Burnet, therefore, was evidently no friend to Penn. But much of this tediousness and egotism may be proved from Penn’s works. Tiilotson had the same suspicions as Burnet; and having mentioned them publicly, Penn, by letter, inquired of him, if he had really spread the report of his being a Papist? In this letter Penn has these words, among others: “I abhor two principles in religion, and pity them that own them: obedience upon authority, without conviction; and, destroying them that differ from me for God’s sake.” Tiilotson, in reply, mentions the ground of his suspicion; namely, that he had heard of Penn’s corresponding with some persons at Rome, and particularly with Jesuits; but professes his particular esteem of Penn’s parts and temper, and says not a word of his intimacy with Petre, who was in England which, had it subsisted, as both were public men at court, Tiilotson must have known In reply, Penn. declared that he held no correspondence with any Jesuit, priest, or regular, in the world, of the Romish communion, and even that he knew not one any where; declaring himself to be a Christian whose creed was the Scripture. In conclusion, Tiilotson declared himself fully satisfied, and, as in that case he had promised, he heartily begs pardon of Penn. The correspondence may be seen at length in Penn’s Works*. In this year, 1686, he published “A Persuasive to Moderation to Dissenting Christians, &c. humbly submitted to the king and his great council;” soon

to popery is scarcely worth contend- and flattering and caressing him, had,

successful in vindicating his consist- in all the annals of courtly trick and

ency in other matters. That Penn was artifice, there cannot be found an innot a papist is admitted; but he re- stance more striking than Penn’s injoiced in that toleration of king James terview with the president and fellows

sion of popery and papists into all our Wilmot’s Life of bishop Hough. - The

public establishments, schools, and se- fellows seem indeed to have felt the

measures, he must have been the dupe hints prevailed, and that they left him

self; and the truth appears to have the cause of conscience, which had

been that he was the dupe, either of the been the boast of him and his secy king, or of his own vanity and interest. after which came out the king’s proclamation for a general pardon; which was followed, the next year, by his suspension of the penal laws. Penn presented an address of the Quakers on this occasion. He also wrote a book ort occasion of the objections raised against the repeal of penal laws and test; and, the clamour against him continuing, he was urged to vindicate himself from it, by one of his friends, Mr. Popple, secretary to the Plantation -office, which he did in a long reply, dated 1688. But he had now to cope with more powerful opponents than rumour. The revolution took place, and an intimate of James was of course a suspected person. As he was walking in Whitehail, he was summoned before the council then sitting; and, though nothing was proved against him, he was bound to appear the first day of the following term; but, being continued to the next on the same bail, he was then discharged in open court: nothing being laid to his charge. In the beginning of 1690, he was again brought before the council, and accused of corresponding with James. They required bail of him as before; but he appealed to the king himself, who, after a long conference, inclined to acquit him; nevertheless, at the instance of some of the council, he was a second time held a while to bail, but at length discharged. Soon after this, in the same year, he was charged with adhering to the enemies of the kingdom, but proof failing, he was again cleared by the court of King’s-bench. Being now, as he thought, at liberty, he prepared to go again to Pennsylvania, and published proposals for another settlement there; but his voyage was prevented by another accusation, supported by the oath of one William Fuller (a man whom the parliament afterwards declared to be a cheat and impostor); upon which a warrant was granted, for arresting him, and he narrowly escaped it, at his return from the burial of George Fox. Hitherto he had successfully defended himself; but now, not choosing to expose his character to the oaths of a profligate man, he withdrew from public notice, till the latter part of 1693; when, through the mediation of his friends at court, he was once more admitted to plead his own cause before the king and council; and he so evinced his innocence, that he uas a fourth time acquitted. He employed himself in his retirements in writing. The most generally known production of his seclusion, bears the title of '“Fruits of Solitude, in Reflections and Maxims relating to the conduct of human life;” and another not less valued by his sect is his “Key, &c. to discern the difference between the religion professed by the people called Quakers, and the perversions, &c. of their adversaries, c.” which has gone through twelve editions at least. Not long after his restoration to society, he lost his wife, which affected him so much, that he said all his other troubles were nothing in comparison of this; and he published a short account of her character, dyr?g expressions, and pious end. The following year, he appeared as the eulogist of Geor.ge Fox, in a long preface to Fox’s Journal, then published. The preface, giving a summary account of the people whom Fox had been so much the means of uniting, has been several times printed separately, under the title of “A brief Account of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers.” It has passed through many editions in English, two in French, and has been translated into German by A. F. Wenderborn. The same year he travelled as a minister in some of the western counties; and in the next, we find him the public advocate of the Quakers to parliament, before whom a bill was then depending /for their ease in the case of oaths. In the early part of 1696, he married a second Wife, and soon after lost his eldest son, Springett Penn, who appears, from the character given to him by his father, to have been a hopeful and pious young man, just coming of age. The same year he added one more to his short tracts descriptive of Quakerism, under the title of “Primitive Christianity revived,” &c. and now began his paper cpntroversy with the noted George Keith, who from a champion of Quakerism, and the intimate of Barclay, had become one of its violent opponents. Keith’s severest tract accuses Penn and his brethren of deism. In 1697, a bill depending in parliament against blasphemy, he presented to the House of Peers, “A Caution requisite in the consideration of that Bill” wherein he advised that the term might be so defined, as to prevent malicious prosecutions under that pretence. But the bill was dropped. In 1698, he travelled as a preacher in Ireland, and the following winter resided at Bristol. In 1699, he again sailed for his province, with his wife and family, intending to make it his future residence; but, during his absence, an attempt was made to undermine proprietary governments, under colour of advancing the king’s prerogative. A bill for the purpose was brought into parliament, but the measure was postponed until his return, at the intercession of* his frienrls; who also gave him early information of the hostile preparations, and he arrived in England the latter part of 1701. After his arrival, the measure was laid aside, and Penn once more became welcome at court, by the death of king William, and the consequent acce>sion of queen Anne. On this occasion, he resided once more at Kensington, and afterwards at Knightsbridge, till, in 1706, he removed to a convenient house about a mile from Brentford. Next year he was involved in a law-suit with the executors of a person who had been his steward; and, though many thought him aggrieved, his cause was attended with such circumstances, as prevented his obtaining relief, and he was driven to change his abode to the rules of the Fleet, until the business was accommodated; which did not happen until the ensuing year. It was probably at this time, that he raised 6,600l. by the mortgage of his province.

After a lite of almost constant activity and employment, he found, at the age of sixty -five, that the infirmities of age began to visit him, and to lessen his abilities for travelling with his wonted alacrity; yet, in the year 1709, he visited the west of England, and some counties nearer his residence in the metropolis. But at length, in 17 1O, finding the air near the city not to agree with his declining constitution, he took a handsome seat at Rushcomb, near Twyford, in Berkshire, at which he continued to reside to the time of his decease. In 1712, he had, at distant times, three fits, thought to be of the apoplectic kind. The last of these impaired his understanding and memory, so much as to render him unfit for public action afterwards. His friend, Thomas Story, an eminent Quaker, who had been the first recorder of the corporation of Philadelphia, made him annual visits after this time, to his death. In 1713 and 1714, he found him cheerful, and able to relate past transactions, but deficient in utterance, and recollection of the names of absent persons. In 1715, his memory seemed further decayed; but both in this, and the former year, Story relates, that he continued to utter in the Quakers’ meeting at Heading, short, but sound and sensible expressions. This year he also tried, but without benefit, the effect of the waters at Bath. In 1716, he seemed glad to see his friend, and at parting with him and another, he said, “My love is with you. The Lord preserve you, and remember me in the everlasting covenant.” In 1717, he scarce knew his old acquaintance, or coud wajk without leading. His decease was on the 30th of July, 1718, and his interment the 5th of the next moch, at Jordan, near Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. Without attempting to draw up a regular character of William Pdin, it must be evident from his works, that he was a man of abilities; and, from his conduct through life, that hewas a man of the purest conscience. This, without acceling to his opinions in religion, we are perfectly willing to How and to declare.

, an eminent traveller, naturalist, and antiquary, was born June 14, 1726, at Downing, in Flintshire, the seat of his family for several generations. He was the son of David Pennant, and his mother was the daughter of Richard Mytton of Halston. He was educated first at Wrexham, then at Mr. Croft’s school at Fulham, and last at Queen’s and Oriel colleges, Oxford, where, however, he took no degree, but was complimented with that of LL.D. in the year 1771, long after he had left the university.

A present of the ornithology of Francis Willoughby, made to him at the age of twelve, gave him a taste for that study, and a love for natural history in general, which he afterwards pursued with constitutional ardour, and great reputation; to such small matters do men of talents sometimes owe their prevailing bias. In 1746-7, he made a tour into Cornwall, where he contracted a strong passion for minerals and fossils. The first production of his which appeared in print, though unknown to himself, was an abstract of a letter which he wrote to his uncle, John Myuon, esq. on an earthquake which was felt at Downing, Apr 2, 1750. This appeared in the Philosophical Transacons. In 1754, he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, an honour which he resigned in 1760. Acordng to his own account, his foresight at this time was small. “I had,” says he, “married a most amiable woman my cicumstances were very narrow, my worthy father being alve, and I vainly thought my happiness would have beeo pemanent, and that I never should have been called again froi my retirement to amuse myself in town, or to be of useto the society.”

Previous to this resignation, however, in 1754, he visited Irelnd but such was the conviviality of the country, that his purnal proved as meagre as his entertainment was plemtul, “so it never was a dish fit to be offered to the publtk.” In 1756, he published in the “Philosophical Transations,” a paper on several coralloid bodies he had colleced at Coal brook- dale, in Shropshire. In 1757, at the insance of the celebrated Linnæus, he was elected of the Real Society at Upsal, which he calls the first and greatest of his literary honours. He kept up a correspondence with Linna3us, till age and infirmities obliged the!atte to desist.

In 1761, he began his “British Zoology,” which, when corroletec, consisted of 132 plates on imperial paper, all engraved by Mazel. Edwards, the celebrated ornithologit, conceived at first a little jealousy on this attempt, but t very soon subsided, and they contracted a great intimcy, which ended only with the death of -Mr. Edwards. He Jevoted the profits of the “British Zoology” to the Welsh charity school, in Gray’s inn-lane, London, and suported the far greater part of the expence; but he lost coniderably by it, and the school did not gain so much as it right if the work had been printed in a quarto, instead of darge folio size. But he confesses he was at that time inexperienced in these affairs.

In 1765, he made a short tour to the continent, where he enjoyed the company of the celebrated Buffon, who pubicly acknowledged his favourable sentiments of Mr. Tenant’s studies in the fifteenth volume of his “Natural Hislry.” They had afterwards a dispute on branches of thei respective studies, but, adds our author, “our blows werdight, and I hope that neither of us felt any material inju” At Ferney he visited Voltaire, who happened to be in good humour, and was very entertaining; but in his attempt to speak English, satisfied the visitors that he was master of the oaths and curses which disgrace that language. During this tour, Mr. Pennant visited also baron Haller, the two Gesners, the poets, and Dr. Trew, a venerable patron of natural history, who resided at Nuremberg. At the Hague, he met with Dr. Pallas, and this meeting gave rise to his “Synopsis of Quadrupeds,” and the second edition, under the name of the “History of Quadrupeds,” a, work received by the naturalists of different parts of Europe in a manner uncommonly favourable. Mr. Pennant had proposed this plan to Pallas, but owing to the latter being promoted at the court of Petersburgh, it ultimately devolved on himself. In 1767, after his return, he was elected fellow of the Royal Society. In 1768, his British Zoology was published in two volumes, 8vo, and the bookseller gave Mr. Pennant lOOl. for permission to do so, which he immediately vested in the Welsh charity-school.

In 1769, he added a third volume, in octavo, on the reptiles and fishes of Great Britain. In the fifty-eighth volume of the Philosophical Transactions, was published his account of a new species of Pinguin, brought by captain Macbride, from the Falklantl islands. In the same year, in conjunction with sir Joseph Banks, and Mr. Loten, who had been a governor in one of the Dutch islands in the Indian ocean, he published twelve plates of Indian Zoology, but that work was afterwards discontinued. In the spring of this year, he acquired one whom he calls a treasure, Moses Griffith, to whom the public are indebted for numberless scenes and antiquities, and who accompanied Mr. Pennant in all his journeys except that of the present year, which was his first tour into Scotland. “I had,” says he, “the hardiness to venture on a journey to the remotest part of North Britain, a country almost as little known to its southern brethren as Kamtschatka. I brought home a favourable account of the land. Whether it will thank me or no I cannot say, but from the report I have made, and shewing that it might be visited with safety, it has ever since been inondZe with southern visitants.” This year, also, he was elected fellow of the Royal Academy at Drontheim.

lu 1770, he published 103 additional plates to the British Zoology, with descriptive additions; and in 1771, he printed, at Chester, his “Synopsis of Quadrupeds,” in one vbiu n'e, 8vo. In May of the same year, he was honoi.-ed by the university of Oxford, with the degree of doctor of laws, conferred in full convocation. About the close of the year, he gave to the puhlic his “Tour in Scotland,” in one 8vo volume, ornamented, as all his works are, with plates. A candid account of that country was such a novelty, that the impression was instantly bought up, and in the next yoar another was printed, and as soon sold. In this tour, as in all the succeeding, he laboured earnestly to conciliate the affections of the two nations, so wickedly and studiously set at variance by evil-designing people; and he received several very flattering letters on the occasion. In the Philosophical Transactions of this year, he has an Account of two new species of tortoises.

On May 18, 1772, he began the longest of his journeys in our island. This was his “Second Tour in Scotland, and Voyage to the Hebrides.” “My success,” he observes on this occasion, “was equal to my hopes: I pointed out every thing I thought would be of service to the country: it was roused to look into its advantages; societies have been formed for the improvements of the fisheries, and for founding of towns in proper places: to all which, I sincerely wish the most happy event; vast sums will be flung away; but incidentally numbers will be benefited, and the passions of patriots tickled, I confess that my own vanity was greatly gratified by the compliments paid to me in every corporaced town. Edinburgh itself presented me with its freedom, and I returned rich in civil honours.”

In 1773, he published the 8vo edition of “Genera of Birds,” and performed a tour through the north of England, where his companion Mr. Griffith made a great many drawings of antiquities, &c. several of which were afterwards used by Mr. Grose, in his “Antiquities of England.” In this tour he contracted an acquaintance with Mr. Hutchinson, the historian of Durham, in a singular manner, which we shall give in his own words: “I was mounted on the famous stones in the ciiurch-yard of Penrith, to take a nearer view of them, and see whether the drawing I had procured, done by the rev. Dr. Tod, had the least foundation in truth.” Thus engaged, a person of good appearance, looking up at me, observed “what fine work Mr. Pennant had made with those stones.” I saw he had got into a horrible scrape; so, unwilling to make bad worse, I descended, laid hold of his button, and told him, “I am the man” After his confusion was over, I made a short defence, shook him by the hand, and we became from that moment fast friends." An account of part of this journey, Mr. Pennant left in manuscript, illustrated with drawings by Mr. Griffith. Mr. Pennant performed all his journeys on horseback, and to that he attributed his healthy old age. He considered the absolute resignation of one’s person to the luxury of a carriage, to forebode a very short interval between that, and the vehicle which is to convey us to our last stage.

In 1774, he published a third edition, with additional plates, of his “Tour in Scotland,” in 4to, and his Voyage to the Hebrides in the same size. In the same year, he visited the Isle of Man, and journeyed through various parts of England. In 1775, appeared his third and last volume of the “Tour in Scotland,” performed in 1772. These tours have been translated into German, and abridged in French. In 1777, he published a fourth volume of the “British Zoology,” containing the vcrmes, the crustaceous and testaceous animals of our country.

After several journeys over the six counties of North Wales, in which he collected ample materials for their history, he published the first volume of them in the form of a tour in 1778; and in 1781, the second, under the title of “A Journey to Snowdon.” In the same year a newedition appeared of his “Synopsis of Quadrupeds,” in 2 vols. 4to, with considerable improvements. The liberties which the country gentlemen, in the character of deputylieutenants, and militia-officers, now and then took with their fellow-subjects, urged him about this time to publish “Free Thoughts on the Militia Laws.”

In this year, 1781, he was elected an honorary member of the society of Antiquaries at Edinburgh. In the Philosophical Transactions of the same year, was published his history of the Turkey, which he made appear was a bird peculiar to America, and unknown before the discovery of that continent: also a paper on earthquakes felt in Flintshire. In 1782, he published his “Journey from Chester to London.” In 1783, he was elected a member of the Societas Physiographica, at Lund, in Sweden. In 1784, appeared his “Letter from a Welch Freeholder to his Representative.” The same year he published his “Arctic Zoology,” two volumes, quarto, containing the classes of quadrupeds and birds. This work gave occasion to his being honoured, in the year 1791, by being elected member of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia. In May 1784, he was elected member of the ftoyal Academy of Sciences at Stockholm; and in January 1785, an honorary member of the Edinburgh Society for promoting of natural knowledge; of the Society of Antiquaries at Perth; and the Agricultural Society at Qdiam, in Hampshire. In 1787, he published a Supplement to the Arctic Zoology. As in 1777, he had again married, he discontinued his tours until the spring 1787, when he visited the dockyards, and travelled by land from Dartford, following the coast to the Land’s-end.

Besides these greater works of our author, he at several times gave the public some trifles, which he collected some years ago, and printed for the amusement of his friends, thirty copies at a private press. The principal was his “History of the Patagonians” which, with some others, he gave to the public, along with his “Literary Life.”

In 1790, he published his “Account of London,” the antiquities of which he had studied with great attention. Of fhis work he says, “I had so often walked about the several parts of London, with my note-book in my hand, that I could not help forming considerable collections of materials. The public received this work with the utmost avidity. It went through three large impressions in about two years and a half.” Many additions were made to the second edition.

In 1793, he published his life, under the whimsical title of “The Literary Life of the late Thomas Pennant, Esq. by himself.” In the advertisement he states, that the termination of his authorial existence took place on March 1, 1791. He came to life again, however, in 1797, and published “The History of the parishes of Whiteford and Holywell;” and in the last year of his life, he gave the public his “View of Hindostan,” 2 vols. 4to, for which he thus accounts: “A few years ago I grew fond of imaginary tours, and determined on one to climes more suited to my years, more genial than that to the frozen north. I still found, or fancied that 1 found, abilities to direct my pen. I determined on a voyage to India, formed exactly on the plan of the introduction to the Arctic Zoology, which commences at such parts of the North as are accessible to mortals. 'From London I follow the coasts southt- rn to part of our Island, and from Calais, along the oceanic shores of Europe, Africa, and Asia, till I have attained those of New Guinea. Respecting these I have collected every information possible from books ancient and modern; from the most authentic, and from living travellers of the most respectable characters of my time. I mingle natural history, accounts of the coasts, climates, and every thing which I thought could instruct or amuse. They are written on imperial quarto, and, when bound, make a folio of no inconsiderable size: and are illustrated, at a vast expence, by prints taken from books, or by charts and maps, and by drawings by the skilful hand of Moses Griffith, and by presents from friends. With the bare possibility of the volume relative to India, none of these books are to be printed in my life-time; but to rest on my shelves, the amusement of my advancing age.” Of these manuscripts there were in all twenty-two volumes originally; but Mr. Pennant, as we have mentioned, printed in his life-time that which relates to India. We may add, in his own words, " Happy is the age that could thus beguile its fleeting hours, without injury to anyone; and, with the addition of years, continue to rise in its pursuits.' 7

His useful life at last terminated, Dec. 16, 1798, when he left a private character in all respects irreproachable, as a son, husband, and father. He had great public spirit, and rendered himself eminently useful in his county. In his political principles he was a whig of the old school. His fortune, as well as time, was liberally devoted to learned pursuits. He married first, in 1759, the sister of the late Thomas Falconer, esq, of Chester, and of Dr. Falconer of Bath, by whom he had a son, David, and a daughter; and secondly, in 1777, to miss Mostyn, sister to the late sic Roger Mostyn, who survives him.

Few men have so unceasingly devoted themselves to the promotion of useful knowledge, or published so many volumes, especially on subjects of natural history. His works have been so generally read, and are in such high esteem with the public, that it would be unnecessary in this place to enter into their respective merits. It 'is seldom that works so expensive run through so many editions; but Mr. Pennant had the happy art of relieving the dullest subjects by enlivening and amusing digressions: and his tours and his account of London are distinguished by a fund of anecdote, an easy familiarity of style, and that pleasant turn for research which engages the reader’s attention because it agreeably refreshes his memory, and supplies him with information at a small expence of trouble. Dr. Johnson said of him, when some objections were made to his tours, that “he had greater variety of inquiry than almost any man; and has told us more than perhaps one in ten thousand could have done, in the time that he took.” In 1800, his Son published the third and fourth volumes of “The Outlines of the Globe,” the title which Mr. Pennant gave to his imaginary tours, and which were the continuation of his “View of Hindostan.” This work was accompanied by an elegant tribute to his memory by his affectionate Son, who also published, in the following year, Mr. Pennant’s last work, left by him nearly finished for the press, entitled “A Journey from London to the Isle of Wight,” 4to.

, a native of Florence, where he was born in 1488, was called II Fattore, or the Steward, from having been intrusted with the domestic concerns of Raphael, and soon became one of his principal assistants. He more than any other helped him. in the execution of the cartoons of the Arazzi; and in the Loggie of the Vatican painted the histories of Abraham and Isaac. After the death of his master he executed the fresco of the coronation in the stanza of Constantine. The upper part of the Assumption of the Virgin, a work of Raffaellesque grace, at Monte Lupi, in Perugia, is ascribed to him, though Vasari gives it to Perino del Vaga: the under part with the Apostles is painted by Julio. Of the works which he performed alone, no frescoes, and so few oil-pictures remain, that they may be considered as the principal rarities of galleries. Facility of conception, grace of execution, and a singular felicity in landscape, are mentioned as his characteristics. Penni wished much to unite himself with his coheir Julio, but being coldly received by him at Mantua, went to Naples, where his works and principles might have contributed much toward the melioration of style, had he not been intercepted by death in 1528, in his fortieth year. He left at Naples, with his copy of the Transfiguration, a scholar of considerable merit, Lionarde Afalatesta, or Grazia, of Pistoja. Uc had a brother Lucas, who having a close connection with Perino del Vul;;I, who had married his sister, worked with that master (see Perino) for some years at Genoa, Lucca, and other cities of Italy, with great credit. Afterwards he went to England, and was employed by king Henry VIII. for whom he painted several designs; and was also engaged by some of the merchants of London; but at last he almost entirely quitted the pencil, devoting all his time and application to engraving, as some say, but Mr. Fuseli maintains that he only furnished designs for engravers.

, an English poet, was the son of the rev. Mr. Pen rose, rector of Newbury in Berkshire, a man of high character and abilities, descended from an ancient Cornish family, who died in 1769. He was born in 1743, and being intended for the church, pursued his studies at Christ-church, Oxford, until the summer of 1762, when his eager turn for the naval and military profession overpowering his attachment to his real interest, he left his college, and embarked in the unfortunate expedition against Nova Colonia, in South America, under the command of captain Macnainara. The issue was fatal; the Clive, the largest vessel, was burnt, and although the Ambuscade escaped (on board of which Mr. Penrose, acting as lieutenant of marines, was wounded), yet the hardships which he afterwards sustained in a prize sloop, in which he was stationed, utterly ruined his constitution.

