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

From Rome Petrarch went to Parma, where he passed some time with his protectors, the lords of Corregio, and employed himself in finishing his “Africa.” It was probably from that family that he obtained the dignity of archdeacon in the church of Parma; and in 1342, when he wai sent to compliment Clement VI. on his accession, in the name of the senate and people of Rome, a priory in the diocese of Pisa was given him by this pope. In the following year he composed his curious “Dialogue with St. Augustine,” in which he confesses the passion for Laura, which still held dominion over his soul. In 1348 he had the misfortune to lose this object of his affections, who died of the universal pestilence which ravaged all Europe. The same pestilence deprived him of his great friend and patron, cardinal Colonna. From Padua, where he appears to have been when these misfortunes befell him, he travelled, for a year or two, to Parma, Carpi, and Mantua; and in 1350 he again visited Padua, where he obtained a canonry, and wrote a very eloquent letter to the emperor Charles IV. exhorting him to come into Italy for the purpose of remedying the many evils with which that country was oppressed. After various other removals, he went to Milan, where the kindness and pressing solicitation of John Visconti, its archbishop and sovereign, induced him to settle for some time. Here he vvas admitted into the council of state; and in 1354 was sent to Wnice, to make another effort for pacifying the two hostile republics, but his eloquence proved fruitless. In the same year he went to Mantua to meet the emperor, who having at length come to Italy, gave him a most gracious reception; and although no advantages resulted to his country from this interview, the emperor afterwards sent him a diploma, conferring the title of count palatine. In 1360 Petrarch was sent to Paris, to congratulate king John on his liberation from English captivity; and his reception in that capital was answerable to the celebrity of his name.

By pope Innocent VI. Petrarch was treated at first with much neglect, or even contempt; but, in 1361, he had so far overcome his prejudices, as to offer the poet the place of apostolical secretary, which he declined, as he did also a very pressing invitation from John, king of France, to reside at his court. When pope Urban V. had succeeded to the pontifical chair, he gave him a canonry of Carpentras, and was very desirous of a personal interview with him; and, notwithstanding his age and infirmities, Petrarch set out for this purpose in 1370; but being unable to sustain the fatigue, he returned to his villa of Arqua, near Padua. His last journey was to Venice, in 1373, where he harangued the Venetian senate in favour of his patron, Francis de Carrara. On his return to Arqua, he fell into a state of languor, which terminated in a fit of some kind, in the night of July 18, 1374. He was found dead next morning in his library, with his head resting on a book. He survived his Laura many years, if the date of her death, April 6, 1348, be correct.

It seems to be generally agreed, that Petrarch greatly contributed to the restoration of letters in Italy, and through Italy to the other realms of Europe. The Latin tongue, in particular, is chiefly indebted to him for the restoration of its purity; Italian poetry for its perfection; and even philosophy for a considerable share of improvement. The science of ethics he studied with attention, and clothed many excellent precepts of morality with all the graces of pure and classical language. His treatises, “De Remediis utriusque Fortunae;” “De vera Sapientia;” “De Contemptu Mundi;” “De Republica optime administranda;” “De Avaritia;” On the Remedies of Fortune; True Wisdom; the Contempt of the World; Government; Avarice; and above all the rest, “De sua ipsius et aliorum ignorantia,” On his own Ignorance of himself and others, are exceedingly valuable. In reading the moral writings of Petrarch, we visit, says Brucker, not a barren desert of dry disputation, but a fruitful garden of elegant observations, full of the choicest flowers of literature. But Brucker’s animated praise of Petrarch’s prose works is probably confined to himself. The above-mentioned treatises might have been useful and interesting when written, when the world “was in its elements;” but they would meet with a very cold reception in the present improved state of moral and philosophical discussion. Petrarch’s fame as a writer depends now entirely on his Italian poetry, and on those facts in history which exhibit him as contributing to the revival of literature.

On this subject, a recent ingenious writer observes, that although the monks had for ages been assiduously engaged in the meritorious work of transcription, yet in Petrarch’s time the libraries of Italy had little to show, besides some works of the fathers, of ancient and modern theologians, of ecclesiastical and civil jurisprudence; of medicine, astrology, and philosophy; and even these in no abundance. The names of the classical writers were barely retained: their productions, and the times in which they lived were miserably confounded, and the authenticity of authors not unfrequently disregarded; while transcribers were often grossly ignorant and careless. In this dearth of accurate copies, and even of the valuable works of many ancient authors, Petrarch turned his mind to the most useful inquiries. He saw that his own efforts would be useless, without recalling into general notice the true models of taste: he owned that, on this subject, he was animated by a real passion, the force of which he had no desire to check; and communicating his wishes to hia friends, he entreated them to join their researches to his own, and to ransack the archives of libraries.