Returning to England, with ample testimonials of his gallantry and good behaviour, he finished at Hertford-college, Oxford, his course of studies; and having taken orders, accepted the curacy of Newbury, the income of which, by the voluntary subscriptions of the inhabitants, was considerable augmented. After he had continued in that station about nine years, it seemed as if the clouds of disappointment, which had hitherto overshadowed his prospects, and tinctured his poetical essays with gloom, were clearing away; for he was then presented by a friend, who knew his worth, and honoured his abilities, to the rectory of Beckington and Standerwick, in Somersetshire, worth near 5001. per annum. This came, however, too late; for the state of Mr. Penrose’s healtfi was now such as left little hope, except in the assistance of the waters of Bristol. Thither he went, and there he died in 1779, aged thirtysix. In 1768 he married miss Mary Slocock of Newbury, by whom he had one child, Thomas, who inherits his father’s genius, taste, and personal worth. He was educated at Winchester and New-college, Oxford, of which he is now B. C. Jl. Mr. Penrose was respected for his extensive erudition, admired for his eloquence, and equally beloved and esteemed for his social qualities. By the poor, towards whom he was liberal to his utmost ability, he was venerated in the highest degree. In oratory and composition his talents were great. His pencil was as ready as his pen, and on subjects of humour had uncommon merit. In 1781 a collection of his “Poems” was published by his friend and relation James Peter Andrews, esq. who prefixed the above account of Mr. Penrose. They are distinguished by 'exquisite feeling and taste. His thoughts are pathetic and natural, and he seems possessed of a great portion of the fire and feeling of Collins. Such poems as “The Carousal of Odin,” “Madness,” and “The Field of Battle,” are among the rare productions of modern genius. That these poems are so little known is unaccountable. Mr. Penrose published two occasional sermons of considerable merit.

, or Ap Henry, commonly known by his assumed name of Martin Mar-prelate, or Alar-priest, was born in 1559 in Wales, and studied first at Peterhouse, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1584, and afterwards at Oxford, in which latter university he took the degree of master of arts, and was ordained a priest. Afterwards, meeting with some dissatisfaction, as it is said, and being very warm in his temper, he changed his religion, and became an Anabaptist, or rather a Brownist. He was henceforward a virulent enemy to the church of England, and the hierarchy of that communion, as appears sufficiently by his coarse libels, in which he has shewn his spleen to a great degree. At length, after he had concealed himself for some years, he was apprehended at Stepney, and tried at the King’s-Bench, before sir John Pophain, chief-justice, and the rest of the judges, where he was indicted and condemned for felony, for papers found in his pocket, purporting to be a petition to the queen; and was executed, according to Fuller, at St. Thomas Waterings, in 1593. It appears, that some violence was put upon the laws, even as they then stood, to form a capital accusation against him. For his libels be could not be accused, the legal time for such an accusation having elapsed before he was taken: the papers upon which he was convicted, contained only an implied denial of the queen’s absolute authority to make, enact, decree, and ordain laws; and implied, merely by avoiding to use those terms, according to the very words of the lordkeeper Puckering. His execution was therefore in a high degree unjust. His chief publications are, 1. “Martin Mar-prelate,” the tract that gave so much offence. 12. “Theses Martinianae,” 8vo. 3. “A view of publicke Wants and Disorders in the service of God, in a Petition to the high court of Parliament,” 1588, 8vo. 4. “An Exhortation to the Governors and People of Wales, to labour earnestly to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them,” 1588, 8vo. 5. “Reformation no Enemy to her Majesty and the State,” 1590, 4to. 6. “Sir Simon Synod’s Hue and Cry for the Apprehension of young Martin Mar-priest, with Martin’s Echo,” 4to. Most of these, and some others, were full of low scurrility and petulant satire. Several tracts, equally scurrilous, were published against him; as, “Pappe with a Hatchet, or a Country Cuffe for the Idiot Martin to hold his Peace;” “X A Whip for an Ape, or Martin displaied;” and others of the same kind. In the composition of these pamphlets, he is said to have had the assistance of John Udall, John Field, and Job Throckmorton, who published their joint effusions at a private printing press. Penry was a man of some learning and zeal for religion, but in his notions of government, both of church and state, appears to have adopted more wild theories than ever his successors, when in power, attempted to carry into practice. His sentence, however, was unjust, and the enemies of the hierarchy have therefore found it no difficult matter to place John Penry at the head of their list of martyrs.

, one of the greatest theoretic musicians of modern times, was born at Berlin about 1667, and became so early a proficient on the harpsichord, that at the age of fourteen he was sent for to court, and appointed to teach the prince, father of the great Frederic king of Prussia, About 1700, he came over to England, and was retained as a performer at Drurylane, and it is supposed that he assisted in composing the operas which were performed there. In 1707 he had acquired English sufficient to adapt ]\iouea,ux’s translation of the Italian opera of “Thomyris” to airs of Scarlatti and Boiioncini, and to new-set the recitatives. In 1709 and 1710, several of his works were advertised in the first edition of the Tatlers, particularly a set of sonatas for a flute and bass, and his first book of cantatas. In 1713 he obtained, at the same time as Crofts, the degree of doctor of music at the university of Oxford. And soon after this, upon, the establishment of a choral chapel at Cannons, he was employed by the duke of Chandos as maestro di capella; in which capacity he composed anthems and morning and evening services, which are still preserved in the Academy of ancient music. In 1715 he composed the masque of “Venus and Adonis,” written by Cibber; and in 1716 “The Death of Dido,” by Booth, both for Drury-lane. These pieces, though not very successful, were more frequently performed that any of his original dramatic compositions. In 1723 he published an ode for St. Cecilia’s day, which he had set for the concert in York-buildings. In 1724 he accepted an offer from Dr. Berkeley to accompany him to the Bermudas, and to settle as professor of music in his intended college there; but, the ship in which they sailed being wrecked, he returned to London, and married Francesca Margarita de l'Epine. This person was a native of Tuscany, and a celebrated singer, who performed in some of the first of the Italian operas that were represented in England. She came hither with one reber, a German, and from this connection became distinguished by the invidious appellation of Greber’s Peg. She continued to sing on the stage till about 1718; when having, at a modest computation, acquired above ten thousand guineas, she retired from the theatre, and afterwards married Dr. Pepusch. She was remarkably tall, and remarkably swarthy; and, in general, so destitute of personal charms, that Pepusch seldom called her by any other name than Hecate, to which she is said to have answered very readily.

The change in Pepusch’s circumstances by Margarita’s fortune was no interruption to his studies: he loved music, and he pursued the knowledge of it with ardour. At the instance of Gay and Kich, he undertook to compose, or rather to correct, the music for “The Beggar’s Opera.” His reputation was now at a great height; and in 1737 he was chosen organist of the Charter-house, and retired, with his wife, to that venerable mansion. The wife died in 1740, before which he lost a son, his only child; so that he had no source of delight left, but the prosecution of his studies, and the teaching of a few favourite pupils, v\ho attended him at his apartments. Here he drew up that account of the ancient genera, which was read before the Royal Society, and is published in the “Philosophical Transactions” for Oct. Nov. and. Dec. 174&; and, soon after the publication of that account, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society.

He died the 20th of July, 1752, aged eighty-five; and was buried in the chapel of the Charter-house, where a tablet with an inscription is placed over him. ­As a practical musician, though so excellent a harmonist, he was possessed of so little invention, that few of his coinpositions were ever in general use and favour, except one of his twelve cantatas, “Alexis,” and his airs for two flutes or violins, consisting of simple easy themes or grounds with variations, each part echoing the other in common divisions for the improvement of the hand. Indeed, though only one cantata of the two books he published was ever much noticed, there is considerable harmonica! merit in them all; the recitatives are in general good, and the counterpoint perfectly correct and masterly. Among all the publications of Pepusch, the most useful to musical students was, perhaps, his correct edition of Corelli’s sonatas and concertos in score, published in 1732. He treated all other music in which there was fancy or invention with sovereign contempt. Nor is it true, as has been asserted, that “he readily acquiesced in Handel’s superior merit.” Handel despised the pedantry of Pepusch, and Pepusch, in return, constantly refused to join in the general chorus of Handel’s praise.

The sole ambition bf Pepus’ch, during the last years of his life, seems to have been the obtaining the reputation of a profound theorist, perfectly skilled in the music of the ancients; and attaching himself to the mathematician De Moivre and Geo. Lewis Scot, who helped him to calculate ratios, and to construe the Greek writers on music, he bewildered himself and some of his scholars with the Greek genera, scales, diagrams, geometrical, arithmetical, and harmonical proportions, surd quantities, apotomes, lemmas, and every thing concerning ancient harmonics, that was dark, unintelligible, and foreign to common and useful practice. But with all his pedantry and ideal admiration of the music of the ancients, he certainly had read more books on the theory of modern music, and examined more curious compositions, than any of the musicians of his time; and though totally devoid of fancy and invention, he was able to correct the productions of his contemporaries, and to assign reasons for whatever had been done by the greatest masters who preceded him. But when he is called the most learned musician of his time, it should be said, in the music of the sixteenth century. Indeed, he had at last such a partiality for musical mysteries, and a spirit so truly antiquarian, that he allowed no composition to be music but what was old and obscure. Yet, though he fettered the genius of his scholars by antiquated rules, he knew the mechanical laws of harmony so well, that in glancing his eye over a score, he could by a stroke of his pen smooth the wildest and most incoherent notes into melody, and make them submissive to harmony; instantly seeing the superfluous or deficient notes, and suggesting a bass from which there was no appeal. His “Treatise on Harmony” has lately been praised, as it deserves, in Mr. Shield’s valuable “Introduction to Harmony.”

His admirable library, the most curious and complete in scarce musical authors, theoretical and practical, was dispersed after his death. He bequeathed a considerable part of his best books and manuscripts to Kelner, an old German friend, who played the double-bass in the theatres and concerts of the time; some to Travers, and these and the rest were at last sold, dispersed, and embezzled, in a manner difficult to describe or understand.

, secretary to the admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. and an eminent benefactor to the literature of his country, was a descendant of the ancient family -of the Pepys’s of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, and probably the son of liichard Pepys, who was lord chief justice in Ireland in 1654. He was born, according to Collier, in London; but Knight, in this particular a better authority, says he was born at Brampton in Huntingdonshire, and educated at St. Paul’s school. Thence he was removed to Magdalen-college, Cambridge. How long he remained here, we are not told, but it appears by the college-books, that on June 26, 1660, he was created M. A. by proxy, he being then on board of ship as secretary to the navy. He appears to have been related to general Montague, afterwards earl of Sandwich, who first introduced him into public business, and employed him first in various secret services for Charles II. and then as secretary in the expedition for bringing his majesty from Holland. His majesty being thus restored, Mr. Pepys was immediately appointed one of the principal officers of the navy, by the title of clerk of the acts. In this employment he continued until 1673; and during those great events, the plague, the fire of London, and the Dutch war, the care of the navy in a great measure rested on him alone.

In this last-mentioned year, when the king thought proper to take the direction of the admiralty into his own hands, he appointed Mr. Pepys secretary to that office, who introduced an order and method that has, it is said, formed a model to his successors. Important, however, as his services were, they could not screen him from the malevolence of party-spirit; and happening, in 16S4-, to be concerned in a contested election, this opportunity was taken by his opponent to accuse him of being a Papist, which the house of commons inquired into, but without finding any proof. This we learn from the journals of the house. But Collier informs us that he was confined in the Tower for some time, and then discharged, no accuser appearing against him. After his release, the king made an alteration in the affairs of the admiralty, by putting the whole power and execution of that office into commission; and the public was thus, for some years, deprived of Mr. Pepys’s services as secretary. He was not, however, unemployed for he was commanded by his majesty to ac<­company lord Dartmouth in his expedition against Tangier: and at the same time he had an opportunity of making excursions into Spain, as, at other times, he had already done into France, Flanders, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark. He also sailed frequently with the duke of York into Scotland, and along the coast of England.

In April 1684, on his return from Tangier, and on the re-assumption of the office of lord-high-admiral of England by Charles II. Mr. Pepys was again appointed secretary, and held that office during the whole of Charles’s and James’s reigns. During the last critical period, he restricted himself to the duties of his office, and never asked or accepted any grant of honour or profit, nor meddled with any aflair that was not within his province as secretary of the admiralty. In Charles’s time he procured that useful benefaction from his majesty, for placing ten of the mathematical scholars of Christ’s hospital, as apprentices to masters of ships.

On the accession of William and Mary, he resigned his office; and, in 1690, published his “Memoirs” relating to the state of the royal navy of England for the ten years preceding the revolution; a well-written and valuable work. He appears to have led a retired life after this, suffering very much from a constitution impaired by the stone, for which he had been cut in his twenty-eighth year. About two years before his death he went to the seat of an old naval friend, William Hewer, esq. at Clapham, in Surrey, where he died May 26, 1703, and was interred in the same vault with his lady, who died in 1669, in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street, this being the parish in which he lived during the whole of his employment in the Admiralty.

He appears to have had an extensive knowledge of naval affairs, and to have always conducted them with the greatest skill and success. Even after his retirement he was consulted as an oracle in all matters respecting this grand deience of the nation; and, while in office, was the patron and friend of every man of merit in the service. But he was far from being a mere man of business: his conversation and address had been greatly improved by travel, and he was qualified to shine in the literary as well as the political circles. He thoroughly understood and practised music was a judge of painting, sculpture, and architecture; and had more than a superficial knowledge in history and philosophy. His fame, indeed, was such, that in 1684 he was elected president of the Royal Society, and held that honourable office for two years. To Magdalen College, Cambridge, he left that invaluable collection of ms naval memoirs, of prints, and ancient English poetry, which has so often been consulted by poetical critics and commentators, and is indeed unrivalled in its kind. One of its most singular curiosities is; a collection of English ballads, in five large folio volumes, begun by Mr. Selden, and carried down to the year 1700. The “Reliques of ancient English Poetry,” published by Dr. Percy, are for the most part taken from this collection. His nephew, John Jackson, esq. of the Temple, was Mr. Pepys’s heir to his personal property. It ought not to be omitted, that among other instances of his regard for the advancement of knowledge, he gave sixty plates to Ray’s edition of Willoughby’s “Historia Piscium,” published in 1686.

, a French author, whose character was not less esteemed for its candour and modesty, than his writings for their neatness of style and exactness of research, is most known for his continuation of the “Lives of illustrious men of France,” begun by D'Auvigne, but carried on by him, from the thirteenth volume to the twenty-third. He also wrote notes and prefaces to several works. His edition of the works of Bossuet was the best, till they were published by the Benedictines of St. Maur; and he was author of an esteemed life of Jerome Bignon, in 12mo, 1757. He died in March 1767, at the age of sixty-seven.

, fifth baronet of the family, and first earl of Egmont, was born at Barton, in the county of York, July 12, 1683, and received his education at Magdalen college, Oxford. On quitting the university, in June 1701, he made the tour of England, and was admitted F. R. S. at the age of nineteen. Upon the death of king William, and the calling of a new parliament in Ireland, he went over with the duke of Ormorid, and though not of age, was elected for the county of Cork, and soon after appointed a privy-counsellor. In July 1705, he began the tour of Europe, which he finished in October 1707; and returning to Ireland in May 1708, was again, representative for the county of Cork. In 1713, he erected a lasting monument of his charity, in a free-school at Burton. On the accession of George I. he was advanced to the peerage of Ireland by the title of baron Perceval, in 1715, and viscount in 1722. In the parliament of 1722 and 1727, he was member for Harwich, in Essex, and in 1728 was chosen recorder of that borough. Observing, by the decay of a beneficial commerce, that multitudes incapable of finding employment at home, mightbe rendered serviceable to their country abroad, he and a few others applied to the crown for the grant of a district of land in America, since called Georgia, which they proposed to people with emigrants from England, or persecuted Protestants from other parts of Europe, by means of private contribution and parliamentary aid. The charter being granted, in June 1732, Lord Perceval was appointed first president; and the king having long experienced his fidelity to his person and government, created him earl of Egmont in. Nov. 1733. Worn out by a paralytic decay, he died May 1, 1748. His lordship married Catherine, daughter of sir Philip Parker a Morley, by whom he had seven children, who all died before him, except his eldest son and successor, of whom we shall take some notice.

The first earl of Egmont, according to Mr. Lodge, appears to have been a man of an exemplary character, both in public and private life, and a writer of considerable elegance and acuteness. He published, 1. “A Dialogue between a member of the church of England and a Protestant Dissenter, concerning a repeal of the Test Act,” 1732. 2. “The Question of the Precedency of the Peers of Ireland in England,” 1739. Part only of this book was written by the earl of Egmont; which was in consequence of a memorial presented by his lordship to his majesty Nov. 2, 1733, upon occasion of the solemnity of the marriage of the princess-royal with the prince of Orange. 3. “Remarks upon a scandalous piece, entitled A brief account of the causes that have retarded the progress of the colony of Georgia,” 1743. His lordship published several other tracts about that time, relating to the colony; and many letters and essays upon moral subjects, in a paper called “The Weekly Miscellany.” His Lordship also formed a collection of the “Lives and Characters of eminent men in England, from very ancient to very modern times.” Dr. Kippis appears to have had the use of this collection, when employed on the Biographia. It is in the possession of lord Arden. The earl of Egmont wrote a considerable part of a genealogical history of his own family, which was afterwards enlarged and methodized by Anderson, author of the Royal Genealogies; and by Mr. W r histon, of the Tally Court. This book, which was printed by the second carl of Egmont, is entitled “A genealogical History of the house of I very,” and is illustrated by a great number of portraits and plates. It was not intended for sale; but a few copies are got abroad, and sell at a very high price. Lord Orford, in the first edition of his “Royal and Noble Authors,” attributed “The great Importance of a religious Life,” to this nobleman, which, however, was soon discovered to be from the pen of Mr. Melmoth.

, second earl of Egmont, and son to the preceding, was born at Westminster, Feb. 24, 1711; and after a learned education at home, and the advantages of travelling, was chosen in 1731 (though then under age) a burgess for Harwich; and on Dec. 31, 174T, unanimously elected representative for the city of Westminster; as he was in 1747 for Weobly in Herefordshire. In March 1747, he was appointed one of the lords of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, in which station he continued till the death of that prince. In 1754, he was elected a member of parliament for the borough of Bridgwater, in the county of Somerset; and on January 9, 1755, was sworn one of the lords of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was likewise appointed one of the privy-council upon the accession of his present majesty to the throne; and was again elected in April 1761, for the borough of II­chester, in the county of Somerset, but was next day rechosen for the borough of Bridgwater, for which place he made his election. On May 7, 1762, his lordship was called up to the house of peers in Great Britain, by the title of lord Lovel and Holland, baron Lovel and Holland, of Enmore, in the county of Somerset, two of those baronies which were forfeited by attainder of Francis viscount Lovel, in the 1st of Henry VII. On Nov. 27, 1762, the king was pleased to appoint, him one of the postmastersgeneral, in the room of the earl of Besborough; but this he resigned on Sept. 10, 1763, in consequence of being appointed first lord of the admiralty, which office he resigned also in Sept. 1766. His Lordship died at his house in Pall Mall, Dec. 4, 1770, and was buried at Charlton, in Kent.

Mr. Coxe characterises this nobleman as “a fluent and plausible debater, warm in his friendship, and violent in his enmity.” Lord Orford, after mentioning some of his foibles, among which was a superstitious veneration for the feudal system, says, that, with all these, he. had strong parts, great knowledge of the history of this country, and was a very able, though not an agreeable orator. His domestic virtues more than compensated for some singularities that were very innocent: and had he lived in the age whose manners he emulated, his spirit would have maintained the character of an ancient peer with as much dignity, as his knowledge would have effaced that of others of his order.

As a writer, he deserves most credit for a very able and celebrated pamphlet, long attributed to lord Bath, entitled “Faction detected by the evidence of facts containing an impartial view of Parties at home and affairs abroad.” Of this a fifth edition was published in 1743, 8vo. The following also are said to have been written by him: 1. “An Examination of the principles, and an inquiry into the conduct of the two brothers (the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham),” 1749. 2. “A second series of facts and arguments’ 1 on the same subject, 1749. 3.” An occasional Letter from a gentleman in the country to his friend in town, concerning the Treaty negociated at Hanau in the year 1743,“174k 4.” Memorial soliciting a grant of the whole island of St. John, in the gulph of St. Lawrence. This was not published, but copies were given by the author to ministers and some members of both houses. Lord Orford says, that its object was to revive the feudal system in this island. 5. “A Proposal for selling part of the Forest Land and Chaces, and disposing of the produce towards the discharge of that part of the national debt due to the Bank of England; and for the establishment of a National Bank, &c.” 1763, 41O.

, second son to the preceding, by his second lady, was born in Audley Square, Nov. 1, 1762. His infancy was spent at Charlton, the seat of his family, in Kent, where he went through the first rudidiments of learning, and also contracted an early attachment for the youngest daughter of the late Sir Thorn; Spencer Wilson, hart, who afterwards became his wife From Charlton he removed to Harrow, where he successfully prepared himself for the university. At the pro] age he entered of Trinity College, Cambridge, where th< present bishop of Bristol, Dr. William-Lort Mansell, his tutor. There unwearied application and splendid abilities led him to the highest academical honours. In 1782 he obtained the degree of master of arts, and on the 16th of December of the following year was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn; where, after performing the necessary studies, he was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1786. He commenced his professional career in the Court of King’s Bench, and accompanied the Judges through the Midland circuit. His chief opponents were then Mr. (now Sir S.) Romilly, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. serjeant Vaughan; and, notwithstanding a degree of modesty, which at that period almost amounted to timidity, he displayed encouraging promises of forensic excellence, on some of the first trials on which he was retained, particularly that of George Thomas, of Brackiey, Northamptonshire, for forgery. In this case he was retained for the prosecution; and had the honour of contending with Mr. Law, since Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough. This trial excited much public attention; and the ability evinced by Mr. Perceval increased the number of his clients. His advancement was now both regular and rapid. In Hilary term 1796, he obtained a silk gown, and became the leading counsel on the Midland circuit, not only in point of rank, but also, in quantity of business. He was soon after appointed counsel to the Admiralty; and the university of Cambridge acknowledged its sense of his merits by nominating him one of its two counsel. About this time, he had attracted the notice of an attentive observer and acute judge of men and talents, the late Mr. Pitt, by a pamphlet which he had written, to prove “that an impeachment of the House of Commons did not abate by a dissolution of parliament.” This work became the foundation of his intimacy with the premier, and his subsequent connexion with the government, and caused a sudden alteration in his prospects. His object now was to obtain a seat in parliament, where he might support those measures for which the situation of the country seemed to call, and a most favourable opportunity presented itself. His first cousin, lord Compton, succeeded to the earldom of Northampton in April 1796, on the demise of his maternal uncle, and consequently vacated his seat for the borough of that name. Mr. Perceval immediately offered himself to represent the vacant borough, and was too well known, and too universally esteemed, to meet with any opposition. He had been previously appointed deputy recorder; and so highly did his constituents approve of his political conduct and private worth, that they returned him to serve in three parliaments.

Mr. Perceval now endeavoured to become thoroughly master of every branch of policy; and particularly dedicated much of his attention to the subject of finance; and some of his plans, in that important department, are deserving of high commendation. In Hilary vacation, in 1801, at the formation of the Addington administration, Mr. Perceval, then in his 39th year, was appointed solicitor-general, on the resignation of sir William Grant, who succeeded sir Pepper Arden, afterwards lord Alvanley, as master of the rolls. In Hilary vacation, 1802, he was promoted to the situation of attorney-general, become vacant by the elevation of sir Edward Law (now lord Ellenborough) to the seat of chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench.

Mr. Perceval, on receiving the appointment of solicitorgeneral, relinquished the Court of King’s Bench, and practised only in that of Chancery. In taking this step, he was influenced chiefly by the wish of having more time to dedicate to his political duties. But it is doubtful whether he succeeded in this view. In the King’s Bench, though he was occasionally engaged in conducting causes of great importance, his business had never been so great as wholly to occupy his time. Nor is this to be wondered at, when it is considered, that at that time he had to contend with, as competitors in that court, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Mingay, Mr. Law, Mr. Garrow, and Mr. Gihbs, all of them king’s counsel, much older than himself, and established in great practice before even Mr. Perceval was called to the bar. It is no disgrace to him, that he did not, before the age of forty, dispossess these gentlemen of their clients. But when he came into Chancery, he found competitors less powerful; and though his disadvantages, in entering a court in the practice of which he had never been regularly initiated, were great, he advanced rapidly in practice; and long before his abandonment of the bar, he had begun to be considered as the most powerful antagonist of sir Samuel Romilly, the Coryphirus of Equity Draftsmen.

Mr. Perceval retained his situation as attorney-general, when Mr. Pitt resumed the reins of government, and continued to distinguish himself as a ready and staunch supporter of the measures of that great man. He had the honour sometimes to call down upon himself all the eloquence of the opposition, and proved a most useful partisan of the administration. On Mr. Pitt’s death, a coalition took place between the Fox and Grenville parties, in which Mr. Perceval declined to share; and having resigned his’ office, appeared for the first time on the benches of the opposition, on which he continued until Lord Howick, in 1807, brought forward the Catholic petition, and a bill was proposed to remove the political disabilities of which the members of that sect complain. Mr. Perceval, then, alarmed for the safety of the Protestant Church, rose in its defence; and Catholic emancipation being a measure generally obnoxious, the dissolution of the administration followed. As Mr. Perceval, at this time, was considered the ablest man of his party, it might have been expected that he would have claimed one of the first places in the new ministry as his right. On the contrary, the chancellorship of the exchequer was several times rejected by him, whose only wish was to resume the situation of attorneygeneral. This, however, not being satisfactory to his majesty, Mr. Perceval was offered the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster for life, as a compensation for his professional loss, and a provision for his family, provided he should agree to fill the office to which the esteem and confidence of the monarch called him. Notwithstanding that the value of the chancellorship proposed did not much exceed 2000l. a year, nearly one thousand less than Mr. Perceval’s profession produced per annum, his sense of public duty induced him to comply: and when, after his nomination, parliament expressed their dissatisfaction at the nature of the grant, he allowed it to be cancelled, and repeated in the house the assurance of his readiness to serve his majesty even without the chancellorship of the duchy of JLan caster, for life.

The new administration was no sooner formed, in March 1807, than it became necessary to consolidate it by an appeal to the sense of the people. Parliament was in consequence dissolved; and in the new one, Mr. Perceval found an increase of strength, which enabled him to carry on that system of public measures begun by Mr. Pitt. To recapitulate these, and notice every occasion in which he stood prominent in debate, belongs to future history. It may suffice here to mention, that he had the voice of the country with him and that when a regency became agaiu necessary, and when the general expectation was that the regent would call to his councils those men who had formerly been honoured with his confidence, his royal highness preferred retaining Mr. Perceval and his colleagues in his service.

As a public speaker, Mr. Perceval rose much in reputation and excellence, after he became minister. As the leading man in the house of commons, it was necessary that he should be able to explain and defend all his measures; and this duty, arduous under all circumstances, was particularly so in his case, as there was scarcely any other member of administration, in that house, competent to the task of relieving or supporting him. He, in a short time, proved that he stood in need of no assistance: he made himself so completely acquainted with every topic that was likely to be regularly discussed, that he was never taken unawares or at a loss. In the statement of his measures he was remarkably methodical and perspicuous. By many persons he was deemed particularly to excel in his replies; in rebutting any severe remark that came unexpectedly upon him, and in turning the fact adduced, or the argument used, against his opponent. Had his life been spared, it is probable he would have risen to the highest degree of reputation for historical and constitutional knowledge, and political skill.

The death of this valuable servant of the public was occasioned by the hand of an assassin, one of those men who brood over theirown injuries, orsupposed injuries, until they become the willing agents of malignity and revenge. This catastrophe happened on Monday, May 11, 1812. About five o'clock in the evening of that day, Mr. Perceval was entering the lobby of the house of commons, when he was shot by a person named John Bellingham, and almost instantly expired. The murderer, when apprehended, acknowledged his guilt, but pleaded that he had claims on administration which had been neglected; and it appeared, on his trial, that he had deliberately prepared to murder some person in administration, without any particular choice; and that when he was possessed by this hellish spirit, Mr. Perceval presented himself. No marks of insanity appeared either previous to or on his trial, nor could he be brought to any proper sense of his crime. He was executed on the Monday following.

houses of parliament expressed their sense of Mr. Perceval’s public services and private worth by every testimony of respect, and by a liberal grant for the provision of his family, while the public at large were no less impressed with the horror which his cruel death created, and with the loss of such a minister, at a time when the reconciliation of contending political parties appeared hopeless.

, an eminent physician, was born at Warrington, September 29, 1740. Having lost both his parents in one day, he was placed at the age of four years under the protection of his uncle, Dr. Thomas Percival, a learned physician, resident at the same place; but of his parental guidance he was also deprived at the age of ten, after which his education was directed with the most kind and judicious attention by his eldest sister. His literary pursuits commenced at a private school in the neighbourhood of Warrington, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the free grammar-school of that town, where he exhibited great promise of talent, and much industry. In 1757 he became one of the first pupils of a dissenting academy then established at Warrington, where he pursued with unabating diligence the classical studies in which he had already made considerable progress, and in particular had attained, great facility and elegance in Latin composition, The study of ethics, however, appears to have principally engaged his attention here, as it did afterwards throughout the whole of -his life, and formed the basis of all his works, except those on professional subjects. It appears that before Mr. Perceval went to Warrington academy, his family was induced to quit communion with the church of England, and to espouse the tenets of protestant dissent. This was in one respect peculiarly unfortunate for him who had thoughts of entering the university of Oxford; but now, after studying the thirty-nine articles, he determined against subscription, and consequently relinquished the advantages of academical study at either English university. He therefore went in 1761 to Edinburgh, and commenced his studies in medical science, which he also carried on for a year in London. In 1765 he removed to the university of Leyden, with a view to complete his medical course, and to be admitted to the degree of doctor of physic. Having accordingly defended in the public schools his inaugural dissertation “De Frigore,” he was presented with the diploma of M. D. July 6, 1765. On his return, which was through France and Holland, at the close of the same year, he joined his family at Warrington, and soon after married Elizabeth, the daughter and only surviving child of Nathaniel Bassnett, esq. merchant, of London. In 1767 ho removed with his family to Manchester, and commenced his professional career with an uncommon degree of success,

The leisure which Dr. Percival had hitherto enjoyed, had given him the opportunity of engaging in various philosophical and experimental inquiries, relating, for the most part, to the science of physic. The “Essays” which he formed on the result of his investigations, were sometimes presented to the Royal Society, and were afterwards inserted in the volumes of its Transactions; at other times they were communicated to the public through the medium of the most current periodical journals. These miscellaneous pieces were afterwards collected, and published in one volume, under the title of “Essays medical and experimental.” A second volume appeared in 1773, and a third in 1776, and were received by the learned world as the productions of a man of profound knowledge and sound judgment.

Extensive as Dr. PercivaPs practice was, he found leisure to continue those publications on which his fame is founded, and by which he was soon known throughout Europe. Among these we may mention “Observations and Experiments on the Poison of Lead,” 1774; “A Father’s Instructions, consisting of tales, fables, and reflections, designed to promote the love of virtue, a taste for knowledge, and an early acquaintance with the works of nature,” 1775. Two years after he added another volume, completing the work, which is executed in a manner excellently adapted to its object. “On the Use of Flowers of Zinc in epileptic cases” (Medical Commentaries, vol. II.) “Miscellaneous practical Observations,” (ibid. V.) “Account of the Earthquake at Manchester,' (ibid.)” The Disadvantages of early Inoculation.“” Experiments and Observations on Water.“” Moral and literary Dissertations,“1784, 8vo.” On the Roman Colonies and Stations in Cheshire and Lancashire,“(Phil. Trans. XLVII. 216.)” Account of a double Child,“(ibid. 360.)” Experiments on the Peruvian Bark, (ibid. LVII. 2^1.) “Experiment! and Observations on the Waters of Buxton and Manche*­ter,” (ibid. LXII. 455.) On the Population of Manchester and other adjacent places,“(ibid. LXIV. 54; LXV. 322, and Supplement, LXVI. 160.)” New and cheap way of preparing Potash," (ibid. LXX. 545.)

The “Manchester Memoirs” were also frequently honoured by Dr. Percival’s communications. The society, indeed, by which they were published, derived its origin from the stated weekly meetings for conversation, which Dr. Percival held at his own house; the resort of the literary characters, the principal inhabitants, and of occasional strangers. As these meetings became more numerous, it was in time found convenient to transfer them to a tavern, and to constitute a few rules for the better direction of their proceedings. The members thus insensibly formed themselves into a club, which was supported with so much success, as at length, in 1781, to assume the title of “The Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester.” Dr. Percival was appointed joint president with James Massey, esq. and his literary contributions were frequent and valuable. When acting as president, his powers both of comprehension and discourse were sometimes called forth to considerable exercise; and perhaps on no occasion were his talents more fully exerted, than when he at once guided and systematized the topics of animated discussion. Another scheme which he patronized was for the establishment of public lectures on mathematics, the fine arts, and commerce, somewhat in the manner of the institutions lately attempted in London; but that of Manchester, after two winters of unfavourable trial, was at length reluctantly abandoned, and those of the metropolis have not yet much to T)oast on the score of encouragement or utility. Dr. Percival experienced two other disappointments, in his endeavours to support the dissenting academy at Warrington, and to establish one at Manchester in its room, neither of which schemes was found practicable.

Dr. Percival died of an acute disease on August 30, 1804, in the sixty-fourth year of his age, universally respected and regretted. His works were collected and published in 1807, 4 vols. 8vo, by one of his sons, with a very interesting biographical memoir, from which we have borrowed the preceding particulars. For what follows of Dr. Perceval’s character, we are principally indebted to Dr. Magee, of Trinity college, Dublin.

"The character of Dr. Percival was in every way calculated to secure for him that eminence in his profession, and that general respect, esteem, and attachment, which he every where obtained. A q:iick penetration, a discriminating judgment, a patient attention, a comprehensive knowledge, and, above all, a solemn sense of responsibility, were the endowments which so conspicuously fitted him at once to discharge the duties, and to extend the boundaries, of the healing art; and his external accomplishments and manners were alike happily adapted to the offices of his profession. In social discussion, he possessed powers of a very uncommon stamp, combining the accuracy of science, and the strictest precision of method, with the graces of a copious and unstudied elocution; and to these was superadded the polish of a refined urbanity, the joint result of innate benevolence, and of early and habitual intercourse with the most improved classes of society. In few words, he was an author without vanity, a philosopher without pride, a scholar without pedantry, and a Christian without guile. Affable in his manners, courteous in his conversation, dignified in his deportment, cheerful in his temper, warm in his affections, steady in his friendships, mild in his resentments, and unshaken in his principles; the grand object of his life was usefulness, and the grand spring of all his actions was religion.

“As a literary character, Dr. Percival held a distinguished rank. His earlier publications were devoted to medical, chemical, and philosophical inquiries, which he pursued extensively, combining the cautious but assiduous employment of experiment, with scientific observation, and much literary research. His ‘ Essays Medical and Experimental,* obtained for the author a considerable reputation in the philosophical world, and have gone through many editions. The subjects which occupied his pen, in later years, were of a nature most congenial to his feelings; and in the several volumes of ’ A Father’s Instructions to his Children,‘ and of ’ Moral Dissertations,‘ which appeared at different periods, through a space of twentyfive years, and which were originally conceived with the design of exciting in the hearts of his children a desire of knowledge and a love of virtue, there is to be found as much of pure style, genuine feeling, refined taste, apt illustration, and pious reflection, as can easily be discovered, in the same compass, in any didactic composition. His last work, which he expressly dedicated as a ’ parental legacy* to a much-loved son, under the title of *‘ Medical Ethics, or a Code of Institutes and Precepts, adapted to the professional conduct of physicians and surgeons,’ published in 1803, is a monument of his professional integrity, in which, while he depicted those excellencies of the medical character which he approved in theory, he unconsciously drew the portrait of himself, and described those which he every day exemplified in practice.”

, a late learned prelate, a descendant of the ancient earls of Northumberland, was born at Bridgenorth in Shropshire, in 1728, and educated at Christ church, Oxford. In July 1753 he took the degree of M.A.; and in 1756 he was presented by that college to the vicarage of Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, which he held with the rectory of Wilbye, in the same county, given him by the earl of Sussex. In 1761 he began his literary career, by publishing “Han Kiou Chouan,” a translation from the Chinese; which was followed, in 1762, by a collection of “Chinese Miscellanies,” and in 1763 by “Five Pieces of Runic Poetry,” translated from the Icelandic language. In 1764 he published a new version of the “Song of Solomon,” with a commentary and annotations. The year following he published the “Reliques of Antient English Poetry,” a work which constitutes an aera in the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the perusal of a folio volume of ancient manuscripts given to the bishop by a friend, in early life (from which he afterwards made large extracts in the “Reliques,”) led his mind to those studies in which he so eminently distinguished himself. It appears likewise that Shenstone encouraged him in publishing the “Reliques.” The same year he published “A Key to the New Testament,” a concise manual for Students of Sacred Literature, which has been adopted in the universities, and often reprinted. After the publication of the “Reliques,” he was invited by the late duke and duchess of Northumberland to reside with them as their domestic chaplain. In 1769 he published “A Sermon preached before the Sons of the Clergy at St. Paul’s.” In 1770 he conducted “The Northumberland Household Book” through the press; the same year he published “The Hermit of Wark worth,”' and a translation of Mallet’s “Northern Antiquities,” with notes. A second edition of the “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” was published in 1775, a third in 1794, and a fourth in 1814. In 1769 he was nominated chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1778 he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle; and in 1782 to the bishopric of Dromore in Ireland, where he constantly resided, promoting the instruction and comfort of the poor with unremitting attention, and superintending the sacred and civil interests of the diocese, with vigilance and assiduity; revered and beloved for his piety, liberality, benevolence, and hospitality, by persons of every rank and religious denomination. Under the loss of sight, of which he was gradually deprived some years before his death, he steadily maintained his habitual cheerfulness; and in his last painful illness he displayed such fortitude and strength of mind, such patience and resignation to the divine will, and expressed such heartfelt thankfulness for the goodness and mercy shewn to him in the course of a long and happy life, as were truly impressive and worthy of that pure Christian spirit, in him so eminently conspicuous. His only son died in 1783. Two daughters survive him; the eldest is married to Sarruiel Isted, esq. of Ecton, in Northamptonshire; and the youngest to the hon. and reV. Pierce Meade, archdeacon of Dromore. In 1777 the rev. John Bowie addressed a printed letter to Dr. Percy, announcing a new and classical edition of “Don Quixote.” In 1780 Mr. Nichols was indebted to him for many useful communications for the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems.” When elevated to the mitre, Mr. Nichols was also under further obligations in the “History of Hinckley,” 1782. In 1786 the edition of the Tatler, in six volumes, small 8vo, was benefited by the hints suggested by bishop Percy to the rev. Dr. Calder, the learned and industrious annotator and editor of those volumes. The subsequent editions of the Spectator and Guardian were also improved by some of his lordship’s notes. Between 1760 and 1764, Dr. Percy had proceededvery far at the press with an admirable edition of “Surrey’s Poems,” and also with a good edition of the Works of Villiers duke of Buckingham; both which, from a variety of causes, remained many years unfinished in the warehouse of Mr. Tonson in the Savoy; but were resumed in 1795, and nearly brought to a conclusion, when the whole impression of both works was unfortunately consumed by the fire in Red Lion Passage in 1808. His lordship died at his episcopal palace, Dromore, on Sept. 30, 1811, in his eighty-third year. So much of his life had passed in the literary world, strictly so called, that authentic memoirs of his life would form an interesting addition to our literary history, but nothing has yet appeared from the parties most able to contribute such information. The preceding particulars we believe to be correct, as far as they go, but we cannot offer them as satisfactory.

, a celebrated archbishop of Paris, and master of the Sorbonne, was son of a steward of the household to cardinal Richelieu, who took care of his education. He distinguished himself as a student, was admitted doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, preached with great applause, and was appointed preceptor to Louis XIV. and afterwards bishop of Rhodes, but resigned this bishopric because he could not reside in his diocese. In 1664, M, de Perefixe was made archbishop of Paris; and, soon after, by the advice of father Annat, a Jesuit, published a mandate for the pure and simple signature of the formularyof Alexander VII. His distinction between divine faith and human faith, made much noise, and was attacked by the celebrated Nicole. His attempt also to make the nuns of Port-Royal sign the formulary, met with great resistance,which occasioned many publications against him but his natural disposition was extremely mild, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he forced himself to proceed against these celebrated nuns. He died December 31, 1670, at Paris. He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1654. His works are, an excellent “Hist, of K. Henry IV.” Amst. 1661, 12mo. This and the edition of 1664 are scarce and in much request, but that of 1749 is more common. Some writers pretend that Mezerai was the real author of this history, and that M. de Perefixe only adopted it; but they bring no proofs of their assertion. He published also a book, entitled “Institutio Principis,” 1647, 16to, containing a collection of maxims relative to the duties of a king in his minority.

, one of the most excellent of the Italian composers, was born at Casoria in the kingdom of Naples, in 1701; and was educated at Naples under Gaetuno Greco, a very famous musician of that time. The prince of San-Agliano, or Stigiiano, becoming acquainted with the talents of yonng Pergolesi, took him under his protection, and, from 1730 to 1734, procured him employment in the new theatre at Naples, where his operas had prodigious success. He then visited Rome, for which place his “Olympiade” was composed, and there performed, but was by no means applauded as it deserved; after which he returned to Naples, and falling into a consumptive disorder, died in 1737, at the premature age of thirty-three. It is not true, as some authors have asserted, that he was poisoned by some of his rivals, nor indeed was thesuccess of his productions sufficiently great to render him an object of envy. His fame was posthumous. From the style of his composition, the Italians have called him the Domenichino of music. Ease, united with deep knowledge of harmony, and great richness of melody, forms the characteristic of his music. It expresses the passions with the very voice of nature, and speaks to the soul by the natural force of its effects. It has been thought, by some, of too melancholy a cast, which might arise, perhaps, from the depression produced by infirmity of constitution. His principal works are, 1. The “Stabat Mater,” usually considered as his most perfect work, and much better known than any other, in this country. 2. Another famous mass, beginning, “Dixit et laudate,” first heard with rapture at Naples, soon after his return from Rome. 3. The mass called “Salve Regina,” the last of his productions, composed at Torre del Greco, a very short time before his death, but as much admired as any of his compositions. 4. His opera of “Olympiade,” set to the words of Metastasio. 5. “La serva Padrona,” a comic opera. 6. His famous cantata of “Orfeo e Euridice.” The greater part of his other compositions were formed for pieces written in the Neapolitan dialect, and unintelligible to the rest of Italy. Pergolesi’s first and principal instrument was the violin. Dr. Burney says, that “he had, perhaps, more energy of genius, and a finer tact, than any of his predecessors; for though no labour appears in his productions, even for the church, where the parts are thin, and frequently in unison, yet greater and more beautiful effects are often produced in the performance than are promised in the score.” “The church-music of Pergolesi has been censured by his countryman, Padre Martini, as well as by some English musical critics, for too much levity of movement, aud a dramatic cast, even in some of his slow airs; while, on the contrary, Eximeno says, that he never heard, and perhaps never shall hear, sacred music accompanied with instruments, so learned and so divine, as the Stabat Mater.” Dr. Burney thinks it very doubtful whether the sonatas ascribed to this author are genuine; but observes, that the progress since made in instrumental music, ought not, at all events, to diminish the reputation of Pergolesi, “which,” he adds, “was not built on productions of that kind, but on vocal compositions, in which the clearness, simplicity, truth, and sweetness of expression, justly entitle him to supremacy over all his predecessors, and contemporary rivals; and to a niche in the temple of fame, among the great improvers of the art; as, if not the founder, the principal polisher of a style of composition both for the church and stage, which has been constantly cultivated by his successors; and which, at the distance of half a century from the short period in which he flourished, still reigns throughout Europe.” The learned historian, for this reason, justly considers the works of Pergolesi as forming a great sera in modern music.

, an old French satirist, was born at Arnay-le-Duc, a small town of Burgundy, about the end of the fifteenth century. He went through his early studies with credit, and was advanced to the place of valet-de-chambre to the queen of Navarre, sister of Francis I. About this time a, considerable freedom of opinion prevailed at court, and the disputes of certain theologians had occasionally furnished subjects for ridicule. Des Periers, who was young and lively, wrote his celebrated work entitled “Cymbalum mundi,” in which the divines of the time found nothing but atheism and impiety, while others considered the satire as general and legitimate. A modern reader will perhaps discover more folly and extravagance than either impiety or wit. The work, however, was prohibited by an order of council soon after it appeared; and, according to De Bure and Brunet, but one copy is known to exist of the original edition. Des Periers did not lose his situation at court, but continued in the same favour with the queen of Navarre, and is supposed to have written some part of the tales which were published under the name of that princess. Des Periers is said to have indulged in excesses which ruined his health, and in the paroxysm of a fever he committed suicide in 1544. His works are, I. The “Andria” of Terence, translated into French rhyme, Lyons, 1537, 8vo. 2. “Cymbalum mundi, en Fran9ais, contenant quatres dialogues poetiques, fort antiques, joyeux, et facetieux,” Paris, 1537, 8vo. This, which was the first edition, he published under the name of Thomas du Clevier. It was reprinted at Lyons in 1538, 8vo, also a rare edition. In 1711, Prosper Marchand pubJished an edition in 12mo, with a long letter on the history of the work. Of this an English translation was published in 1712, 8vo. The last edition is that with notes by Falconet and Lancelot, which appeared in 1732, 12mo. 3. “Recueil desCEuvres de B. Desperiers,” Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This is the only edition of his works which contains his poetry. 4. “Nouvelles recreations et joyeux devis,” Lyons, 1558, 8vo, a collection of tales attributed to Des Periers, but which some think were the production of Nicolas Denisot, and James Peletier; and it is certain that there are some facts mentioned in them which did not occur until after the death of Des Periers. The reader may derive more information on this subject, if he think it interesting, from La Monnoye’s preliminary dissertation to the edition of these tales published at Amsterdam (Paris) in 1735, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a learned Northern antiquary, was born Oct. 6, 1654, at Strengnes in Sudermania, and was the son of Lawrence Frederic Peringer, professor of rhetoric and poetry. Having acquired great skill in northern antiquities, he was in 1689 appointed professor at Upsal; in 1693, secretary and antiquary to the king of Sweden, and in 1719 counsellor to the chancery for antiquities. When appointed secretary to the king he changed his name from Peringer to Peringskiold. He died March 24, 1720. His principal works, which are very much valued by Swedish historians and antiquaries, are, 1. “Snarronis Sturlonidac Hist, regum Septentrionalium,” with two translations, 1697, fol. 2. “Historia Wilkinensium, Theodorici Veronensis, ac Niflungorum,” c. copied from an ancient Scandinavian ms. with a translation, 1715, fol. 3. M Hist. Hialmari regis,“from a Runic ms. this is inserted in Hickes’s Thesaurus, 4.” Monumenta SuecoGothica," 2 vols. fol. 1710—1719, &c. &c.