These researches were not very successful. Three decades of Livy, thq first, third, and fourth, were, at that time, all which could be found. The second decade was sought in vain. A valuable work of Varro, and other productions which he had seen in his youth, were irrecoverably lost. With Quintilian he was more fortunate, though the copy which he discovered was mutilated and imperfect. Cicero was his idol, yet his collection of the works of this great orator was very incomplete, although he had the happiness to make some new discoveries, particularly of his 46 Familiar Epistles.“He was once possessed of Cicero’s work,” De Gloria;“but he lent it to a friend, and it was irreparably lost. He often employed himself in making transcripts of ancient authors; by which his eager thirst was allayed, and accurate copies multiplied. But neither Rome, nor the remains of Roman literature, were sufficient totally to absorb the attention of this active man. Greece also engaged his thoughts. The study of the Greek language had at no time been completely neglected; and when an occasion of learning it offered, Petrarch prosecuted it with his usual zeal. But he never” wholly surmounted its difficulties; for, when a present of a Greek Homer was sent him from Constantinople, he lamented his inability to taste its beauties, although his joy on receiving such a present was not less sincere. Such were the pursuits by which he rendered services of the greatest importance to literature, and which made him to be so esteemed and honoured. He was, indeed, considering the times in which he lived, in all respects a very extraordinary man; and it is not without reason, that his countrymen still entertain a profound veneration for his memory. He has also been the object of the admiration and inquiries of scholars in all countries; and his writings have been printed so often, that it becomes impossible, and perhaps would not be very useful, to enumerate half the editions, comments, and criticisms, with which his poems, in particular, have been honoured. He is said to have had twenty-five biographers, exclusive of the sketches of his life given in collections. Of these, the most copious is the work of the abbe“de Sade, and the most necessary to illustrate that important part of Petrarch’s life which relates to his connexion with Laura, is Lord Woodhouselee’s” Historical and Critical Essay of the Life and character of Petrarch," 1810, 8vo.

, a man of learning, a patron of learning, and a distinguished statesman, in the four discordant reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth, was the son of John Petre, of Tornewton, in the parish of Tor-brian, in Devonshire, and born either at Exeter or Tor-newton. After some elementary education, probably at his native place, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford; and when he had studied there for a while with diligence and success, he was, in 1523, elected a fellow of All Souls. We may suppose that he became sensible of the importance of learning, and of the value of such seminaries, as he afterwards proved a liberal benefactor to both these colleges. His intention being to practise in the civil law courts, he took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty in July 1526, ant) his doctor’s in 1532, and the following year was admitted into the college of Advocates. It does not appear, however, that he left Oxford on this account, but was made principal of Peckwater Inn, now part of Christ Church; and he became soon after tutor to the son of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire.

Hitherto he had devoted his time to literature, and Lad no other view than to rise in his profession; but being noticed by lord Cromwell, while in the Wiltshire family, as a young man of talents, he was introduced by him at court, and appeared to so much advantage, that Henry VIII. recommended the farther improvement that travelling might contribute, and allowed him a handsome pension for his expenses. His manners and accomplishments, on his return, appear to have fulfilled the expectations of his patrons, and he was appointed Latin secretary in the secretary of state’s office, the first step in his public life; and which led to those preferments and opulence, which enabled him to become the founder of a noble family.

In 1535, when a general visitation of the monasteries was determined upon, Cromwell, who considered him as a very fit person for this business, caused his name to be inserted in the commission, in which he is styled one of the clerks in chancery; and he appears also to have been, at this time, master of the requests. Having acquitted himself in this employment to the satisfaction of the king, who was determined on the dissolution of these religious houses, he was not only rewarded, in 1538 and 1539, with very large grants of abbey-lands, but rveceived the honour of knighthood. In 1543, having become still more acceptable at court, he was sworn of the privy-council, and appointed one of the principal secretaries of state; and accordingly we find his name signed to every act of council during this reign. In 154J-, such was his consequence, that he was not only appointed one of the regency in the absence of Henry VIII. in France, but obtained special licence to retain twenty men, besides his own menial servants, and to give them liveries, badges, and cognizances.

In king Henry’s will, dated Dec. 30, 1546, Sir William Petre was nominated one of the assistant counsellors to Edward VI. and was not only continued in the privycouncil and in his office of secretary of state, but was also, in I 549, made treasurer of the court of first fruits for life; and, the year following, one of the commissioners to treat of peace with the French at Guisnes. He was also in several commissions for ecclesiastical affairs, the purpose of which was the establishment of the refo‘rmed religion; and, in the course of these, was one of the persons before whom both Bonner and Gardiner were cited to ’answer for their conduct; two men of such vindictive tempers, that it might have been expected they would have taken the first opportunity of revenge that presented itself. Owing, however, to some reasons with which we are unacquainted, queen Mary, when she came to the throne, not -only overlooked sir William’s zeal for the reformed religion, but continued him in his office of secretary of state, and made him chancellor of the garter, in the first year of her reign. Nor was this the most remarkable instance of her favour. The dissolution of the monasteries was a measure which had given great offence to the adherents of popery; and the grant of abbey-lands to laymen appeared the vilest sacrilege. It was natural to think, therefore, that popery being now established, some steps would be taken to resume those lands, and reinstate the original possessors. Sir William Petre seems to have entertained th is apprehension; and therefore determined to secure what Henry VIII. had given him, by a dispensation from pope Paul IV. whom he informed that he was ready to employ them to spiritual uses; and by this and other arguments, he actually obtained from the pontiff (doubtless also by the consent of queen Mary), a grant by which the whole of his possessions was secured to him and his heirs; and thus he was enabled to leave estates in seven counties to his son, the first lord Petre.

Mary had, in fact, such confidence in sir William Petre, that she employed him in negotiating her marriage with Philip; and applied to him for relief when her mind was perplexed on the subject of the church -lands, the alienation of which could not easily be reconciled to her principles. He was her private adviser also in other matters; and when pope Paul III. was about to send another legate instead of cardinal Pole, whom she had desired, he advised her to forbid his setting foot in England, which she very resolutely did. In all this there must have appeared nothing very obnoxious in the eyes of queen Elizabeth: for she continued him in the office of secretary of state until 1560, if not longer; and he was of her privy-council till his death, and was at various times employed by her in public affairs. He died Jan. 13, 1572, and was buried in a new aile in* the church at Ingatestone, where he had built almshouses for 20 poor people. He also left various considerable legacies to the poor in the several parishes where he had estates, as well as to the poor of the metropolis. To Exeter college he procured a new body of statutes and a regular deed of incorporation, and founded at the same time eight fellowships. To All Souls he gave a piece of ground adjoining to the college, and the rectories of Barking and StantonHarcourt, and founded exhibitions for three scholars. He was married twice. One of his daughters, by his first wife, became afterwards the wife of Nicholas Wadham, and with him joint founder of Wadham college. His son John, by his second lady, was the first lord Petre,

Sir William Petre was unquestionably a man of learning and talents, and an able minister and negociator. Without talents, without political skill and address, he never could have retained a confidential situation under four such sovereigns as Henry, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. Whether all this was accompanied by a sacrifice of principle, is not quite clear. It is in his favour, however, that his conduct has been censured by the popish historians, and that the balance of his virtues must therefore be on the Protestant side.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