, one of the most distinguished scholars and assistants of Raphael in the Vatican, was born in a Tuscan village in 1500. Vasari seems to consider him as the first designer of the Florentine school after Michael Angelo, and as the best of Raphael’s pupils: it is certain, that in a general grasp of the art, none approached Julio Romano so near, equally fit to render on a large scale the historic designs of his master, to work in stucco and grotesque ornaments with Giovanni da Udine, or with Polidoro to paint chiaroscuros. The Immolation of Isaac in the Stanze, the taking of Jericho, Joseph sold by his Brethren, Jacob with the Vision, the Drowning of Pharaoh, with others among the frescos of the Loggia, are his. That he had much of the Florentine style may be seen in the works of his own invention, such as the Birth of Eve in the church of St. Marcello, at Rome, a; high-wrought performance, with some Infants that have an air of life. At a monastery in Tivoli there is a St. John in the same style, with an admirable landscape, and many more in Lucca and Pisa.

But the real theatre of Perino’s art is Genoa, where he arrived in 1528, to preside over the embellishments and decorations of the magnificent palace of prince Doria without the gate of St. Tommaso. Every thing in this mansion, whether executed by Pierino himself, or from his cartoons, breathes the spirit of Raphael’s school, in proportion to the felicity or inferiority of execution; a nearer approach neither his powers nor principles permitted: eager to dispatch, and greedy to acquire, he debased much of his plan by the indelicate or interested choice of his associates. It is, however, to the style he introduced, and the principles he established, that Genoa owes the foundation of its school. Perino died in 1547, aged forty-seven.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was born at Cormery, in Touraine, in 1500. He took the Benedictine habit in the abbey of this name, 1517, and died there about 1559, aged near sixty. Among his writings are four “Dialogues,” in Latin, on the origin of the French language, and its resemblance to the Greek, Paris, 1555, 8vo; some tracts in defence of Aristotle and Cicero, against Peter Ranius, 8vo Latin translations of some books of Plato, Aristotle, St. John Damascenus, &c. “Loci Theologici,” Paris, 1549, 8vo. He wrote in more elegant Latin than was common with the divines of that age; but his accuracy and critical skill have been in many respects justly called in question.

, a learned German, was of a family originally of Teutorp, a small town in Westphalia: their name was Voorbrock; but being changed for Perizonius (a Greek word of similar import, implying something of the nature of a girdle) by one who published an “Epithalamium,” with this name subscribed, it was ever after retained by the learned part of the family. Anthony Perizonius, the father of the subject of this article, was rector of the school of Dam, professor of divinity and the Oriental languages, first at Ham, and afterwards at Deventer; at which last place he died in 1672, in his fortysixth year, he published, in 1669, a learned treatise, “De Ratione studii Theologici.”

James, his eldest son, was born at Dam, Oct. 26, 1651. He studied first under Gisbert Cuper, at Deventer, and was afterwards, in 1671, removed to Utrecht, where he attended the lectures of Gracvius. His father designed him for the church, but after his death he preferred the mixed studies of polite learning, history, and antiquity, and went, in 1674, to Leyden, where his preceptor was Theodore Ryckius, professor of history and eloquence in that city. He became afterwards rector of the Latin school at Delft, from which he was promoted in 1681 to the professorship of history and eloquence at Franeker. His reputation bringing a great concourse of scholars to this university, he was complimented by the addition to his stipend of an hundred crowns, and when on the death of Ryckius in 1690, Perizonius was offered the vacant professorship, the curators of Franeker were so desirous of his continuing with them that they added another hundred crowns to his stipend. He was, however, in 1693, persuaded to goto Leyden to fill the place of professor of history, eloquence, and the Greek language and in this employment continued till his death. He was a man of incredible diligence as well as accuracy, never committing any thing to the press without the strictest revisal and examination. Such uninterrupted application is said by his biographers to have shortened his life, which, however, extended to sixty-six years. He died April 6, 1717, and left a will that savoured a little of that whim and peculiarity which sometimes infects the learned in their retirements. He ordered, that as soon as he should expire, his body should be dressed in his clothes, then set up in a chair, and that a beard should be made for him. Some say this was done that a painter might finish his picture, already begun, in order to be placed over the manuscripts and books which he left to the library of the university. He was a man of a good mien, well made, of a grave and serious air, but far from any thing of pedantry and affectation; and so modest, that he never willingly spake of himself and his writings.

He published a great many works in Latin relating to history, antiquities, and classical literature, among which are, 1. “M. T. Ciceronis eruditio,” an inaugural oration, at his being installed professor of Franeker in 1681. 2. “Animadversiones Historicse, 1685,” 8vo, a valuable mis-, cellany of remarks on the mistakes of historians and critics. 3. “Q,. Curtius in integrum restitutus, et vindicatus ab immodica atque acerba nimis crisi viri ciarissimi Joannis Clerici,” 1703, 8vo. To this Le Clerc replied, in the third volume of his “Bibliotheque Choisee.” 4. “Rerum per Europam saeculo sexto-decirno maxime gestarum Commentarii Historici,” 1710, 8vo. 5. “Origines Ægyptiacae et Babylonicas,” 1711, 2 vols. 12m.o, being an attack on the “Chronological Systems” of Usher, Capellus, Pezron, but especially of sir John Marsham. Duker reprinted this work with additions in 1736. Perizonius wrote also several dissertations upon particular points of antiquity, which would have done no small credit to the collections of Groevius and Gronovius. Perizonius published an edition of “Ælian’s Various History,” corrected from the manuscripts, and illustrated with notes, in 1701, 2 vols. “8vo. James Gronovius having attacked a passage in his notes, a controversy ensued, which degenerated at length into such personal abuse, that the curators of the university of Leyden thought proper to put a stop to it by their authority. The edition, however, was reckoned the best until that of Gronovius appeared in 1731. He wrote also large notes upon” Sanctii Minerva, sive de causis linguae Latinae Commentarius; M the best edition of which is that of 1714, 8vo.

, a learned and pious divine, was born at Marton in Warwickshire, in 1558, and educated in Christ’s college, Cambridge. His conduct here was at iirst *o dissolute that he was pointed at as an object of contempt, which recalled him to his senses, and in a short time, by sobriety and diligent application, he regained his character both as a scholar and a man, and took his degrees at the statutable periods with approbation. In 1582 he was chosen fellow of his college, and entered into holy orders. His first ministrations were confined to the prisoners in Cambridge jail. Recollecting what he had been himself, with all the advantages of education, and good advice, he compassionated these more ignorant objects, and prevailed upon the keeper of the prison to assemble them in a spacious room, where he preached to them every sabbath. This was no sooner known than others came to hear him; and so much was he admired, that he was immediately chosen preacher at St. Andrew’s church, the first and only preferment he ever attained.

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

, was born Feb. 15, 1716, at Roanne, in Forez. He entered into the order of Benedictines, and devoted himself to study, and the composition of numerous works, some of which are correct and useful, and others deformed by absurd hypotheses, and that affectation of novelty which gained many French writers in his day the title of philosophers. These whims are principally found in his “Fables Egyptiennes et Greques devoilees,” 1786, 2 vols. 8vo, and in his “Dictionnairer mythohermetique.” His more useful publications were, his “Dictionnaire de Peinture, Sculpture, et Gravure,” 1757; “Discours sur la Physionomie;” “Journal Historique d'un Voyage faite aux iles Malouines, en 1763 et 1764,” 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. This account of a voyage made by himself was translated into English, and read with some interest at the time of the dispute with Spain, relative to these islands, which are the same with the Falkland islands. “Dissertation sur TAmerique et les Americains:” in this work and in his “Examen des Recherches Philosophiques de Pauvv sur les Americains,” he controverts the opinions of Pauw. He was author of many other works, and communicated several memoirs to the academy of Berlin, of which he was a member, and in which capital he resided a long time as librarian to Frederic II. He at length returned to Valence, in the department of La Drome, where he died about the close of the century.

, a learned prelate of the fifteenth century, was born at Sasso Ferrato, of an illustrious but reduced family. Being obliged to maintain, himself by teaching Latin, he brought the rudiments of that language into better order, and a shorter compass for the use of his scholars; and going afterwards to Rome, was much esteemed by cardinal Bessarion, who chose him for his conclavist or attendant in the conclave, on the death of Paul II. It was at this juncture that he is said to have deprived Bessarion of the papacy by his imprudence; for the cardinals being agreed in their choice, three of them went to disclose it, and to salute him pope; but Perot would not suffer them to enter, alledging that they might interrupt him in his studies. When the cardinal was informed of this blunder, he gave himself no farther trouble, and only said to his conclavist in a mild, tranquil tone, “Your ill-timed care has deprived me of the tiara, and you. of the hat.” Perot was esteemed by several popes, appointed governor of Perugia, and afterwards of Ombria, and was made archbishop of Siponto, 1458. He died 1480, at Fugicura, a country house so called, which he had built near Sasso Ferrato. He translated the first five books of “Polybius,” from Greek into Latin, wrote a treatise “De generibus metrorum,” 1497, 4to also “Rudimenta Grammatices,” Rome, 1473, fol. a very rare and valuable edition, as indeed all the subsequent ones are; but his most celebrated work is a long commentary on Martial, entitled “Cornucopia, seu Latinae Linguae Commentarius,” the best edition of which is that of 1513, fol. This last is a very learned work, and has been of great use to Calepin in his Dictionary.

, an able but unfortunate navigator, was born at Albi in 1741. He entered into the French navy when he was only in his fifteenth year, and acquired such professional skill, that he was regarded as fit for the most arduous enterprises. The triumphs of the French marine were few in his time; yet he commanded in the successful attempt to destroy the English settlement in Hudson’s Bay in 1782. On the restoration of peace, it was resolved by the French ministry that a voyage of discovery should be undertaken to supply what had been left defective in the voyages of our illustrious navigator captain James Cook, and his associates. Louis XVI. drew up the plan of the intended expedition with great judgment and intelligence, and La Perouse was the person fixtd upon to conduct it. With two frigates, la Boussole, et PAstrolabe, the first under his own command, the second under that of M. de Langle, but subject to his orders, they sailed from Brest in August 1785; touched at Madeira and Teneriffe, and in November anchored on the coast of Brazil. Thence they proceeded round Cape Horn into the South Sea, and in February 1786 cast anchor in the bay of Conception, on the coast of Chili. At this time, so well had the means of preserving health been employed, that they had not a man sick. The ships reached Easter island in the month of April, and thence sailed, without touching at any land, to the Sandwich islands. On June 23d they anchored on the American coast, in lat. 58 37‘, and landed on an island to explore the country and make observations. At this place M. Perouse had the misfortune of having two boats wrecked, with the loss of all their crew. Thence he ran down to California, and in September anchored in the bay of Monterey, whence they took their departure across the Pacific ocean, and in January 1787 arrived in the Macao roads. In February they reached Manilla, which they quitted in April, shaping their course for the islands of Japan. Passing the coasts of Corea and Japan, they fell in with Chinese Tartary, in lat. 42|, and ran to the northward. They anchored in a bay of the island of Sagalien, and thence proceeded up the shallow channel between that island and the continent as far as 51 29’. Returning thence they reached the southern extremity of Sagalien in August, and passed a strait between it and Jesso, since named Perouse strait, into the North Pacific. On the sixth of September they anchored in the harbour of St. Peter and Paul in Kamtschatka. The ships having refitted, they set sail, and arrived at the Navigators Islands in December. In the bay of Maouna they met with a friendly reception from numerous natives, and began to take in refreshments. A party of sixty, under the command of M. de Langle, went ashore to procure fresh water, when a most unfortunate occurrence took place, in which they were attacked by the natives, and M. de Langle and eleven of his men lost their lives. Quitting this place without any attempts at vengeance, Perouse proceeded to New Holland, and arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788, and here terminates all that is known of the voyage of this navigator, from the journal which he transmitted to France. He had many and very important objects of research remaining, but was never more heard of. The vessels were probably wrecked, and all the crews perished, since all efforts made to obtain information of them have been fruitless. In 1798 was published, at the expence of the French nation, and for the benefit of the widow of Perouse, “Voyage autour du Monde par J. F. G. cle la Perouse,” in three vols. 4to. It was translated into the English. The discoveries of this navigator are chiefly in the seas between Japan and China, and China and Tartary.

, an eminent French architect, was the son of an advocate of parliament, and born at Paris, in 1613. He was bred a physician, but practised only among his relations, his friends, and the poor. He discovered early a correct taste for the sciences and fine arts; of which he acquired a consummate knowledge, without the assistance of a master, and was particularly skilled in architecture, painting, sculpture, and mechanics. He still continues to be reckoned one of the greatest architects France ever produced. Louis XIV. who had a good taste for architecture, sent for Bernini from Rome, and other architects; but Perrault was preferred to them all; and what he did at the Louvre justified this preference. The facade of that palace, which was designed by him, “is,” says Voltaire, “one of the most august monuments of architecture in the world. We sometimes,” adds he, “go a great way in search of what we have at home. There is not one of the palaces at Rome, whose entrance is comparable to this of the Louvre; for which we are obliged to Perrault, whom Boileau has attempted to turn into ridicule.” Boileau indeed went so far as to deny that Perrault was the real author of those great designs in architecture that passed for his. Perrault was involved in the quarrel his brother Charles had with Boileau, who, however, when they became reconciled, acknowledged Claude’s merit.

Colbert, the celebrated French minister, who loved architecture, and patronized architects, advised Perrault to undertake the translation of Vitruvius into French, and illustrate it with notes; which he did, and published it in 1673, folio, with engravings from designs of his own, which have been esteemed master-pieces. Perrault was supposed to have succeeded in this work beyond all who went before him, who were either architects without learning, or learned men without any skill in architecture. He united a. knowledge of every science directly or remotely connected with architecture, and had so extraordinary a genius for mechanics, that he invented the machines by which those stones of fifty-two feet in length, of which the front of the Louvre is formed, were raised. A second edition of his Vitruvius, revised, corrected, and augmented, was printed at Paris, 1684, in folio; and he afterwards published an abridgment for the use of students; and another valuable architectural work, entitled “Ordonnance des cinq Especes de Colonnes, selon la methode des Anciens,” 1683, fol.

When the academy of sciences was established, he was chosen one of its first members, and was chiefly depended upon in what related to mechanics and natural philosophy. He gave proofs of his great knowledge in these, by the publication of several works; among which were, “Memoires pour servir a Phistoire naturelle des animaux,” 1671 76, 2 vols. fol. with fine plates; “Essais de Physique,” in 4 vols. 12mo, the three first of which came out in 1680, and the fourth in 1688 c< Recueil de plusieurs machines de nouvelle invention," 1700, 4to, &c. He died Oct. 9, 1688, aged seventy-five. Although he had never publicly practised physic, yet the faculty of Paris, of which he was a member, had such an opinion of his skill, and so much esteem for the man, that after his death they desired his picture of his heirs, and placed it in their public schools with that of Fernelius, Riolanus, and others, who had done honour to their profession.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Jan. 12, 1628, and at the age of eight was placed in the college of Beauvais, where he distinguished himself in the belles-lettres, and had a considerable turn to that kind of philosophy which consisted mostly in the disputatious jargon of the schools. He also wrote verses, aud indulged himself in burlesque, which was then much in vogue; on one occasion he amused himself in turning the sixth book of the flLiieid into burlesque verse. He had, however, too much sense when his ideas became matured by reflection, to attach the least value to such effusions. When his studies were completed, he was admitted an advocate, and pleaded two causes with a success sufficient to induce the magistrates to wish to see him au tached to the bar. But Colbert, the French minister, wh was acquainted with his merit, soon deprived the law of his services. He chose him for secretary to a small academy of four or five men of letters, who assembled at his house twice a week. This was the cradle of that learned society afterwards called “Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.” The little academy employed itself on the medals and devices required from it by Colbert, in the king’s name; and those proposed by Charles Perrault were almost always preferred. He had a singular talent for compositions of this kind, which require more intellectual qualities than is generally supposed. In the number of his happy devices may be ranked that of the medal struck on account of the apartments given by the king to the French academy in the Louvre itself. This was Apollo Palatinus; an ingenious allusion to the temple of Apollo, erected within the precincts of the palace of Augustus. Perrault not only was the author of this device, but likewise procured the academy the apartments it obtained from the monarch, who at the same time was pleased to declare himself its protector. Colbert, enlightened by the wise counsels of Perrault, inculcated upon the king, that the protection due to genius i s one of the noblest prerogatives of supreme authority. He also procured the establishment of the academy of sciences, which at first had the same form with the French academy, that of perfect equality among its members. His brother Claude had also a considerable share in this useful establishment.

Scarcely was the academy of sciences established, when Colbert set apart a yearly fund of 100,000 livres, to be distributed by the king’s order among celebrated men of letters, whether French or foreigners. Charles Perrault partook likewise in the scheme of these donatives, and in their distribution. It was extended throughout Europe, to the remotest north, although we do not find any English among the number. Colbert, whose esteem for the talents and character of Perrault continually increased, soon employed him in an important and confidential office. Being himself snperintendant of the royal buildings, he appointed him their comptroller general; and this office-, in the hands of Perrau't, procured a new favour to the arts, that of the establishment of the academies of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Then it was that his brother Claude produced the celebrated design of the front of the Louvre. The credit Perrault enjoyed, and the gratitude due to him from men of letters, had from 1671 given him admission into the French academy. On the day of his reception, he returned thanks in an harangue which gave so much satisfaction to the society, that they from that time resolved to make public the admission -discourses of their members. But as the favour of the great is rarely lasting, Perrault underwent some mortifications from Colbert, which compelled him to retire; and although the minister, sensible of his loss, solicited him to return, he refused, and went to inhabit a house in the suburbs of St. Jacques, the vicinity of which to the colleges facilitated the superintendance of the education of his sons. After the death of Colbert, he received a fresh mortification, that of having his name erased from the academy of medals, by Louvois. This minister did not love Colbert; and his hatred to the patron fell upon the person patronized, though he had ceased to be so.

During his retreat, Perrault employed his leisure io the composition of several works, among which were his “Poem on the age of Lewis the Great,” and his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns.” The long and bitter war these pieces excited between Boileau and the author, is well known. The chief fault of Perrauit was his censuring the ancients in bad verses, which gave Boileau the advantage. Had the two adversaries combated in prose, the match would have been more equal. In the collection of Boileau’s works, may be seen a letter addressed to him by Perrault, in the height of this warfare, against which this great poet’s prose, somewhat inclined to harshness and ponderosity, is scarcely able to sustain itself, notwithstanding all the author’s talents for sarcasm and irony. Perrault’s letter, though filled with reproaches, for the worst part well merited by his antagonist, is a model of decorum and delicacy. With respect to the ground of the dispute, the two adversaries, as usual in these quarrels, are aitrrhafely right and wrong. Perrault, too little conversant m the Greek language, too exclusively sensible of the defects of Homer, shows too little feeliirg of the superior beau ties of this great bard, and is not enough indulgent to his errors in favour of his genius. Boileau, perpetually on his knees before his idol, defends him sometimes unhapplx, and always with a rudeness almost equal to that with which the heroes of the Iliad abuse each other. It is, indeed, asserted that the enmity of Boileau against the author of the “Poem on^Louis le Grand,” had a secret cause, more potent than his devotion for the ancients; which was, that the writer, when justly celebrating the great Corneille, had affected to avoid all mention of the author of “Phaedra” and“” Iphigenia." There is some reason to believe that Boileau was- not better satisfied with the silence observed with respect to himself in this poem, which had not disdained to notice Godeaux and Tristan. But the satirist’s self-love in the displeasure he professed, prudently concealed itself behind his friendship for Racine, and perhaps was thus concealed even from himself. If on this occasion he displayed an excess of feeling, his adversary had been guilty of great injustice. To deprive the age of Lewis the Fourteenth of Boileau and Racine, is to deprive the age of Augustus, of Horace and Virgil.

The enmity of the two academicians was of older date than their quarrel concerning the ancients and moderns. Charles Perrault and his brothers, friends of those writers whom Boileau had treated with most severity, did not content themselves with a silent disapprobation of his attacks upon them; they freely expressed their sentiments of the satirist, who, on his part, did not spare them. We ought not, on this occasion, to suppress an anecdote of Perrault, which does him much honour. The French academy, in 1671, had proposed as the subject of their first poetical prize, the “abolition of duels.” Some days before the prizes were distributed, Perrault had spoken highly in commendation of the successful piece, the writer of which, M. de la Monnoye, was unknown. A person who heard him, said to Perrault, “You would be much surprized were the piece to prove Boileau’s.” “Were it the devil’s,” answered Perrault, “it deserves the prize, and shall have it.” Boileau on his part, as if through emulation, rendered some justice to Perrault, and even on account of his verses. He praised the six lines which conclude the preface to Perrault’s “Parallels,” though the ancients are not treated in them with much respect.

PerrauJt, besides the verses alluded to, has written some others, not unworthy of praise. Such are those in hi.s poem “On Painting,” in which he happily, and even poetically, describes the boauties added by time to pictures. In these lines, the image he draws of time giving the finishing touches to the master-pieces of the great artists, while with a sponge he effaces even the remembrance of inferior productions, is noble and picturesque. Somewhat more of harmony and elegance in the expression would have rendered this draught worthy of the first masters.

When the quarrel between Boileau and Perrault had lasted long enough to make them both almost equally in the wrong, and the two adversaries had satiated themselves, the one with reproaches, the other with epigrams; when even the public began to grow weary of it; common friends, who ought sooner to have interposed, endeavoured to effect a reconciliation. They were indeed entitled to mutual esteem, which the one commanded by his uncommon powers, the other by his knowledge and understanding, and both by their probity. On the side of Perrault, the reconciliation was sincere. He even suppressed several strokes against the ancients, which he had in reserve for the fourth volume of his “Parallels,” “choosing rather,” said he, “to deprive himself of the satisfaction of producing fresh proofs of the goodness of his cause, than longer to embroil himself with persons of merit like that of his adversaries, whose friendship could not be purchased at too high a rate.” With respect to Boileau, he wrote what he termed a letter of reconciliation to Perrault; but in which, through its forced compliments, he could not avoid displaying that relic of gall or malignity, of which it is so difficult for a professed satirist entirely to discharge himself. This letter might almost pass for a new critique on Perrault, so equivocal was the turn of its reparation. Accordingly, a friend of Boileau said to him, “I doubt not that we shall always keep upon good terms together, but if ever, after a difference, we should be reconciled, no reparation! I beg: I fear your reparations more than your reproaches.”

We shall at present pass over some works of Perrault, less considerable than the two, which made him most talked of, and most clisturbed his repose. We shall only mention his “History of Illustrious Men of the Age of Lewis XIV.” Freed from his controversy with Boileau, but still a zealous partizan for his age, Perrault celebrated its glory in this work, which did equal honour to his understanding and his impartiality. Somewhat more life and colouring might be desired in it, but not more sincerity and justice. The author even confesses that he has denied himself ornament, for the purpose of giving more truth to his narration, by limiting encomium to the si,.iple recital of facts. “I was not ignorant,” says he, “that if I had made these eulogies more eloquent, I should have derived more glory from them; but 1 thought only of the glory of those whom I commemorate. It is well known, that funeral orations in general are more the eulogy of the preacher than of the deceased; and that if the reputation of the composer i$ often augmented by them, that of the subject almost always remains what it was before.”