, a singular instance of an almost universal genius, and of learning, mechanical ingenuity, and ceconomy, applied to useful purposes, was the eldest son of Anthony Petty, a clothier at Rumsey, in Hampshire, and was born May 16, 1623. It does not appear that his father was a man of much property, as he left this son none at his death, in 1641, and contributed very little to his maintenance. When young, the boy took extraordinary pleasure in viewing various mechanics at their work, and so readily conceived the natjure of their employment, and the use of their tools, that he was, at the age of twelve, able to iiandle the latter with dexterity not much inferior to that of the most expert workmen in any trade which he had ever seen. What education he had was first at the grammar-school at Rum?ey, where, according to his own account, he acquired, before the age of fifteen, a competent knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and French languages, and became master of the common rules of arithmetic, geometry, dialling, and the astronomical part of navigation. With this uncommon fund of various knowledge he removed, at the above age of fifteen, to the university of Caen in Normandy. This circumstance is mentioned among those particulars of his early life which he has given in his will, although, by a blunder of the transcriber, Oxford is put for Caen in Collir.s’s Peerage. Wood says that, when he went to Caen, “with a little stock of merchandizing which he then improved, he maintained himself there, learning the French tongue, and at eighteen years of age, the arts and mathematics.” Mr. Aubrey’s account is in these not very perspicuous words: “He has told me, there happened to him the most remarkable accident of life (which he did not tell me), and which was the foundation of all the rest of his greatness and acquiring riches. He informed me that about fifteen, in March, he went over to Caen, in Normandy, in a vessel that went hence, with a little stock, and began to play the merchant, and had so good successe that he maintained himselfe, and also educated himselfe: this I guesse was that most remarkable accident that he meant. Here he learned the French tongue, and perfected himself in Latin, and had Greeke enough to serve his turne. At Caen he studyed the arts. At eighteen, he was (I have heard him say) a better mathematician than he is now; but when occasion is, he knows how to recurre to more mathematical knowledge.” These accounts agree in the main points, and we may learn from both that he had at a very early period begun that money-making system which enabled him to realize a vast fortune. He appears to have been of opinion, that “there are few ways in which a man can be more harmlessly employed than in making money.” On his return to his native country, he speaks of being 1 preferred to^the king’s navy, but in what capacity is not known. This he attributes to the knowledge he had acquired, and his “having been at the university of Caen.” In the navy, however, before he was twenty years of age, he got together about 60l. and the civil war raging at this time, he determined to set out on his travels, for further improvement in his studies. He had now chosen medicine as a profession, and in the year 1643, visited Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Paris, at which last city he studied anatomy, and read Vesalixis with the celebrated Hobbes, who was partial to him. Hobbes was then writing on optics, and Mr. Petty, who had a turn that way, drew his diagrams, &c. for him. While at Paris, he informed Aubrey that “at one time he was driven to a great streight for money, and told him, that he lived a week or two on three pennyworths of walnuts.” Aubrey likewise queries whether he was not some time a prisoner there. His ingenuity and industry, however, appear to have extricated him from his difficulties, for we have his own authority that; he returned home in 1646, a richer man by IQl. than he set out, and yet had maintained his brother Anthony as well as himself.

How this 70l. accumulated will appear by his will. It may suffice here to mention, that in the following year March 6, a patent was granted him by parliament for seventeen years, for a copying machine, as it would now be termed, but which he calls an instrument for double writing. In an advertisement prefixed to his “Advice to Mr. Samuel Hartlib,” he calls it, “an instrument of small bulk and price, easily made, and very durable; whereby any man, even at the first sight and handling, may write two resembling copies of the same thing at once, as serviceably and as fast (allowing two lines upon each page for setting the instruments) as by the ordinary way, of what nature, or in what character, or what matter soever, as, paper, parchment, a book, &c. the said writing ought-to be made upon.” Rushworth also, having mentioned the patent for teaching this art, transcribes nearly our author’s words; and says, “It might be learnt in an hour’s practice, and that it was of great advantage to lawyers, scriveners, merchants, scholars, registers, clerks, &c. it saving the labour of examination, discovering or preventing falsification, and performing the whole business of writing, as with ease and speed, so with privacy also.” The additional fatigue occasioned to the hand, by the increase of weight above that of a pen, rendered this project useless as to the chief advantage proposed, that of expedition in writing: but it seems to have been applied with some alterations to the business of drawing; the instrument for which is too well known to need any description here.

Though this project therefore was not very profitable in itself, yet by this means he became acquainted with the leading men of those times. He next wrote some very sensible remarks on national education in useful branches of knowledge, in a pamphlet entitled “Advice to Mr. Hartlib for the Advancement of Learning,” and in 1648, went to Oxford, where having no scruples respecting the state of political parties, he taught anatomy to the young scholars, and became deputy to Dr. Clayton professor of anatomy, who had an insurmountable aversion to the sight of a mangled corpse. He also practised physic and chemistry with good success; and rose into such reputation, that the philosophical meetings which preceded the Royal Society, were first held (for the most part) at his lodgings: and by a parliamentary recommendation he obtained a fellowship of Brazen-nose college, in the place of one of the ejected fellows, and was created doctor of physic, March 7, 1649. He was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians, June 25, 1650. The same year, he was chiefly concerned in the recovery of a woman who had been hanged at Oxford, for the supposed murder of her bastard child*.