We have hitherto followed D'Alembert, in our account of M. Perrault. It may be necessary now to add a few particulars from other authorities. With respect to his “Age of Lewis the Great,” it was a kind of prelude to a war with all the learned. In this poem he set the modern authors above the ancient, an attempt which would of course appear shocking to the majority, who considered the ancients as superior in every species of composition. Boileau was present at the academy when this poem was read there, in 1687, and was greatly disgusted; yet took no farther notice of it, than answering it by an epigram, as did also Menagn in another, to which Perrault replied in a letter, which he reprinted the same year, and added to it his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns,” in regard to arts and sciences. A second volume of this appeared in 1690, where the subject of their eloquence is considered; a third, in 1692, to determine their poetical merit; and a fourth, in 1696, which treats of their astronomy, geography, navigation, manner of warring, philosophy, music, medicine, &c. 12mo. In the third volume, which relates to poetry, Perrault had not only equalled the modern poets with the ancient, and partu ularly Boileau, but had also set up Chapelain, Quinault, and other French poets, whom Boileau in his Satires had treated with contempt. This brought on the animosity of which we have already given an account. Voltaire says, with regard to this famous controversy, which was carried on at the same time in England, by sir William Temple and others, that “Perrault has been reproached with having found too many faults with the ancients, but that his great fault was the having criticised them injudiciously.”

Perrault' s work, the “History of the Illustrious Men, 17 is now chiefly valued of all his writings, and not the less for the fine portraits from the collection of the celebrated Begon. Of the letter-press, we have an English translation by Ozell, 1704 5, 2 vols. 8vo. Perrault was determined by the public voice in the choice of his heroes, whom he confined to an hundred; but there are an hundred and two in the collection; the reason of which was this. Arnauld and Pascal were deservedly in his list; but the Jesuits made interest to have them excluded, and prevailed. Perrault thought it necessary to substitute two fresh ones; but the public refused to accept the work, unless Arnauld and Pascal might keep their places; and hence it arose, that instead of a hundred lives, which was Perrault' s original design, we find an hundred and two. There are other works of Perrault, which are much esteemed, as” Le Cabinet de Beaux Arts,“&c. or, A Collection of Copper-plates relating to Arts and Sciences, with Illustrations in Verse and Prose, 4 vols. oblong 4to;” Faernus’s Fables, translated into French Verse," &c.

Perrault died in 1703, aged seventy-seven. Madame Dacier, in the preface to her translation of “Homer’s Odyssey,” has given the following character of this author. < He was,“says she,” a man of talents, of agreeable conversation, and the author of some little works, which have been deservedly esteemed. He had also all the qualities of an honest and good man; was pious, sincere, virtuous, polite, modest, ready to serve, and punctual in the discharge of every duty. He had a considerable place under one of the greatest ministers France ever had, who reposed the utmost confidence in him, which he never employed for himself, but always for his friends." Such a character from madame Dacier must suggest to us the highest opinion of Perrault as a man, when it is considered, that, as an author, she thought him guilty of the greatest of all crimes, an attempt to degrade the ancient writers, whom she not only reverenced, but adored.

Besides Claude and Charles, there were two other brothers, Peter and Nicholas, who distinguished themselves in the literary world. Peter, the eldest of them all, was receiver-geueral of the finances, and published, in 1674, a piece, “De l'Origine des Fontaines;” and, in 1678, a French translation of Tassoni’s “La Seochia rapita.” Nkcolas was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1652, and died in 1661 leaving behind him a work, entitled “La Morale deslesuites, extraite fidelement de leurs iivres,” which was printed in 1667, 4to. Charles Perrault is said to have had a son. Perrault D'Armancourt, who, although he made a less figure in the learned world than his father or uncles, was the author of a book of tales, lately transferred from the nursery to the stage. The French edition is entitled “Contes de ma Mere l'Oye.” Hague, 1745, with a translation, “Mother Goose’s Tales.”

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

, a French artist of merit, born at Magon in 1590, was a goldsmith’s son; but contracting dissipated habits, ran away from his parents, and is said to have literally begged his way to Rome, in partnership with a blind man. At Rome, after suffering much for want of resources, he had recourse to his pencil, and was soon enabled to maintain himself. Having become acquainted with Lanfranco, he endeavoured to follow his manner, and was not unsuccessful. This giving him a confidence in his powers, he resolved to return to France; and stopping at Lyons, he painted the Carthusians cloister there. From Lyons he proceeded to Paris; and having worked some time for Vouet, who engrossed all the great works, he took a second journey to Italy, where he stayed ten years, and returned to Paris in 1645. About this time he painted the gallery of the Hotel de la Villiere, and drew several easelpieces for private persons. He died professor of the academy, in 1655. He etched several things with a great deal of spirit, and, among others, the finest basso-relievos that are in Rome, a hundred of the most celebrated antiquities, and some of Raphael’s works. He also engraved, in the chiaro oscuro, some antiquities, after a manner, of which, it was said, he was the first inventor; but Parmegiano used it a long time before him. It consists, of two copper-plates, whose impression is made on paper faintly stained the one plate is engraved after the usual way, and that prints the black and the other, which is the secret, prints the white.

, or Duperier, a French poet, was born' at Aix in Provence. He first devoted himself to Latin versification, in which he succeeded greatly; and he boasted of having formed the celebrated Santeuil. They quarrelled afterwards from poetic jealousy, and made Menage the arbitrator of their differences; who, however, decided in favour of Perrier, and did not scruple to call him “The prince of Lyric poets.” They afterwards became reconciled, and there are in Perrier’s works several translations of pieces from Santeuil. Perrier afterwards applied himself to French poetry, in which he was not so successful, though he took Malherbe for his model. His obtrusive vanity, which led him to repeat his verses to all who came near him, made him at last insupportable. Finding Boileau one day at church, he insisted upon repeating to him an ode during the elevation of the host, and desired his opinion, whether or no it was in the manner of Malherbe. Pope’s lines, “No place so sacred from such fops is barr'd,” &c. are literally a translation of Boileau’s on Perrier, “Gardez-vous d'imiter ce rimeur furieux,” &c. Indifferent, however, as his French poetry was, he obtained the academy-prize two years together, namely, in 1681 and 1682. He died March 28, 1692. His Latin poems are to he found in various collections, but have never been published in a separate volume, although they amply deserve that distinction.

, a cardinal more eminent for great talents and learning than for principle, was descended from ancient and noble families on both sides. His parents, having been educated in the protestiint religion, found it necessary to remove from Lower Normandy to Geneva; and settled afterwards in the canton of Berne, where he was born, Nov. 25, 1556. His father, Julian Davy, an able physician, and a man of learning, instructed him till he was ten years of age, and taught him mathematics and the Latin tongue. Young Perron seems afterwards to have built upon this foundation, for, while his parents were obliged to remove from place to place by civil wars and persecution, he taught himself the Greek tongue and philosophy, beginning that study with the logic of Aristotle: thence he passed to the orators and poets; and afterwards applied to the Hebrew language with such success, that he could read it without points, and lectured on it to the protestant clergy.

In the reign of Henry III. he was carried to the French court, which was then at Blois, where the states were assembled in 1576; and introduced to the king as a prodigy of parts and learning. His controversial talents were already so conspicuous, that few cared to dispute with him. His ingenuity does not, however, appear to have greatly advanced his interest, for we are told that when, after this, he came to Paris, he had no other resource than to teach Latin for bread, and that at a time when he held public conferences upon the sciences, m the grand hall of the Augustiues. He set himself afterwards to read the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and cultivated a strict friendship with Philip Desportes, abbot of Tiron, who procured him his own place of reader to Henry III. and was the first to advise him to renounce his religion. Previously to his taking this step, he is said to have offended Henry III. by an avowal of religious indifference, which is thus related: one day, while the king was at dinner, he made an admirable discourse against atheists; on which the king commended him much for having proved trie being of a God by arguments so solid. Perron instantly replied, that “if his majesty was disposed to hear him, he would prove the contrary by arguments as solid;” which so offended the king, that he forbad him to come into his presence. This story has been denied by some French writers, as derogatory to Duperrou’s religious principles; but others say that, granting it to be true, it means no more than that Du Perron vaunted his ability to take either side of a question, a practice universal at that time in the schools; yet they allow that his reply to the king was rather ill-timed, and ill-expressed.

He recovered, however, from any loss of character which this affair might occasion, by abjuring the religion in which he had been educated. It is rather singular that he is said to have acquired a distaste of the prorestant religion by studying the “Suinma” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the writings of St. Austin; but having by this or by some other means, reconciled his mind to the change of his religion, he displayed all the zeal of a new convert by labouring earnestly in the conversion of others, even before he had embraced the ecclesiastical function. By these arts, and his uncommon abilities, he acquired great influ*­ence, and was appointed to pronounce the funeral oration of Mary queen of Scots, in 1587; as he had done also that of the poet Ronsard, in 1586. He wrote, some time after, by order of the king, “A comparison of moral and theological virtues;” and two “Discourses,” one upon the soul, the other upon self-knowledge, which he pronounced before that prince. After the murder of Henry III. he retired to the house of cardinal de Bourbon, aud laboured more vigorously than ever in the conversion of the reformed. Among his converts was Henry Spondanus, afterwards bishop of Pamiez; as this prelate acknowledges, in his dedication to cardinal du Perron of his “Abridgment of Baronius’s Annals.” But his success with Henry IV. is supposed to redound most to the credit of his powers of persuasion. He went to wait on that prince with cardinal de Bourbon, at the siege of Rouen; and followed him at Nantes, where -he held a famous dispute with four protestant ministers. The king, afterwards resolving to have a conference about religion with the principal prelates of the kingdom, sent for Du Perron to assist in it; but, as he was yet only a layman, he nominated him to the bishopric of Evreux, that he might be capable of sitting in it. He came with the other prelates to St. Denis, and is said to have contributed more than any ether person to the change in Henry’s sentiments.

After this, he was sent with M. d'Ossat to Rome, to negotiate Henry’s reconciliation to the holy see; which at length*he effected more to the satisfaction of the king, than of his subjects; that part of them at least, who were zealous for Gallican liberties, and thought the dignity of their king prostituted upon this occasion. After a year’s residence at Rome, he returned to France; where, by such services as have already been mentioned, he obtained promotion to the highest dignities. He wrote, and preached, and disputed against the reformed; particularly against Du Plessis Mornay, with whom he had a public conference, in the presence of the king, at Fontainbleau. The king resolved to make him grand almoner of France, to give him the archbishopric of Sens, and wrote to Clement VIII. to obtain for him the dignity of a cardinal; which that pope conferred on him, in 1604, with singular marks of esteem. The indisposition of Clement soon after made the king resolve to send the French cardinals to Rome; where Du Perron was no sooner arrived, than he was employed by the pope in the congregations. He had a great share in the elections of Leo X. and Paul V. He assisted afterwards in the congregations upon the subject of Grace, and in the disputes which were agitated between the Jesuits and the Dominicans: and it was principally owing to his advice, that the pope resolved to leave these questions undecided. He was sent a third time to Rome, to accommodate the differences between Paul V. and the republic of Venice. This pope had such an opinion of the power of his eloquence and address, that he said to those about him, “Let us beseech God to inspire cardinal Du Perron, for he will persuade us to do whatever he pleases.”

After the murder of Henry IV. in 1610, Du Perron devoted himself entirely to the court and see of Rome, and prevented every measure in France which might displease that power, or hurt its interests. He rendered useless the arret of the parliament of Paris, against the book of cardinal Bellarmine and favoured the infallibility of the pope, and his superiority over a council, in a thesis maintained in 1611, before the nuncio. He afterwards held a provincial assembly, in which he condemned Richer' s book, “concerning ecclesiastical and civil authority” and, being at the assembly of Blois, he made an harangue to prove, that they ought not to decide some questions, ou account of their being points of faith. He was one of the presidents of the assembly of the clergy, which was held at Rouen in 1615; and made harangues to the king at the opening and shutting of that assembly, which were much applauded. This was the last of his public services; for after this he retired to his house at Bagnolet, and employed himself wholly in revising and completing his works. This was with him a matter of great importance, for he not only had a private press in his house, that he might have them published correctly, and revised every sheet himself, but is said also to have printed a few copies of every work that he wished to appear to advantage, for the revisal of his friends before publication. He died at Paris, Sept. 5, L618, aged sixty-three. He was a man of great abilities; had a lively and penetrating wit, and a particular talent at making his views appear reasonable. He delivered himself upon all occasions with great clearness, dignity, and eloquence. He had a prodigious memory, and had studied much. He was very well versed in antiquity, both ecclesiastical and profane; and had read much in the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical historians, of which he knew how to make the best use to perplex, if not to convince his adversaries. He was warmly attached to the see of Rome, and strenuous in defending its rights and prerogatives; and therefore it cannot be wondered, that his name has never been held in high honour among those of his countrymen who have been accustomed to stand up for the Galilean liberties. They consider indeed that ambition was his ruling passion, and that it extended even to literature, in which he thought he ought to hold the first rank. In his youth he had translated into French verse a part of the Æneid and the praises which Desportes and Bertaut bestowed on this performance made him fancy that his style was superior to that of Virgil. He was in his own opinion, says the abb Longuerue, the commander-in-chief of literature; and authors found that his opinion was to be secured before that of the public. His favourite authors were Montaigne, whose essays he called the breviary of all good men, and Rabelais, whom, by way of distinction, he called “The author.”

The works of Du Perron, the greatest part of which had been printed separately in his life-time, were collected after his death, and published at Paris, 1620 and 1622, in 3 vols. folio. The first contains his great “Treatise upon the Eucharist,” against that of Du Plessis Mornay. The second, his “Reply to the Answer of the King of Great Britain.” The following was the occasion of that work: James I. of England sent to Henry IV. of France a book, which he had written himself, concerning differences in religion. Henry put it into the hands of Du Perron’s brother, who informed his majesty, from what the cardinal had observed to him, that there were many passages in that book, in which the king of England seemed to come near the catholics; and that it might be proper to send some able person, in hopes of converting him entirely. Henry accordingly, after taking the advice of his prelates in this affair, desired to know of the king of England, whether he would approve of a visit from the cardinal Du Perron? King James answered that he should be well pleased to confer with him, but for reasons of state could not do it. After this, Isaac Casaubon, who had been engaged in several conferences with Du Perron about religion, and seemed much inclined to that egregious absurdity, a reunion between the popish and reformed church, was prevailed on to take a voyage into England; where he spoke advantageously of Du Perron to the king, and presented some pieces of poetry to him, which the cardinal had put into his hands. The king received them kindly, and expressed much esteem for the author; which Casaubon noticing to Du Perron, he returned a letter of civility and thanks to his Britannic majesty; in which he told him, that, “except the sole title of Catholic, he could find nothing wanting in his majesty, that was necessary to make a most perfect and accomplished prince.” The king replied, that, “believing all things which the ancients had unanimously thought necessary to salvation, the title of Catholic could not be denied him.” Casaubon having sent this answer to Du Perron, he replied to it in a letter, dated the 15th of July, 1611, in which he assigns the reasons that obliged him to refuse the name of Catholic to his Britannic majesty. Casaubon sent him a writing by way of answer, in the name of the king, to all the articles of his letter; to which the cardinal made a large reply, which constitutes the bulk of the second volume of his works. The third contains his miscellaneous pieces; among which are, “Acts of the Conference held at Fontainbleau against Du Plessis Mornay;” moral and religious pieces in prose and verse, orations, dissertations, translations, and letters.

There was a fourth volume of his embassies and negotiations, collected by Caesar de Ligni, his secretary, and printed at Paris in 1629 and 1633, folio: but these are supposed not to have done him much honour, and Wicquefort thinks him as a diplomatic character inferior to d'Ossat in every respect. There were also published afterwards, under his name, “Perroniana,” which, like most of the ana, is a collection of puerilities and impertinences.

, sieur d'Ablancourt, a scholar of considerable parts, and once admired for his translations from ancient authors, was born at Chalons, April 5, 1606. He sprung from a family which had been illustrious in the law, and the greatest care was bestowed on his education. His father, Paul Perrot de la Sailer, who was a protestant, and also a man learning, sent him to pursue his studies in the college of Sedan; where he made so rapid a progress, that, at thirteen, he had gone through the classics. He was then taken home, and placed for some time under a private tutor, after which he was sent to Paris, where he studied the law five or six months, and was, when only in his eighteenth year, admitted advocate of parliament but did not adhere longto the bar. Another change he made about this time of great importance, was that of his religion, for popery, of which he embraced the tenets at the persuasion of his uncle Cyprian Perrot, who, in hopes of procuring him some valuable benefices, took great pains to recommend the church as a profession, but in vain. Nor did he succeed better in retaining him as a convert, for fte had scarcely distinguished himself in the republic of letters, by writing a preface to the “HonneXe Femme,” for his friend, father Du Bosc, than he felt a desire to return to the religion he had quitted. He was now, however, in his twenty-seventh year, and had sense enough to guard against precipitation in a matter of so much consequence. He studied, therefore, the differences betwixt the Romish and reformed church, and after three years’ investigation, during which he did not disclose his intention to any one, he set out from Paris to Champagne, where he abjured popery; and very soon after went to Holland, till the clamour which followed this step was over. He was near a year in Leyden, where he learned Hebrew, and contracted a friendship with Salmasius. From Holland he went to England; then returned to Paris; and, after passing some weeks with M. Patru, took an apartment near the Luxembourg. He passed his days very agreeably; and though he devoted the greatest part of his leisure to books, mixed occasionally in society, and was the respected associate of all the learned in Paris. In 1637 he was admitted a member of the French academy, but was soon after forced to leave Paris, on account of the wars; and therefore retired to his estate, called Ablancourt, where he lived till his death. He died Nov. 17, 1664, of the gravel, with which he had been afflicted the greater part of his life.

He was a man of great acuteness, imagination, judgment, and learning, and thought equal to the production of any work; yet we have no original pieces of his, excepting the “Preface” above mentioned, “A Discourse upon the Tmjnortality of the Soul,” and a few letters to Patru. But he made French translations of many ancient writers, which were once admired for their elegance, purity, and chasteness of style. Among these are Tacitus, Lucian, Caesar, Thucydides, and Arrian; but he took too great liberties with the sense of his author, for the sake of imitating his manner, and producing something like an original. He is said to have succeeded best while he profited by the advice of Patru, Conrart, and Chapelain; and it is certain that those translations written in his latter days, vv^ien he had not that advantage, are inferior to the others. When he was asked, why he chose to be a translator, rather than an author, he answered, that “he was neither a divine nor lawyer, and consequently not qualified to compose pleadings or sermons that the world was filled withtreatises on politics that all discourses on morality were only so many repetitions of Plutarch and Seneca; and that, to serve one’s country, a man ought rather to translate valuable authors, than to write new books, which seldom contain any thing new.” The minister Colbert, judging him very capable of writing the “History of Louis XIV.” recommended him to that monarch; who however, upon being informed that Perrot was a protestant, said, that “he would not have an historian of a religion different from his own.” Perrot was a man of great talents in conversation, and said so many good things that Pelisson regretted there was not some one present to write down all he spoke.

, captain, a celebrated engineer, the secondson of Samuel Perry, of Rodborough in Gloucestershire, gent, and Sarah his wife, daughter of sir Thomas Nott, knt. was, in or before 1693, lieutenant of the Montague; which about that year coming into Portsmouth dock to he refitted, he exerted his skill in the improvement of an engine for throwing out a large quantity of water from deep sluices in a short space of time. In 1695, he published “A Regulation for Seamen; wherein a method is humbly proposed, whereby their Majesties fleet may at all times be speedily and effectually manned, and the Merchants be more readily and cheaper served, without having their men at any time pressed or taken away; setting forth the great advantages that will accrue thereby to the king, merchant, and subject in general, whereby these islands will be more secure and happy, the king’s revenue considerably be eased, trade in general be quickened and encouraged, and every individual subject receive benefit thereby, in lessening the price of all naval commodities; wherein is also proposed, a method or nursery for training up of Seamen to supply the loss and decay of them in time of War: as also, the giving hereby equal liberty and advantage to all seamen, removing many hardships that they now suffer under, and giving them many encouragements that they do not now enjoy. By John Perry, late Captain of the Signet Fire-ship, now a prisoner in the Marshalsea, according to sentence of a late CourtMartial. To. which is added, a short Narrative of his Case relating to his loss of the said ship in company' of the Diamond Frigate, in September 1693,” 4to. By this pamphlet it appears that he had been sentenced to a fine of 1000l. and to ten years’ imprisonment. In 1698, when the Czar Peter was in this country, being desirous of engaging some eminent artists, Mr. Perry was introduced to his notice by the marquis of Carmarthen, and by Mr. Dummeiy surveyor of the Navy, as a person capable of serving him on several occasions, relating to his new design of establishing a fleet, making his rivers navigable, &c.; and he was taken into the service of the Czar as comptroller of the marine works, at a salary of 300l. per annum, with travelling charges, and subsistence-money, on whatever service he should be employed; besides a further reward to his satisfaction, at the conclusion of any work he should finish. After some conversation with the Czar himself, particularly respecting a communication between the rivers Volga and Don, he was employed on this work three successive summers; but not being properly supplied with men, partly on account of the ill-success of the Czar against the Swedes at the battle of Narva, and partly by the discouragement of the governor of Astracan, he was ordered at the end of 1707 to stop, and next year employed in refitting the ships at Veronise, and in 1709 in making the river of that name navigable. After repeated disappointments, and fruitless applications for his salary, he at last quitted the kingdom, under the protection of Mr. Whitworth, the English ambassador, in 1712.

After his return he published < c Ttfe State of Russia under the present Czar; in relation to the several great and remarkable things he has done, as to his naval preparations, the regulating his army, the reforming his people, and improvement of his country; particularly those works on which the author was employed; with the reasons of his quitting the Czar’s service, after having been fourteen years in that country. Also, an Account of those Tartars, and other people, who border on the Eastern and extreme Northern parts of the Czar’s dominions; their religion and manner of life. With many other observations. To which is annexed a more accurate Map of the Czar’s dominions than has hitherto been extant," 1716, 8vo.

In 1721 he was employed in stopping the breach at Dagenham, made in the bank of the river Thames, near the village of that name in Essex, and about three miles below Woolwich, in which he happily succeeded, after several other persons had failed in that undertaking. He was also employed, the same year, about the harbour at Dublin, and published at that time an answer to the objections raised against it. A publication by Capt. Perry on these subjects is thus entitled, “An Account of the Stopping of Dagenham Breach; with the accidents that have attended the same from the first undertaking: containing also proper Rules for performing any the like work, and Proposals for rendering the ports of Dover and Dublin (which the author has been employed to survey) commodious for entertaining large ships. To which is prefixed a plan of the levels which were overflowed by the Breach,” 1721, 8vo. Upon this project 1600l. had been spent by the author of “An impartial Account of the frauds and abuses at Dagenham Breach, and of the hardships sustained by Mr. William Boswell, late undertaker of the works there: in a Letter to a Member of Parliament,” London, 1717, 8vo.

Capt. Perry was elected a Member of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding, April 16, 1730, to which Society was communicated his original Map or Chart of the Sea Coasts. He died Feb. 1 I, 1733, and was buried in Spalding church, where an inscription on a slab erected by his kinsman and heir William Perry, of Penshurst in Kent, preserves his memory.

, one of the three great Roman satirists, was born at Volterra, in Tuscany, in the 22d year of Tiberius’s reign, or A. D. 34. At the age of 12 he was removed to Rome, where he pursued his studies under Palaemon the grammarian, and Virginius Flaccus the rhetorician. He afterwards, at sixteen, applied himself to philosophy under Cornutus, a Stoic, who entertained so great a love for him, that there was ever after a most intimate friendship between them. Persius has immortalized that friendship in his fifth satire, and his gratitude for the good offices of his friend. This he shewed still farther by his will, in which he left him his library, and a great deal of money: but Cornutus, like a true philosopher, who knew how to practise what he taught, accepted only the books, and gave the money to the heirs of the testator. We have nothing deserving the name of a life of Persius, but his character appears to have been excellent. He had a strong sense of virtue, and lived in an age when such a sense would naturally produce a great abhorrence of the reigning vices. His moral and religious sentiments were formed on the best systems which the philosophy of his age afforded and so valuable is his matter, that Mr. Harris, of Salisbury, justly said, “he was the only difficult Latin author that would reward the reader for the pains which he must take to understand him.”

Persius is said to have been of a weak constitution, and troubled with indigestion, of which he died in his 30th year. Of his satires, six are extant, and have procured him to be named with Horace and Juvenal as the third great Latin satirist. With regard to his obscurity, critics have varied in their opinions of the cause of it: some attribute it as an original defect in his style; while others assert, that what we call obscurities and difficulties arise from allusions to persons, events, and practices, with which we are now unacquainted. There are, undoubtedly, such allusions in all the Roman poets; but Persius cannot be altogether acquitted of harshness and obscority of style, independent of such. He has more of the force and fire of Juvenal, than of the politeness of Horace; but as a moral writer he excels both.

The best editions of this poet are that of London, 1647, 8vo, with Casaubon’s “Commentary” and that of Wedderburn, Amst. 1664, 12mo; but he is generally printed along with Juvenal; and has had the same editors. We have several English metrical translations: the first by Dryden; the second, and a very valuable one, by a Dr. Brewster, in 17ol, 8vo; and, more recently, an ejegant and spirited version by Mr. Drummond.

, a celebrated Italian painter, the master of Raphael, was born in 1446, at Perugia, whence he took the name that has totally obliterated his family appellation, which was Vanucci. His parents were poor; but, being desirous to put him in a way of supporting himself, placed him with a painter, under whom he imbibed at least a strong enthusiasm for his art, and desire to excel in it. His application to study was intense; and when he had made a sufficient progress, he went to Florence, and became a disciple of Andrea Verocchio. From this painter he acquired a graceful mode of designing heads, particularly those of his female figures. He rose by degrees to considerable eminence, and was employed by Sixtus IV. to paint several pieces for his chapel at Rome, Great as his talents were, he was unfortunately infected with the vice of covetousness. It was from this cause that, when he returned to Florence, he quarrelled with Michael Angelo, and behaved so ill, that the Florentines, being enraged against him, drove him from their city: on which he returned to his native Perugia. The same foible proved accidentally the cause of his death; for, having accumulated some money, which he was very anxious not to lose, he always carried it about him. He continued this practice till some thief robbed him of his treasure; and, the grief for his loss being too severe for his strength, he died in 1524, at the age of 78.

His touch was light, and his pictures highly finished; but his manner was stiff and dry, and his outline was frequently incorrect. His most capital painting is in the church of St. Peter at Perugia It is an altar-piece, the subject of which is the Ascension of Christ. The disciples are there represented in various attitudes, but all directing their eyes to heaven, and looking after the Lord, who is supposed to have ascended.

, a painter of history and architecture, was born in 1481, at Accajano, in the diocese of Volterra, but in the territory and a citizen of Siena. He commenced his studies as a painter at Siena; and when he had gained a competent degree of knowledge, he copied the works of the best masters, with a diligence and success that were equally extraordinary. From Siena he went to Rome, where he was employed by the pope Alexander VI. Julius II. and Leo X. in their palaces, and in several chapels and convents. He was particularly successful in painting architecture; and so completely understood the principles of chiaro-oscuro, and of perspective, that even Titian is said to have seen the effects with surprize, being hardly able to believe that what he saw was the work of the pencil, and not real architecture. His usual subjects were streets, palaces, corridors, porticoes, and the insides of magnificent apartments, which he represented with a truth that produced an absolute deception*. He received some instructions from Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s,

"approach the style of Raphael such him * Architetto umversale' and as

tie of Belcaro; and the celebrated the fabnck of Sr. Peter, unrewarded

Sibyl, at Foute Giusta, of Siena, whose and pitifully paid. With regard to his

celled. His great prerogative, how- page 178." and was himself employed by Leo X. in forming designs and models for that building He was unfortunately in Rome when it was sacked by the army of Charles V. in 1527, and was made a prisoner, but obtained his liberty by painting a portrait of the eonsiable de Bourbon. Peruzzi died in 1556, very poor, though he had been always in great employment. They who were indebted to him were not always very ready to pay, and he was too modest to demand his right, hy v\hich means he lost a great part of what he had fairly earned.

, member of the academies of Nancy, of Amiens, of Kouen, and Angers, was born at Paris on the 9th of July, 1712, of a reputable family. In his early youth his progress in his studies was rapid. His assiduous application, 'his lively genius, and mild demeanour, conciliated the esteem of his master, and gained the friendship of his juvenile companions. His taste for poetry was apparent at a very earl) period; but the designs of his parents for the advancement of his fortune would not permit him to resign himself entirely to his favourite pursuits, and he sacrificed in some degree his propensity to their wishes. He was placed tinder M. Holland, an advocate, and constantly attended to the regular discharge of business. His leisure hours were devoted to the Muse; and J.e gave up that time to poetry, which by many, at his age, is sacrificed to pleasure. In 1738 his “Ecole du Temps,” a comedy in verse, was represented with applause on the Italian theatre. Encouraged by this success, and with the approbation of M. Rolland, he produced, in the following year, at the French theatre, his “Esope au Parnasse,” a comedy in verse. The reputation of the young poet, and his character for probity, recommended him to M. Lailemand of Bety, a farmer-general, who was at that time forming a system of finance, and who felicitated himself in procuring such an assistant, and in attaching him to his interest. The occupations incident to this new department were probably the causes which prevented Pesselier from producing any other pieces for the stage. Poetry was, however, still the amusement of the time that could be spared from business. In 1748, he published his fables, and among his dramatic works appears a comedy, “La Mascarade du Parnasse,” in verse, and in one act, which was never performed.

His attachment to poetry could not prevent him from dedicating some of the moments that could be spared from the labours of finance to the elucidation of that science. Accordingly, he published the prospectus of a work upon that subject. This publication, exhibiting in one view a perfect knowledge and extensive prospects for the improvement of that necessary resource, attracted the attention of the ministry, who established an office for promoting the plan, and placed the author at the head of it, with appointments proportioned to his talents and the importance of his labours. The views of Pesselier now extended further than the operations of finance. He undertook a treatise on the customary laws of the kingdom, of which, however, only the preliminary discourse appeared. Soon afterwards he published his “Letters on Education,” in two volumes 12mo.

Incessant application and a delicate constitution, with an extreme vivacity of spirits, probably shortened his life. His health began to decline; but he ceased not from his diligence. His attention to the business of his office was almost without remission; till, overcome by fatigue, he fell sick in November 1762, languished under his disorder for six months, and died the 24th of April, 1763.

, perhaps better known by his classical appellation of Dionysius Petavius, was born at Orleans Aug. 21, 1583. His father, Jerome Petau, although a merchant, was a man of considerable literature, and rather more attentive to matters of taste than of commerce: the consequence of which was, that he left very little property to his children, six sons and two daughters. He gave them all, however, a learned education; the daughters as well as the sons being taught Latin and Greek, and able to write verses in both languages. But we find, that with all his learning, Jerome was a superstitious bigot to his religion; which his biographer, father Oudin, as warm a zealot as himself, says was at one time in danger of being shaken by some of his Protestant friends, who were very numerous in Orleans. Nay, he was, according to Oudin, about to renounce Popery altogether, and retire with his family, when an extraordinary accident prevented his design. A part of his house tell down, and so frightened him, that, while he lay buried under the ruins, he made a vow, that if ever he escaped, he would break off all acquaintance with the Protestants; and being dug out alive and unhurt, he kt-pt his vow, and endeavoured to give his children the *ame dislike to the Protestant faith as he had formerly determined to give them to the Roman Catholic.

As he perceived in his second son, Denis, a more than ordinary capacity, as well as eagerness for knowledge, he paid particular attention to the formation of his taste and the direction of his studies; and often told him, that he should lay up such a fund of knowledge, as to be able to cope with “the giant of the Allopbyloe,” as he called Sealiger, whose learning and works were of such importance to the Protestants. This advice was not thrown away on Denis, who studied, with the greatest diligence, both at Orleans and Paris; and when he came to take his degree of master of arts, supported a thesis in Greek; a language which he knew as intimately as Latin, and both more so than he knew French. For two years he heard the lectures of the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne, in his time; and was so assiduous, that he never left his study, unless for the king’s library, where he was permitted to consult the valuable Greek and Latin manuscripts. About this time he became acquainted with the learned Isaac Casaubon, whom Henry IV. had invited to Paris in 1600, and their friendship continued until Casaubon’s departure for England, and, what hurt Petau most, his departure from Popery, after which he treated him with as much asperity, as any other of his opponents. In the mean time, it was in consequence of Casaubon’s advice, that, young as he was, he undertook to prepare for the press an edition of the whole works of Synesius; that is, to collate manuscript copies, to translate what was in Greek, and to add explanatory notes. He had no sooner undertaken this work, than he was promoted to the professorship of philosophy in the university of Bourges, when only in his nineteentn year. The course which this office enjoined him to teach lasted two years, during which he also read the ancient philosophers and mathematicians.

In the second year of his being at Bourges, Frederick Morel, Grerk professor at Paris, brought out a complete edition of the works of Dio Chrysostom, and inserted a discourse of Synesius, translated by Petau, who was not sorry to have this opportunity of sounding the taste of the public on the merits of his translation. In the title are the words Interprete Dionysio P<eto, the name he assumed some time before this. Hitherto his intention had been to enter the church; and he was already subdeacon, and had been preferred to a canonry in the cathedral of Orleans. He had never yet seen the Jesuits; but having become acquainted with the nature of their order, when at Bourges, partly from inclination, and partly from the persuasions of the learned Fronto Ducaeus, he entered as a noviciate among them at Nancy, in June 1605. After two years of probation, he studied for two years longer at the college of Pont-a-Mousson, then very flourishing. Thence he was sent to Rheims, where, for three years, he taught rhetoric. In 1610, he did the honours of the college at the consecration of Louis XIII.

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

The catalogue of the works of Petau affords an uncommon proof of diligence; for we are assured, that besides the labour of composing, compiling, &c. he transcribed every thing with his own hand for the press, and employed no amanuensis or reader to assist him. Among his works are: 1. “Synesii Dio, vel de ipsius vitae institute,” mentioned already as published in Morel’s edition of St. Chrysostom. 2. “Panegyricus Ludovico XIII. Francix et Navarrx regi, &c. in natalem diem,” &c. 1610, 12mo. 3. “De laudibus Henrici magni carmen,” &c. 1&10, 4. “Oratio de laudibus Henrici magni,” Rheims, 1611, 4to. 5. “Synesii Opera,” Paris, 1612 1633, 3 vols. folio. 6. “Julian! imperatoris orationes tres panrgyricaD,” Flexise (La Fieche), 1613, 8vo. 7. “Themistii Orationes septemdecim. Gr. Lat.” ibid. 1613, 8vo. 8. “Tragce iia, Carthaginienses,” ibid. 1614, 8vo, a tragedy in the manner of Seneca, which it was then the fashion to imitate. 9. “Pompa regia Ludovici XIII” &c. a collection of the complimentary verses on the royal visit to La Fieche, mentioned before, 1614, 4to. 10 “Nicephori Breviariuin Historicum,” Gr. et Lat.“Paris, 1616, 8vo. 11.” Themistii, cognomento Suadae, orationes novemdecim, Gr et Lat.“ibid. 1618, 4to. 12.” Soteria ad S. Genov-fam,“ibid. 1619, 4to, his votive poem to St. Genevieve. 13. Another, in praise of the same saint,” Panegyricus in S Genevefam,“ibid. 1619, 4to. 14.” D. Petavii Orationes,“ibid. 1620, 1622, 1624, 8vo. 15.” D. Petavii Opera Poetica,“ibid. 1621, 8vo, reprinted at least three times. 16.” Office de S. Genevieve,“ibid. 1621, 16mo. 17. Epiphanii Opera omnia,” ibid. 1622, 2 vols. folio, reprinted at Cologn 1682. In April following the publication of this work, Salmasius took occasion to attack Petau, in his edition of the “Pallio” of Tertullian, and certainly not in very respectful language. Petau’s biographer says he ought to have taken no notice of such an attack, as in that case his silence would have completely disconcerted Salmasius, a man who could not exist without a quarrel with some contemporary; or, at all events, Petau should have been content with a short answer to such an opponent. Perhaps Petau might have been pf this opinion, if he had not considered that Salmasius was a Protestant, and regarded by Protestants as the man who would one day supply the loss of Joseph Scaliger; and he was not therefore sorry to have this opportunity, not only to defend himself against Salmasius, but to attack him in his turn. He published, accordingly, 18. “Animadversionum liber,” under the fictitious name of Antonius Kerkoetius Aremoricus, and die fictitious place of “Rhedonis apud Yvonem Halecium,” i.e. “Parisiis, apud Sebast. Cramoisy,” 1622, 8vo. This brought on an angry controversy, in which Salmasius certainly had some advantages, from his superior knowledge of the manner of handling the weapons of controversy; and perhaps we may be permitted to say, from his having the, better cause to support. Petau’s pamphlets, on this casion, were entitled “Mastigophores,” and consisted of three, and a supplement, published in 162:5 and 1624. But we hasten to his more important chronological works, uhich, of all others, preserve his memory in our times: 19. “Opus de doctrina Temporum,” Paris, 1627, 2 vols. folio, reprinted, with additions from his own copy, Amst. 170:3, folio. 20. “Uranologion, sive systema variorum authorum, qui de sphaera ac sideribus, eorumque motibus Grasce commentati sunt,” ibid. 163O, folio,“intended as a supplement to his” Doctrina temporum“to which an additional volume was published, with dissertations from the Mss. of Petau and Sirmond, in 1703, folio. 21.” Tabulue Chronologicae Regum, Dynastarum, Urbium, &c. a mundo coridito, &c. &c.“ibid. 1628, on large sheets, and often reprinted: the best edition is that of Vesel, 1702. 22.” Rationarium Temporum,“ibid. 1633, 12mo. the best known and most useful of all his works, and long the standard book in all seminaries and private libraries, for chronology and history. It was consequently often reprinted, improved, and enlarged, not only by the author, but by various other editors. There are two editions, printed at Leyden in 1724 and 1745, 2 vols. 8vo, which are said to be the best. Besides these, and many other works of inferior importance enumerated by his biographer, Petau published a considerable number of theological pieces, which have sunk into oblivion, except perhaps his” Theologica dogmata,“Paris, 1G44, 5 vols. folio; reprinted more correctly at Antwerp, 1700, 3 vols. folio. Of this work, Bayle has observed, that Petavius did the Socinians great service, though unawares, and against his intentions and quotes the following passage from the” Lettres Choisies“of Mr. Simon” If there be any thing to censure in Petavius’s works, it is chiefly in the second tome of his “Dogmata Theologica,” in which he seems to favour the Arians. It is true, that he softened those passages in his preface; but as the body of the work continues entire, and the preface, which is an excellent piece, came afterwards, it has not entirely prevented the harm which that book is like to do at this time, when the new Unitarians boast, that father Petavius declared for them.“Baylo thinks he has resolved this, by informing us that Petavius’s original design, in the second volume of his” Dogmata Theologica,“was, to represent ingenuously the doctrine of the three first centuries. Having no particular system to defend, he did not disguise the opinions of the fathers; but acknowledged that some of them entertained false and absurd notions concerning the Trinity. All this, however, either from fear, or upon better consideration, he retracted, and published a” Preface,“in which he laboured solely to asseYt the orthodoxy of the fathers. The” Dogmata Theologica of Petavius,“says Gibbon,” is a work of incredible labour and compass: the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios of 837 pages) are divided into sixteen books: the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine.“” The Jesuit’s learning,“adds our infidel historian,” is copious and correct: his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected: but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candour, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause."

, an eminent prelate of the fifth century, and called Chrysologus from his eloquence, was descended of a noble family, and born at Imola, then called Forum Cornelii. After a suitable education, he was elected archbishop of Ravenna, about the year 433, and was much celebrated for his virtue and his eloquence. He died about the year 451. There are 126 sermons or homilies of his in the library of the fathers, in which he unites perspicuity with brevity; their style is concise and elegant, but not unmixed with quaintnesses. Father d'Acheri has published in his “Spicilegium,” five other sermons written by him; and in St. Peter’s works, is his answer to Eutyches, who had written to him in the year 449, complaining of St. Flavianus of Constantinople, in which he defends the orthodox faith, and refers Eutyches to the excellent letter sent by St. Leo to Flavianus, which teaches what is to be believed concerning the mystery of the incarnation. The best edition of St. Peter Chrysologus is that printed at Augsburg, 1758, folio.

, or Petrus Blesensis, one of the most learned and celebrated writers of the twelfth century, studied at Paris and Bologna, and was appointed preceptor and secretary to William II. king of Sicily, and afterwards was invited into England by Henry II. who made him archdeacon of Bath, but permitted him to reside near Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he was. Peter de Blois lost this archdeaconry towards the end of his life, and had that of London, where it is said he laboured much for little profit. He died in 1200, in England. There are some letters, sermons, and other works of his, in the library of the fathers, in which he strongly condemns the abuses and disorders which then reigned in the church. He is said to have been the first who used the word transubstantiation, to express the doctrine of the Romish church on the subject of the eucharist. The best edition of this author is by Peter de Gussanville, 1667, folio.

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

, or Peter the Venerable, a native of Auvergne, descended from the family of the counts Maurice, or de Montbois.vier, took the monk’s habit at Clugny, was made prior of Vezelay, afterwards abbot, and general of his order in 1121, at the age of twentyeight. He revived monastic discipline in the abbey of Clugny, and received pope Innocent II. there in 1130. He opposed the errors of Peter de firuys and Henry, and died in his abbey, December 24, 1156. We have six books of his letters, with several other works of very little consequence, in the “Library of Clugny,” and some homilies in Martenne’s “Thes. Anecd.” That so ignorant and trifling a writer shoaid have been honoured with the title of Venerable, is a strong mark of the low state of religious knowledge at that time. In these his works he takes great pains to vindicate the manners and customs of his monastery, and appears to place the essence of Christianity in frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies. It was he, however, who received the celebrated Abelard in his afflictions with great humanity, and who consoled Eloisa after his death, by sending to her, at her request, the form, of Abelard’s absolution, which she inscribed on his sepulchre.

, czar of Russia, who civilized that nation, and raised it from ignorance and barbarism, to politeness, knowledge, and power, a man of a wonderful composition and character, was born the 30th of May, 1672, and was son of the czar Alexis Michaelowitz by a second wife. Alexis dying in 1672, Feodor, or Theodore, his eldest son by his fivst wife, succeeded to the throne, and died in 1682. Upon his decease, Peter, though but ten years of age, was proclaimed czar, to the exclusion of John his elder brother, who was of a weak body, and a weaker mind. The strelitzes, who were the established guard of the czars, as the janisaries are of the grand seigniors, made an insurrection in favour of John, at the instigation of the princess Sophia, who, being own sister to John, hoped, perhaps, to be sole regent, since John was incapable of acting; or at least to enjoy a greater share of authority under John, than if the power was lodged solely in her half-brother Peter. The matter, however, was at last compromised; and it was agreed, that the two brothers should jointly share the imperial dignity. The Russian education was, at that time, like the country, barbarous, so that Peter had no advantages; and the princess Sophia, who, with considerable talents, was a woman of great ambition and intrigue, took all imaginable pains to stifle his natural desire of knowledge, to deprave and corrupt his mind, and ta debase and enervate him with pleasures. Yet his abhorrence of pageantry, and love of-military exercises, discovered itself in his tenderest years; and, to gratify this inclination, he formed a company of fifty men, commanded by foreign officers, and clothed and exercised after the German manner. He entered himself among them in the lowest post, and performed the duties of it with the utmost diligence. He ordered them entirely to forget that he was czar, and paid the utmost deference and submission to the commanding officers. He lived upon his pay only, and lay in a lent in the rear of his company. He was some time after raised to be a serjeant, but only as he was entitled to it by his merit; for he would have punished his soldiers, had they discovered the least partiality in his favour: and he never rose otherwise, than as a soldier of fortune. The strelitzes looked upon all this as the amusement of a young prince: but the czar, who saw they wer too formidable, and entirely in the interest of the princes Sophia, had secretly a design of crushing them; which he wisely thought could not be better effected, than by securing to himself a body of troops, more strictly disciplined, and on whose fidelity he could more fully rely.

At the same time, he had another project in view, of vast importance, and most difficult execution. The sight of a small Dutch vessel, which he had met with on a lake, where it lay useless and neglected, made a wonderful impression on his mind, and he conceived thoughts of forming a navy; a design, which probably then seemed next to impossible, even to himself. His first care was to get Hollanders to build some small vessels at Moscow, and afterwards four frigates, of four guns each, on the lake of Pereslave. He had already taught them to combat one another; and in order to instruct himself in naval affairs, he passed two summers successively on board English or Dutch ships, which set out from Archangel. In I6i)6, the czar John died, and Peter became sole master of the empire. He began his reign with the siege of Asoph, then in the hands of the Turks, but did not take it till 1697. He had already sent for Venetians, to build gallies on the river Don, which might shut up the mouth of that river, and prevent the Turks from relieving the place. This gave him a stronger idea than ever, of the importance and necessity of a naval force; yet he could have none but foreign ships, none at least but what he was obliged to employ foreigners in building. He was desirous of surmounting these disadvantages, but the affairs he projected were of too new and singular a nature to be so much as considered in his council, nor were they proper to he communicated. He resolved therefore singly to manage this bold undertaking; with which view, in 1698, he sent an embassy to Holland, and went himself incognito in the retinue. He entered himself in the India admiralty-office at Amsterdam, caused himself to he inrolled in the list of ship-carpenters; and worked in the yard with greater assiduity than any body there. His quality was known to all; and he was pointed at with a sort of veneration. King William, who was then in Holland, paid him all the respect that was due to his uncommon qualities; and the czar’s disguise freed him from that which was merely ceremonious and troublesome. The czar worked with such success, as in a little time to pass for a good carpenter; and afterwards studied the proportions of a ship. He then went into England; where, in four months, he made himself a complete master in the art of ship-building, by studying the principles of it mathematically, which he had no opportunity of learning in Holland. In England he met with a second reception from king William; who, to make him a present agreeable to his taste, and which might serve as a model of the art he was so very desirous to learn, gave him a magnificent yacht. He carried with him from England several English ship-builders and artificers, among whom was one whose name was Noy; but the C2ar took also upon himself the title of a master-builder, and was pleased to submit to the conditions of that character. Thus he and Noy received orders from the lord high admiral of Russia, to build each of them a man of war; and, in compliance with that order, the czar gave the first proof of his art. He never ceased to pursue it, but had always a ship upon the stocks; and, at his death, left one of the largest ships in Europe half-built.

During the czar’s absence, the princess Sophia, being uneasy under her confinement, and meditating to regain that liberty which she had forfeited by former insurrections, found means to correspond with the strelitzes, who were now quartered at a distance from Moscow, and to instigate them to a third rebellion in her favour. The news of this obliged him to hasten home: and, arriving at Moscow about the end of 1699, he executed terrible vengeance upon the ringleaders yet took no other satisfaction of his sister the princess, than by continuing her confinement in the nunnery, and hanging up the priest, who had carried her letters, on a gallows before her window. In 1700, he got together a body of standing forces, consisting of thirty thousand foot; and now the vast project which he had formed began to display itself in all parts. He first sent the chief nobility of his empire into foreign countries, to improve themselves in knowledge and learning: he opened his dominions, which till then had been shut up, and invited all strangers who were capable of instructing his subjects; and he gave the kindest reception to all land and sea officers, sailors, mathematicians, architects, miners, workers in metals, physicians, surgeons, and indeed operators and artificers of every kind, who would settle in his dominions. In the mean time, he had to do with a dull, fceavy, untoward people; so that it is no wonder, that proceedings so new and strange should raise many discontents and tumults, apd it was sometimes almost impossible with all his power to suppress them.

One very singular reason, on which these discontents were grounded, was, that the Russians considered grandeur and superiority, the czar’s great object, in no other light than as a power of doing evil. In 1700, being strengthened by an alliance with Augustus king of Poland, he made war upon Charles XII. of Sweden; from continuing which, he was not deterred by the ill success of his first campaigns: for he used to say, “I know that my armies must be overcome for a great while; but even this will at last teach them to conquer.” Afterwards, however, he gained considerable advantages in Livonia and Ingria, provinces subject to the Swedes. His acquisitions here were so important, that they induced him to build a fortress, whose port, situated on the Baltic, might be large enough to receive a fleet; and accordingly, in 1703, he laid the foundation of Petersburgh, now one of the strongest cities in Europe, which was to him what Alexandria was to Alexander. He waged war with the Swedes for several years, and, without ever, gaining any considerable advantage, was frequently most miserably beat by them. But firmness of mind and perseverance were qualities peculiarly eminent in him; and therefore at length, in 1709, he obtained a complete victory over them in his own dominions, at Pultowa. A great part of the Swedish army were made prisoners. The Swedish generals who were takeu were constantly entertained at his own table and one day, when he had drunk a health to his masters who had instructed him in the art of war, count Rinschild, a chief officer among the prisoners, asked him, “Who they were whom he honoured with so glorious a title?” “Yourselves, gentlemen,” said he. “Your majesty is very ungrateful then,” replied the count, “to have so beaten your masters.” Upon which the czar, to make them some reparation for this ingratitude, immediately gave orders that their swords should be returned; them and treated them with the greatest generosity and goodness. Near 3000 Swedish officers, however, were dispersed up and down his dominions, and particularly in Siberia, a country of vast extent, and running as far as China; and, having little prospect of returning to Sweden, they soon formed a kind of colony, and began to apply themselves to the various professions with which they were acquainted. Thus they forwarded the czar’s great purpose, in polishing and civilizing the ancient inhabitants of the country; and many arts, which, although established at Moscow and Petersburgh, might not have reached Siberia a long time, were thus suddenly established there.

In the mean time, Petersburgh had risen into a large and powerful city; and the king of Sweden having been obliged to fly from Pultowa to Bender in the Turkish dominions for refuge, the czar availed himself of his absence, by making a complete conquest of Livonia and Ingria to which he added Finland, anda part of Pomerania. The Turks having broken a truce they had concluded with him, he was inclosed by their army in 1712, on the banks of the Pruth; and that in so disadvantageous a situation, that he seemed to be inevitably lost. While the army was under great consternation, the czarina Catherine projected an expedient for its deliverance. She sent to negociate with the grand vizir, and let him privately know, that a great sum of money was at his service: he was tempted, and the czar’s prudence completed the work. To perpetuate the memory of this event, he caused the czarina to institute the order of St. Catherine, of which she was declared sovereign, and into which none but women were to be admitted. The king of Sweden having at last quitted the Turkish dominions, in 1713, the czar found this formidable enemy advancing to oppose him: but he was now strengthened by an alliance with the king of Denmark. He carried the war into the duchy of Holstein, which was is alliance with the Swedes; and, in 1714, obtained over them a victory at sea, near the coasts of Finland, upon which he entered triumphantly with his fleet into the haven of Petersburgh.

All this while he continued his pursuits after all kinds of knowledge. He caused his engineers to draw the plan of every city, and to take designs of all the different machines which he had not in his own country. He instructed himself in husbandry, and in all sorts of trade, wherever he came. In 1716, he paid a visit, with his consort, to the king of Denmark at Copenhagen, where he spent three months. He visited there every school of the university, and all the men of letters: for, regardless of ceremony and pageantry, which he hated, it was indifferent to him, whether they waited on him, or he went to them. He coasted every day some part of the kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, attended by two engineers; surveyed all the windings, sounded every part of the straits, and afterwards had the whole so exactly described in charts, that not so much as the smallest shelf or bank of sand escaped his observation. From Copenhagen he went to Hamburgh, Hanover, Wolfenbuttle, and from thence to Holland. Here he left the czarina, and went to France in 1717; and, in June that year, visited the royal academy of sciences at Paris, where he was entertained by seeing the latest invented and most curious machines and experiments. He was no sooner returned to his own dominions, than he signified his inclination of becoming a member of that society; and the academy having made their most respectful acknowledgments for the great honour he did them, he wrote them a letter with his own hand. These particulars may be seen in the history of that academy for 1720: the academy sent him every year a volume of their proceedings, to which, as an academician, he was entitled; and he always accepted it with pleasure, as from his brethren.

It would be endless to enumerate all the various establishments, for which the Russians are indebted to this great emperor: Fontenelle has recorded some of the principal, which are, 1. A body of 100,000 foot, under as regular a discipline as any in Europe. 2. A navy of forty ships of the line, and 200 gallies. 3. Fortifications in all main towns, and an excellent civil government in the great cities, which before were as dangerous in the night, as the most unfrequented deserts. 4. An academy for naval affairs and navigation, where all the nobility are obliged to send some of their children. 5. Colleges at Moscow, Petersburgh, and Kiof, for languages, polite literature, and mathematics; and schools in the villages, where the children of the peasants are taught to read and write. 6. A college of physicians, and a noble dispensatory at Moscow, which furnishes medicines to the great cities, and to the armies; whereas before there was no physician but the czar’s, and no apothecary in all his dominions. 7. Public lectures in anatomy, a word never heard before in Russia. Voltaire relates, that the czar had studied this branch of knowledge under Ruysch at Amsterdam; and made such improvements under this master, as to perform even chirurgical operations himself. He afterwards purchased the cabinet of that anatomist, which contained an immense collection of the most curious, instructive, and uncommon preparations. 8. An observatory, not only for the use of astronomers, but as a repository for natural curiosities. 9. A physic garden, to be stocked with plants, not only from all parts of Europe, but from Asia, Persia, and even the distant parts of China. 10. Printing-houses, where he abolished their old barbarous characters, which, through the great number of abbreviations, were almost become unintelligible. 11. Interpreters for all the languages of Europe; and likewise for the Latin, Greek, Turkish, Kalmuc, Mogul, and Chinese. 12. A royal library, composed of three very large collections, which he purchased in England, Holstein, and Germany.

These, and many more, were particular institutions and establishments: but the czar made general reformations, to which indeed the other were only subservient. He changed the architecture of his country, which was ugly and deformed; or, more properly, he first introduced that science into his dominions. He sent for a great number of pictures from Italy and France; and thus instructed in the art of painting a people, who knew no more of it, than what they could collect from the wretched daubing of men who painted the imaginary heads of saints. He sent ships laden with merchandize to Genoa and Leghorn, which returned freighted with marble and statues: and pope Clement XI. pleased with his taste, presented him with a fine antique, which the czar, not caring to trust by sea, ordered to be brought to Petersburgh by land. Religion was not neglected in this general reform ignorance and superstition had over-run it so much, that it scarcely merited the name of Christian. The czar introduced knowledge, where it was miserably wanted; and this knowledge enabled him to abolish, at least in a considerable degree, fasts, miracles, and saint-worship. He ventured further than to the correction of rites: he abolished the patriarchate, though much independent of him; and thus got rid of a power, which was always interrupting and disconcerting his measures. He took away part of the revenues of those churches and monasteries which he thought too wealthy; and, leaving only what was necessary for their subsistence, added the overplus to his own demesnes. He made many judicious ecclesiastical canons, and ordered preaching in the Russian language. Lastly, he established a general liberty of conscience throughout his dominions. There is one more reformation, and perhaps as necessary and useful as any of the former, which he made even in his last illness, though it was exceedingly painful. When the senators and great personages, then about him, mentioned the various obligations which Russia lay under to him, for abolishing ignorance and barbarism, and introducing arts and sciences, he told them, that he had forgot to reform one of the most important points of all, namely, the mal-administration of justice, occasioned by the tedious and litigious chicanery of the lawyers; and signed an order from his bed, limiting the determination of all causes to eleven days, which was immediately sent to all the courts of his empire.

This wonderful man died of the strangury, caused by an imposthume in the neck of his bladder, Jan. 28, 1725, aged fifty-three. He was tall, and remarkably well shaped; had a noble countenance, eyes sparkling with vivacity, and a robust constitution. His judgment was sound, which, as Voltaire has observed, may justly be deemed the foundation of all real abilities: and to this solidity was joined an active disposition, which led him into the most arduous undertakings. Whoever reflects upon the interruptions, difficulties, and oppositions, that must unavoidably occur in civilizing and reforming a large and barbarous empire, must suppose the czar to have been, as indeed he really was, a man of the greatest firmness and perseverance. His education was far from being worthy of his genius: it had been spoiled by the princess Sophia, whose interest it was that he should be immersed in licentious excesses. Howfever, in spite of bad example, and even his own strong propensity to pleasure, his natural desire of knowledge and magnanimity of soul broke through all habits; nay, they broke through something even greater than habits. It is remarkable, that from his childhood he had such a dread of water, as to be seized with a cold sweat and with convulsions, even in being obliged to pass over a brook. The cause of this aversion is thus related: When he was about five years of age he was carried in the spring season over a dam, where there was a water-fall or cataract. He was asleep in his mother’s lap, but the noise and rushing of the water frightened him so much that it brought on a fever and, after his recovery, he retained such a dread of that element, that he could not bear to see any standing water, much less to hear a running stream. Yet such was the force of his resolution, that he gradually conquered this antipathy, and his aversion of water was afterwards changed into an excessive fondness for that element. He had a son who lived to be a man; but this son engaging with his mother, whom Peter had divorced in 1692, and other malcontents, in a conspiracy against his father in 1717, was condemned to die. He saved the executioners the trouble by dying a natural death; and an account of this unfortunate prince, with original papers, was published by the czar himself. The title of it, as it stands in the second volume of the “Present State of Russia,” translated from the German, and printed at London, 1722, in 8vo, runs thus: “A Manifesto of the Criminal Process of the Czarewitz Alexi Petrowitz, judged and published at St. Petersburg, the 25th of June, 1718, translated from the Russian original, and printed by order of his czarish majesty at the Hague, 1718.” The czar composed several pieces upon naval affairs; and his name must therefore be added to the short catalogue of sovereigns who have favoured the public with their writings.

The czarina, his widow, whom he nominated his successor, was, upon his death, immediately acknowledged empress of Russia by the several estates of the empire. The history of this lady is’rather extraordinary. She was born in Livonia, in 1684; and losing her parents, who were of low condition, she became destitute. The parishclerk, who kept a school, took her into his house, and supported her, till Dr. Gluck, minister of Marienburg, happening to come to that village, eased the clerk of the girl, whom he liked exceedingly, and carried her home with him. Dr. Gluck treated her almost in the same manner as if she had been his own daughter; and not only had her taught spinning and sewing, but instructed her also himself in literature above her sex, and especially in the German language. At length a Livonian serjeant in the Swedish army, fell passionately in love with her, and she agreed to marry him: but the next day the Russians made themselves masters of Marienburg; and the general, casting his eyes accidentally on Catherine, and observing something very striking in her air and manner, took her then under his protection, and afterwards into his service. Some time after, she was advanced to be a housekeeper to prince Menzikoff, who was the general’s patron; and there the czar seeing her, she made such an impression on him that he married her. She was taken at Marienburg in 1702, and married to the czar in 1710: what became of her former husband, the serjeant, is not known. She was a woman of wonderful abilities and address, and a very fit consort for such a man as Peter the Great. It has been already observed in what manner she rescued him from rujn by her management, when he was surrounded by the Turks: and he seems to have made her the partner of his councils and undertakings, as well as of his bed. He shewed the high opinion he had of her by nominating her to succeed him;. but she died in little more than two years after him. She had several daughters by the czar; the youngest of which, Elizabeth, after the heirs of the elder branches were extinct, ascended the throne in 1741.

, a noted fanatic in the time of Charles I. was the son of a merchant at Fowey, in Cornwall, and was some time a member of Trinity college, in Cambridge, whence, it is said, he was expelled for irregular behaviour; but this expulsion must have taken place after he had taken both his degrees, that of A. B. in 1618, and of A. M. in 1622. He afterwards betook himself to the stage, where he acquired that gesticulation and buffoonery which he so often practised in the pulpit. He was admitted into holy orders by Dr. Mountaine, bishop of London, and was for a considerable time lecturer of St. Sepulchre’s, in that city; but, being prosecuted for criminal conversation with another man’s wife, he fled to Rotterdam, where he was pastor of the English church, together with the learned Dr. William Ames, who, it is probable, either did not know, or did not believe the report of his being prosecuted for adultery. He afterwards went to America, and after a residence of seven years, returned to England at a time when men of his character were sure of employment. He became, therefore, a violent declaimer against Charles I. and in favour of all the measures of the republican party; and Cromwell found him one of his most useful tools with the army and the lower classes of the people. When king Charles was brought to London for his trial, Hugh Peters, as sir William Warwick says, “was truly and really his gaoler.” Dr. Kennet informs us that he bore a colonel’s commission in the civil war; that he was vehement for the death of the king; that it was strongly suspected that he was one ef his masked executioners, and that one Hulet was the other. After the restoration he was executed with the other regicides. His character appears to have been in all respects unworthy of his religious profession; what can be alleged in his favour may be seen in our authorities.

, an agreeable French writer and learned Orientalist, was born in 1654. After a suitable education he became the king of France’s secretary, and interpreter for Oriental languages, and succeeded his father in those offices, which, his countrymen inform us, he was eminently well qualified to fill. To a very considerable share of general learning, he added an integrity and firmness of mind which enabled him to resist the importunities of corruption in a very remarkable instance. He had great offers made to him if he would insert in the treaty between the Algerines and Lewis XIV. that the six hundred thousand livres, to be received by the latter, should be paid in Tripoli crowns, which would have made a difference of a sixth part. But this he rejected with contempt, although the trick could not have been discovered, or known to any except those who were to profit by it.

His own court, however, imposed a duty upon him more congenial to his disposition^ and highly conducive to the advancement of his favourite studies. In compliance with his royal master’s commands, he undertook several voyages to the East, and to Africa, and performed some negociations so much to the satisfaction of Louis XIV. that, besides other rewards of his merit, he was appointed in 1692 Arabic professor in the royal college, which he held until his death in 1713.

Besides the Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Tartarian languages, he was acquainted with the Ethiopian and Armenian. His “Persian Tales” were first published after his death in five small volumes, in 1722. His own account of them was, that they were Indian plays, turned into Persian stories by the dervice Modes, who communicated them to him, and gave him leave to transcribe them. Those who are acquainted with the Arabian Tales will perceive the similarity of the present, in which we have the same method, the same taste, and the same design, with this only difference, that in the Arabian Nights, a prince is prepossessed against women, and in the Persian Tales, a princess affects the same aversion to men. Of these “Tales” we have an English translation, which has often been reprinted. His other works were “The History of Timur bee, or the great Tamerlan,” 1722, 4 vols. 12mo; “The State of the Ottoman Empire, 3 vols. 12mo; the” History of Genghizcan" which have all been published, but he left other translations, which are yet in manuscript. His son Alexander Louis Maria, was also professor of Arabic in the royal college, and translated the canon of Soliman II. for the instruction of Mourad IV. He died in 1751, aged fifty-three.

, a celebrated French anatomist, was born in 1708, at Orleans, and received the degree of doctor of physic at Paris, in November 1746. He was elected a member of the royal academy of sciences in 1760. His talents in the practice of his profession procured for him the appointment of inspector of military hospitals in 1768; and in the following year he was appointed professor of anatomy and surgery at the king’s garden, where his science and eloquence attracted a crowd of auditors. In 1775 he was succeeded byM.Vicq d'Azyr in the duties of this chair, while he remained titular professor. He died in 1794. He was author of the following works viz. “Lettre d'un Medecin de Montpellier, au sujet de rexameii public que le Sieur Louis a subi à saint Côme, en 1749, pour servir d‘Eclaircissement a ce qu’en dit M. Fréron,” 1749, 4to. “Discours sur la Chirurgie,” an introductory lecture delivered at the schools of medicine, 1757 “Consultation en faveur des Naissances tardives,” 1764, 8vo “Premier et seconde Rapport en faveur de l'Inoculation,” 1766, 8vo “Deux Consultations Medico-iegales,” relative to a case of supposed self-murder, and to a supposed infanticide, 1767. He also edited “Anatomic Chirurgicale publié cidevant par Jean Palfin,” 1753, 2 tom. 8vo.

, a celebrated surgeon, was born at Paris, March 13, 1674. From his childhood he displayed uncommon acuteness, and received his first instructions in anatomy from M. de Littre, a celebrated anatomist, who resided in his father’s house. Under this master he made such rapid progress, that he had scarcely attained the age of twelve, when M. de Littre found that he might be intrusted with the care of his anatomical theatre. He afterwards studied surgery under Castel and Mareschal, and was admitted master in 1700. In the course of no long time he became the first practitioner in Paris, and was “consulted in all cases of importance; and there were few operations of difficulty and delicacy which he did not superintend, or actually perform; and his hand and his counsels were alike successful. Such a reputation soon extended throughout Europe. In 1726 he was sent for by the king of Poland, and again in 1734 by Don Ferdinand, afterwards king of Spain: he re-established the health of both these princes, who endeavoured to retain him near their persons with the offer of great rewards, but could not overcome his attachment to his native place. Among his professional honours was that of member of the academy of ^ciences, director of the academy of surgery, censor and royal professor at the schools, and fellow of the royal society of London. He died at Paris, April 20, 1750, aged 76, regretted as much for his private virtues as his public services. He communicated many memoirs to the academy of sciences, and several to the academy of surgery, which were printed in their first volume. His only separate publication was his” Traite des Maladies des Os,“printed at Paris in 1705, in 12mo, and frequently reprinted, with additions. An edition in 1758, in two volumes, 12mo, was published by M. Ant. Louis, with an historical and critical essay respecting it subjoined; and his pupil, M. Leslie, published his posthumous works in 1774, with the title of” Traite des Maladies Chirurgicales et des Operations qui leur conviennent," in three vols. 8vo, with many plates of chirurgical instruments. His treatise on the bones involved him in several controversies; but the only chagrin which he felt arose from finding Winslow, who, as censor royal, had approved the work, retract his approbation, in a letter inserted in the Journal des Savans for May 1725.

, a considerable mathematician and philosopher of France, was born at Montlugon, in the diocese of Bourges, in 1598, according to some, but in 1600 according to others. He first cultivated the mathematics and philosophy in the place of his nativity; but in 1633 he repaired to Paris, to which place his reputation had procured him an invitation. Here he became highly celebrated for his ingenious writings, and for his connections with Pascal, Des Cartes, Mersenne, and the other great men of that time. He was employed on several occasions by cardinal Richelieu; particularly to visit the sea-ports, with the title of the king’s engineer; and was also sent into Italy upon the king’s business. He was at Tours in 1640, where he married; and was afterwards made intendant of the fortifications. Baillet, in his Life of Des Cartes, says, that Petit had a great genius for mathematics; that he excelled particularly in astronomy; and had a singular passion for experimental philosophy. About 1637 he returned to Paris from Italy, when the dioptrics of Des Cartes were much spoken of. He read them, and communicated his objections to Mersenne, with whom he was intimately acquainted, and yet soon after embraced the principles of Des Cartes, becoming not only his friend, but his partisan and defender. He was intimately connected with Pascal, with whom he made at Rouen the same experiments concerning the vacuum, which Torricelli had before made in Italy; and was assured of their truth by frequent repetitions. This was in 1646 and 1647; and though there appears to be a long interval from this date to the time of his death, we meet with no other memoirs of his life. He died August 20, 1667, at Lagny, near Paris, whither he had retired for some time before his decease. Petit was the author of several works upon physical and astronomical subjects; the principal of which are, 1. “Chronological Discourse,” &c. 1636, 4to, in defence of Scaliger. 2. “Treatise on the Proportional Compasses.” 3. “On the Weight and Magnitude of Metals.” 4. “Construction and Use of the Artillery Calibers.” 5. “On a Vacuum.” 6. “On Eclipses.” 7. “On Remedies against the Inundations of the Seine at Paris.” 8. “On the Junction of the Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea, by means of the rivers Aude and Garonne.” 9. “On Comets.” 10. “On the proper Day for celebrating Easter.” 11. “On the nature of Heat and Cold,” &c.

, another very learned Frenchman, was born at Paris in 1617, and brought up to the profession of physic, in which faculty he took a doctor’s degree at Montpeliier: but, afterwards returning to Paris, neglected the practice of it, and gave himself up entirely to the study of polite literature. He lived some time with the first president Lamoignon, as preceptor to his sons; and afterwards with mons. Nicolai, first president of the chamber of accounts, as a man of letters and companion. He spent the greatest part of his life in composing; and had a wonderful facility with his pen, which enabled him to write much. He was deeply read in the ancient Greek and Latin authors, and joined to his skill in these, an uncommon knowledge in philosophical matters. He died in 1687, aged seventy.

He wrote much, both in verse and prose, but in Latin only. His first production seems to have been, 1. “An Elegy upon the Death of Gabriel Naude, in 1653.” In 1660, he published in 8vo, 2. “De motu animalium spontaneo liber unus.” Petit was a great partisan for the Peripatetic philosophy; and, in this as well as some other works of the same kind, he has strenuously supported the principles of Aristotle, and combated those of Des Cartes. 3. “Epistolse Apologeticse A. Menjoti de variis sectis amplectendis examen: ad medicos Parisienses, autore Adriano Scauro, D. M. 1666,” 4to. Menjot had maintained that a man should attach himself to no particular sect, but take from each whatever he found good. This sentiment did not please Petit, and he opposed it in this work under the fictitious name of Scaurus. He published the same year, in 8vo, under the feigned name of Marinus Statileus, 4. tf Apologia pro genuitate fragment! Satyrici Petroniani“which Hadrian Valesius then, and the best critics since, have agreed to reject as spurious. Euthyphron was another assumed name, under which he published, 5.” De nova curandorum morborum ratione per transfusionem sanguinis,“in 1667, 4to. He there rejects this method of cure, which was approved by many physicians of his time, and supports his own opinion with much elegance and learning. In 1683, were published at Utrecht, in 8vo, 6.” Miscellanearum Observationum, libri iv.“These are verbal criticisms upon various authors, and shew great accuracy as well as profound erudition. The same year at Paris came out in 8vo, 7.” Selectorum Poematum, libri ii. Accessit Dissertatio de Furore Poetico.“The dissertation is curious, and the poems have merit enough to rank him with Rapin, Menage, and the best writers of modern Latin poetry. 8.” De Amazonibus Dissertatio,“Paris, 1685, 12mo. The edition of Amsterdam, 1687, 12mo, is preferable, there being additions by the author, and critical observations by M. de la Monnoye. 9.” De natura et moribus Anthropophagorum Dissertatio,“at Utrecht, 1688, 8vo. A curious and learned work. 10.” In tres priores Aretaei libros Commentarii: Una cum dissertatiuncula de Petiti vita, et copioso in eosdem Commentarios indice, 1726," 4to. It was Maittaire, who published this posthumous work, and placed the life of Petit at the head of it. There are several works of this author, but we have mentioned the most important. Care must be taken, in the mean time, not to confound him with the preceding Peter Petit, who was his contemporary.

, a learned physician, was born June 24, 1664, at Paris. He attended the hospitals of the army, but settled at Paris after the peace of Utrecht in 1513; was admitted into the academy of sciences in 1722, and acquired great reputation, particularly by his skill in disorders of the eyes. M. Petit invented an Ophthalmometer for measuring the parts of the eye, and several other instruments to direct the hand in its operations upon that delicate organ. He died at Paris June 18, 1741, aged 77. His works, which are written in rather a careless style, are, “Trois Lettres d'un Medecin des Hospitaux du Roi a un autre Medecin de ses amis, sur un Nouveau Systeme du Cerveau,” Namur, 1710, 4to. “Dissertation sur une Nouvelle Methode de faire l'Operation de la Cataracte,” Par. 1727, 12mo. “Lettre dans laquelle il est démontré que la Crystailin est fort pres de l‘Uvee, et ou Ton rapporte de nouvelles preuves de i’Operation de la Cataracte,” 1729, 4to. “Lettres contenant des Reflexions sur ce que M. Hecquet, M. D. a fait imprimer touchant les Maladies des Yeux,” 1729, 4to. “Lettres contenant des Reflexions sur les Decouvertes faites sur les Yeux,” 1732, 4to.

, or Petitus, a celebrated scholar, was born at Nismes in 1594. He studied at Geneva, witli a success so uncommon, that, at the age of seventeen, he was admitted to the sacred ministry. Soon after, he was raised to the professorships of theology, and of Greek and Hebrew in that city, where he passed the chief part of his life, and where he died in December 1645, at the age of fifty-one. He has left behind him several works of great learning. For instance, 1. “Miscellanea,” Paris, 1630, 4to, in nine books, containing corrections of passages in a vast number of ancient authors. 2. “Eclogae Chronologicae,” Paris, 1632, 4to. 3. “Varies Lectiones,” Paris, 1633, 4to. This is in four books, three of which are employed on the customs, ceremonies, &c. of the Old and New Testament. 4. “Leges Atticae,” first published at Pads, in 1615, but again in 1635, &c. This is a work of the highest reputation, and having been enriched by the subsequent remarks of Palmerius, Salvini, Duker, and Wesseling, was reprinted in 1742, fol. In this shape, it forms a third volume of the collection entitled “Jurisprudentia Romana et Attica,” published by Heineccius, Duker, and Wesseling. Petit was the author also of other publications of less consequence, but all evincing profound and extensive learning. His character was not less amiable, than his accomplishments were extraordinary. Hs was mild and gentle in an uncommon degree. It is related of him, that going once from curiosity into a synagogue at Avignon, a rabbin, supposing himself free from all danger of detection, railed against him in Hebrew, in a very gross manner. Petit, without any anger, coolly answered him in the same language, and thus covered the assailant with confusion. In Answer to the apologies and excuses of thfc Jew, he only, in a mild manner, exhorted him to embrace Christianity.

, a celebrated Benedictine, of the congregation of St. Vannes, was born December 18, 1659, at St. Nicholas in Lorrain. He taught philosophy and theology in the abbey de St. Michael; was made abbot of Senones 1715, and bishop of Macra 1726. He died June 14, 1728, aged 69. The principal among his numerous works are, 3 vols. 8vo, of “Remarks on M. Dupin’s Ecclesiastical Library;” and “An Apology for M. Pascal’s Provincial Letters,” in seventeen letters. This work he afterwards disavowed in a letter to cardinal Corradini, dated September 30, 1726, where he declares that these seventeen letters have been rashly and falsely attributed to him; but l'Avocat says, that it is nevertheless certain that he wrote them. He wrote also a treatise “On the Pope’s Infallibility,” in favour of the Holy See, and against the liberties of the Gallican church, Luxemburg, 1724, 12mo; and a “Dissertation on the Council of Constance,” 1725, 12mo. He not only accepted the constitution “Unigenitus,” but wrote in its defence, and by that means gained the abbey of Senones, which the person to whom it bad lapsed disputed with him.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Geneva in 1607, of a father who was a sculptor and architect, and who, after having passed part of his life in Italy, retired to that city. His son was designed to be a jeweller; and, by frequent employment in enamelling, acquired so fine a taste, and so precious a tone of colouring, that Bordier, who afterwards became his brother-in-law, advised him to attach himself to portrait, believing he might push his art on still to greater lengths; and though both the one and the other wanted several colours which they could not bring to bear the fire, yet they succeeded to admiration. Petitot painted the heads and hands, in which his colouring was excellent; Bordier painted the hair, the draperies, and the grounds. These two friends, agreeing in their work and their projects, set out for Italy. The long stay they made there, frequenting the best chemists, joined to a strong desire of learning, improved them in the preparation of their colours; but the completion of their success must be ascribed to a journey they afterwards made to England. There they found sir Theodore Mayerne, physician to Charles T. and a great chemist; who had by his experiments discovered the principal colours to be used for enamel, and the proper means of vitrifying them. These by their beauty surpassed all the enamelling of Venice and Limoges. Mayerne introduced Petitot, to the king, who retained him in his service, and gave him a lodging in Whitehall. Here he painted several portraits after Vandyck, in which he was guided by that excellent master, who was then in London; and his advice contributed greatly to the ability of Petitot, whose best pieces are after Vandyck. King Charles often went to see him work; as he took a pleasure both in painting and chemical experiments, to which his physician had given him a turn. Petitot painted that monarch and the whole royal family several times. The distinguished favour shewn him by that prince was only interrupted by his unhappy and tragical end. This was a terrible stroke to Petitot, who did not quit the royal family, but followed them in their flight to Paris, where he was looked on as one of their most zealous servants. During the four years that Charles II. stayed in France, he visited Petitot, and often eat with him. Then it was, that his name became eminent, and that all the court of France grew fond of being painted in enamel. When Charles II. returned to England, Louis XIV. retained Petitot in his service, gave him a pension, and a lodging in the gallery of the Louvre. These new favours, added to a considerable fortune he had already acquired, encouraged him to marry in 1661. Afterwards Bordier became his brother-in-law, and ever remained in a firm union with him: they lived together, till their families growing too numerous, obliged them to separate. Their friendship was founded on the harmony of their sentiments and their reciprocal merit, much more than a principle of interest. They had gained, as a reward for their discoveries and their labours, a million of livres, which they divided at Paris; and they continued friends without ever having a quarrel, or even a misunderstanding, in the space of fifty years.

Petitot copied at Paris several portraits of Mignard and Le Brun; yet his talent was not only copying a portrait with an exact resemblance, but also designing a head most perfectly after nature. To this he also joined a softness and liveliness of colouring, which will never change, and will ever render his works valuable. He painted Louis XIV. Mary Anne of Austria his mother, and Mary Theresa his wife, several times. As he was a zealous protestant, and full of apprehensions at the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he demanded the king’s permission to retire to Geneva; who rinding him urgent, and fearing he should escape, cruelly caused him to be arrested, and sent to Fort l'Evque, where the bishop of Meaux was appointed to instruct him. Yet neither the eloquence of Bossuet, nor the terrors of a dungeon, could prevail. He was not convinced, but the vexation and confinement threw him into a fever; of which the king being informed, ordered him to released. He no sooner found himself at liberty, than he escaped with his wife to Geneva, after a residence at Paris of thirty -six years. His children remaining in that city, and fearing the king’s resentment, threw. themselves on his mercy, and implored his protection. The king received them favourably, and told them he could forgive an old man the whim of desiring to be buried with his fathers .

When Petitot returned to his own country, he cultivated his art with great ardour, and had the satisfaction of preserving to the end of his life the esteem of all connoisseurs. The king and queen of Poland, desirous to have their pictures copied by Petitot, though then above eighty, sent the originals to Paris, believing him to be there. The gentleman who was charged with the commission went on to Geneva. The queen was represented on a trophy holding the king’s picture. As there were two heads in the same piece, they gave him a hundred louis d'ors; and he executed it as if he had been in the flower of his age. The concourse of his friends, and the resort of the curious who came to see him, was so great, that he was obliged to quit Geneva, and retire to Vevay, a little town in the canton of Berne, where he worked in quiet. He was about the picture of his wife, when a distemper carried him off in one day, in 169J, aged eighty-four. His life was always exemplary, and his end was the same. He preserved his usual candour and ease of temper to his last hour. He had seventeen children by his marriage; but only one of his sons applied himself to painting, who settled in London. His father sent Jinn several of his works to serve him for models. This son died a good many years ago, and his family settled in Dublin, but whether any are now remaining we know not.

Petitot may be called the inventor of painting in enamel; for though Bordier, his brother-in-law, made several attempts before him, and sir Theodore Mayerne had facilitated the means of employing the most beautiful colours, it was still Peiitot who completed the work; which under his hand acquired such a degree of perfection, as to surpass miniature, and even equal painting in oil. He made use of gold and silver plates, and rarely enamelled on copper. When he first came in vogue, his price was twenty louts a-head, which he soon raised to forty. His custom was, to carry a painter with him, who painted the picture in oil; after which Petitot sketched out his work, which he always finished after the life. When he painted the king of France, he took those pictures that most resembled him for his patterns; and the king afterwards gave him a sitting or two to finish his work. He laboured with great assiduity, and never laid down his pencil but with reluct, ance; saying, that he always found new beauties in his art to charm him.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was born in 1630, of a respectable family at Paris. He was counsellor clerk to the Chatelet, and curate of the parish of St. Martial, and died sub-chanter and canon of the church of Paris, 1705, aged 75, leaving a learned work, entitled “Du Droit et des Prerogatives des Ecclesiastiques, dans l'administration de la justice seculaire,” 4to. This was occasioned by M. Petit-Pied having offered to preside in the chatelet upon one occasion, which it was said the clergy had no right to do. The work was considered as of great merit in point of argument, and contributed to obtain a decision in favour of the clergy.

, nephew of the preceding, and a celebrated doctor of the Sorbonne, was born Aug. 4, 1665, at Paris. He was appointed professor in the Sorbonne 1701; but, having signed the famous “Case of Conscience” the same year, with thirty-nine other doctors, he lost his professorship, and was banished to Beaune in 1703. Some time after this he retired into Holland with father Quesnel and M. Fouillon, but obtained leave to return to Paris in 1718, where the faculty of theology, and the house of Sorbonne, restored him to his privileges as doctor in June 1719. This, however, was of no avail, as the king annulled what had been done in his favour the July following. M. Petit-Pied became afterwards theologian to M. de Lorraine, bishop of Bayeux, which prelate dying June 9, 1728, he narrowly escaped being arrested, and retired again into Holland. In 1734, however, he was recalled; passed the remainder of life quietly at Paris, and died January 7, 1747, aged 82, leaving a large number of well-written works, the greatest part in French, the rest in Latin, in which he strongly opposes the constitution Unigenitus.

, a famous English botanist, was contemporary with Plukenet; but the exact time of his birth is not known, nor is much intelligence concerning him at present to be obtained. His profession was that of an apothecary, to which he was apprenticed under Mr. Feltham, then apothecary to St. Bartholomew’s hospital. When he entered into business for himself, he settled in Aldersgatestreet, and there continued for the remainder of his life. He obtained considerable business, and after a time became apothecary to the Charter-house. After the Tradescants, he appears to have been the only person, except Mr. Courten, and sir Hans Sloane, who made any considerable collection in Natural History, previous to those of the present day. He engaged the captains and surgeons of ships to bring him home specimens, and enabled them to select proper objects by printed directions which he distributed among them. By these means his collection became so valuable, that, some time before his death, sir Hans Sloane offered him four thousand pounds for it. After his death, it was purchased by the same collector, and now makes part of the British Museum, where they are frequently resorted to for the sake of ascertaining obscure synonyms, his plates being so generally cited by Linnæus, and in many instances so insufficient to express the precise object intended. He was elected into the royal society, and becoming acquainted with Ray, assisted him in arranging the second volume of his History of Plants. He died April 20, 1718, and much honour was shewn to him at his funeral, by the attendance of sir Hans Sloane, and other eminent men, as pall-bearers, &c.

He gave the world several publications on various subjects of natural history: 1. “Musei Petiveriani Centuriae decem,” 1692 1703, 8vo. 2. “Gazophylacii Naturae jet Artis, Decades decem,” 1702, folio, with 100 plates. 8. “A Catalogue of Mr. Ray’s English Herbal, illustrated with figures,” 1713, folio, and continued in 1715. Many smaller publications may be found enumerated in Dr. Pulteney’s Sketches, with many papers in the Philosophical Transactions, and a material article in the third volume of Ray’s work, entitled “Plantae rariores Chinenses Madraspatanae, et Africanae, a Jacobo Petivero ad opus consummandum collatae,” &c. Most of his lists and catalogues having become very scarce, they were collected and published in 1767, in 2 vols. fol.

, one of the most celebrated characters in literary history, was born in Tuscany, in 1304. His father was a notary at Florence, who having taken part with the Ghibellin faction, shared their fate, and was banished, after which he took up 'his residence at Pisa. Here, his infant son discovering marks of genius, his father destined him for a learned profession; and having recommended him to study the law, he passed several years at Montpellier and Bologna, listening to the ablest professors in that science, but much more inclined to peruse the writings of the classical authors. He relates himself, that his father, incensed at what he thought a misapplication of time, seized at once every classical author of which, he was possessed, and threw them into the fire; but the frantic grief which Petrarch expressed at that sight, so mollified the old man, that he hastily rescued Cicero and Virgil from the flames, and gave them back to his son; remarking, that it was only the immoderate attachment to these authors which he blamed, and that the works of Cicero, if rightly used, were the best preparative to the study of the law. Petrarch acknowledges that the struggle between the strong propensity of his nature, and the will of a respected parent, was the cause of many unhappy hours: but his father’s death, which happened when he was about the age of twenty-two, put an end to the contest; and left him at liberty to pursue his inclinations.

The pope’s court being then at Avignon, Petrarch, who had while at college contracted a strict intimacy with the bishop of Lombes, of the illustrious family of Colonna, and had passed a summer with him at his bishopric in Gascony, was afterwards kindly solicited to reside with him in the house of his brother, the cardinal Colonna, then at Avignon. This invitation he accepted. His shining talents, says his late apologist, joined to the most amiable manners, procured him the favour and esteem of many persons in power and eminent stations: and he found in the house of the cardinal an agreeable home, where he enjoyed the sweets of an affectionate society, with every convenience he could desire for the indulgence of his favourite studies.

It was while at Avignon, that he contracted that passion which has so deeply engaged the attention of his biographers, and has given an air of romance, or of poetic fiction, to a considerable portion of his life. It appears that on the morning of Good Friday in 1327, he saw for the first time the young and beautiful Laura; undoubtedly a most important incident to Petrarch, for although his works give evidence of his abilities as a politician, theologian, and philosopher, yet it is to those beautiful verses alone, in which he has celebrated the accomplishments, and bewailed the fate of Laura, that he has been indebted for his permanent reputation. But his biographers differ widely from each other in their representations of the nature of Petrarch’s love for Laura. His late acute and ingenious apologist, lord Wooclhouselee, deduces from the works of the poet himself, that this passion, so remarkable both for its fervency and duration, was an honourable and virtuous flame, and that Petrarch aspired to the happiness of being united to Laura in marriage. “We have,” says his lordship, “unquestionable grounds for believing, from the evidence of his own writings, that the heart of Laura was not insensible to his passion; and although the term of his probation was tedious and severe, he cherished a hope, approaching to confidence, that he was at last to attain the of his wishes. Such are the ideas that we are led to entertain from the writings of the poet himself, of the nature and object of his passion; and such has been the uniform and continued belief of the world with regard to it, from his own days to the present.”

“At length,” continues lord Woodhouselee, “comes into the field, a hardy but most uncourteous knight, who, with a spirit very opposite to that of the heroes of chivalry, blasts at once the fair fame of the virtuous Laura, and the hitherto unsullied honour of her lover; and, proudly throwing down his gauntlet of defiance, maintains that Laura was a married woman, the mother of a numerous family; that Petrarch, with all his professions of a pure and honourable flame, had no other end in his unexampled assiduity of pursuit, than what every libertine proposes to himself in the possession of a mistress; and that the lovely Laura, though never actually unfaithful to her husband’s bed, was sensible to the passion of her Cicisbeo, highly gratified by his pursuit, and while she suffered on his account much restraint and severity from a jealous husband, continued to give him every mark of regard, which, without a direct breach of her matrimonial vow, she could bestow upon him.” Such is the hypothesis of M. de Sade, in his “Memoires pour la Vie de Petrarque,” 3 vols. 4to, which he published at Amsterdam, in 1764 67. He also asserts that Laura was the wife of one of his own predecessors, Hugh de Sade, and the mother of eleven children; that she was the daughter of Audibert de Noyes, was born in 1307 or 1308, at Avignon, and died there in 1348, having been married in 1325.

The arguments of lord Woodhouselee, who has fully examined and refuted this hypothesis, appear to us to amount as nearly to historic demonstration as the case will admit, while the whole train of De Sade’s narrative is inconsistent with the evidence to be derived from Petrarch’s writings. In the conclusion lord Woodhouselee says, “I have now, as I trust, impartially canvassed the whole of these arguments drawn by the author of the c Memoires 1 from the works of Petrarch himself, or what may be termed the intrinsic evidence in support of the material part of his hypothesis, namely, that Laura was a married woman; nor do I think 1 presume too much when I say that I have shewn their absolute insufficiency to prove that proposition.” After farther asserting, that in the whole of Petrarch’s works, consisting of more than 300 sonnets and other poetical pieces, there is not to be found a single passage which intimates that Laura was a married woman, he produces a variety of direct arguments on the subject, and concludes, that “uhile on the one hand we have shewn that there is not the smallest solidity in all that elaborate argument, which has been brought to prove that Laura was a married woman, we have proved, on the other, from the whole tenour of the writings of Petrarch, the only evidence that applies to the matter, that his affection for Laura was an honourable and virtuous flame.”

Notwithstanding this argument, which we think conclusive against the abbe“Sade, all the difficulties which attend this part of Petrarch’s history are by no means removed. Many are still inclined to doubt whether Laura was a real character. Gibbon calls Petrarch’s love” a metaphysical passion for a nymph so shadowy, that her existence has been questioned." Some say that his mistress’s name was Lauretta, and that the poet made it Laura, because, thus altered, it supplied him with numberless allusions to the laurel, and to the story of Apollo and Daphne; but what appears to have perplexed most of his biographers and critics, is their supposition that Laura was a married lady. This obliges them to suppose farther, that Petrarch’s love was disinterested, and correspondent to a certain purity of character which they have been pleased to give him, in contradiction to the fact of his licentious commerce with women, by whom he had at least two children, at the times when he is suffering most for the absence of his Laura.

The duration and intensity of Petrarch’s passion for Laura, whether single or married, afford also other subjects for dispute; and it seems to be agreed upon by those sober critics who wish to strip his history from romance, that although his passion was so sincere as to give him uneasiness for a time, it was not of a permanent and overwhelming nature, and must have been diverted, if not extinguished, by the multiplicity of studies, travels, and > political employments, which form his public life, to which we shall now advert. It is said that one of the methods he took to combat his passion was travelling; and it is certain that his frequent removals form a very great part of the incidents which compose his life. In 1333 he travelled through Paris into Flanders, and thence to Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne, returning by Lyons to Avignon. After another ramble into Italy, he resolved to retire from the world. Those who contend that Laura was a single lady, and think that she received him on his return with reserve and coyness, attribute part of his dissatisfaction with the world to this cause; but they add, likewise, that his fortunes novr wore an unpromising aspect: the best years of his life were wearing fast away; and the friendship of the great, though soothing to his self-love, had yet produced no beneficial consequence. Disgusted, therefore, with the splendid delusions of ambition, and feeling no solid enjoyment but in the calm pursuits of literature and philosophy, he resolved at once to bid adieu to the world; and at the early age of thirty-four he retired to the solitude of Vaucluse, about fifteen miles from Avignon, where he purchased a small house and garden, the humble dwelling of a fisherman: a lonely but beautiful recess, which he has celebrated in many parts of his works, and indeed in which he wrote many of those works, particularly his Italian poetry; many of his Latin epistles, in prose and verse; his eclogues; his treatises on a “Solitary Life,” and on “Religious Tranquillity;” and part of his poem on Africa.

The taste for poetry and elegant composition, for which the public mind had been prepared by the writings of Dante, ascended to a pitch of enthusiastic admiration, when these works of Petrarch appeared. Literary fame, in those days, must have depended on the opinion of a very few competent judges; for, as printing was not then known, the circulation of a new work, by manuscript copies, must have been very slow, and extremely limited. While enjoying this reputation, however, he received a letter from the Maecenas of the age, Robert king of Naples. And this honour was followed by one still greater; the revival, in his favour, of the ancient custom of crowning eminent poets at Rome. Petrarch appears to have indulged the hope of attaining this honour, and not on slight grounds; for, in August 1340, he unexpectedly received a letter from the Roman senate, inviting him to come and take the laurel in that city, and on the same day he received a similar invitation from Paris. Having determined to accept the invitation from Rome, he thought it necessary first to repair to the court of king Robert at Naples (in March 1341), and undergo a public examination as to his learning and talents. Having gone through a ceremony, which, as far as voluntary, was ostentatious, he went to Rome where, on Easter-day, in the midst of the plaudits of the Roman people, the ceremony was performed in the capitol by his friend count d'Anguillara. Twelve patrician youths were arrayed in scarlet; six representatives of the most illustrious families, in green robes, with garlands of flowers, accompanied the procession: in the midst of the princes and nobles, Anguillara assumed his throne, and at the voice of a herald Petrarch arose. After discoursing on a text of Virgil, and thrice repeating his vows for the prosperity of Rome, he knelt before the throne, and received from the senator a laurel crown, with the declaration, “This is the reward of merit.” The people shouted “Long life to the capitol and the poet.” A sonnet in praise of Rome was accepted as the effusion of genius and gratitude; and after the whole procession had visited the Vatican, the wreath was suspended before the shrine of St. Peter. In the act of diploma, which was presented to Petrarch, the title and prerogatives of poet-laureat are revived in the capitol, after the lapse of 1300 years; and he received the perpetual privilege of wearing, at his choice, a crown of laurel, ivy, or myrtle, of assuming the poetic habit, and of teaching, disputing, interpreting, and composing, in all places whatsoever, and on all subjects of literature. The grant was ratified by the authority of the senate and people, and the character of citizen was the recompence of his affection for the Roman name.