euted at Oxford, Dec. 14, 1650. The breast and stomach, to put her out of

neck near half an hour; some of her doctors Petty, Willis, Bathurst, and

limes lifting her up, and then pulling heard, born divers children." Phyber down again with a sudden jerk, sico-Theol. See also a printed account

of her pain. After she was in her cof- &c. edit. 1651, and in Morgan’s Phwfin, being observed to breathe, a lusty nix, 4to. and, Feb. 7, music professor at Gresham college, by the interest of his friend Dr. Graunt. In 1652, he was appointed physician to the army in Ireland, and he was likewise physician to three lords lieutenants successively, Lambert, Fleetwood, and Henry Cromwell.

Some time after his settlement in Ireland, having observed, that the lands forfeited by the rebellion in 1641, which had been adjudged to the soldiers who suppressed it, were very insufficiently measured, he represented the matter to the persons then in power, who granted him a contract, dated Dec. 11, 1654, to make the admeasurements anew; and these he finished with such exactness, that there was no estate of 60l. per annum, and upwards, which was not distinctly marked in its true value, maps being likewise made by him of the whole. By this contract he gained a Very considerable sum of money. Besides 20s. a day, which he received during the performance, he had also a penny an acre by agreement with the soldiers: and it appears from an order of government, dated at the castle of Dublin, 19th March, 1655, that he had then surveyed 2,008,000 acres of forfeited profitable land. He was likewise one of the commissioners for setting out the lands to the army, after they were surveyed. When Henry Cromwell obtained the lieutenancy of that kingdom in 1655, he made the doctor his secretary, appointed him a clerk of the council there in 1657, and procured him to be elected a burgess for West Looe in Cornwall, in Richard CromweiPs parliament, which met Jan. 27, 1658. March the 25th following, sir Hierom Sankey, or Zanchy, member for Woodstock in Oxfordshire, impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors, in the execution of his office. This brought him into England, when, appearing in the House of Commons, April 19, he answered to the charge on the 21st; to which his prosecutors replying, the matter was adjourned, but never came to an issue, that parliament being suddenly dissolved the next day. Henry Cromwell had written a letter to secretary Thurloe, dated the llth of that month, in his favour, as follows: “Sir, I have heretofore told you my thoughts of Dr. Petty, and am still of the same opinion: and, if sir Hierom Sankey do not run him down with numbers and noise of adventurers, and such other like concerned persons, I believe the parliament will find him as I have represented. He has curiously deceived me these four years, if he be a knave. I am sure the juntos of them, who are most busy, are not men of the quietest temper. I do not expect you will have leisure, or see cause, to appear much for him; wherefore this is only to let you understand my present thoughts of him. The activeness of Robert Reynolds and others in this business, shews, that Petty is not the only mark aimed at.”

Upon his return to Ireland soon after, some further endeavours being used to bring on a prosecution, Petty published the same year, “A Brief of the Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author, with the state of the controversy between them,” in three sheets; which was followed by “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. He then came again to England and brought a very warm application in his favour from the lord lieutenant, in these terms: “Sir, the bearer, Dr. Petty, hath been my secretary, and clerk of the council here in Ireland, and is one whom I have known to be an honest and ingenious man. He is like to fall into some trouble from some who envy him. I desire you to be acquainted with him, and to assist him, wherein he shall reasonably desire it. Great endeavours have been used to beget prejudice against him; but when you speak with him, he will appear otherwise.” Notwithstanding this, he was removed from his public employments in June.

It may be here necessary, for the sake of his very curious answer, to mention the charges which his enemies brought against him: These were, 1. “That he the said Dr. Petty had received great bribes. 2. That he had made a trade of buying debentures in vast numbers, against the statute. 3. That he had gotten vast sums of money and scopes of land by fraud. 4. That he had used many foul practices as surveyor and commissioner for setting out lands. 5. That he and his fellow-commissioners had placed some debentures in better places than they could claim, denying right to others. 6. That he and his fellow-commissioners had totally disposed of the army’s security; the debt still remaining chargeable on the state.”

The principal object of his answer is to demonstrate that he might, without ever meddling with the surveys of the Irish lands, have acquired as large a fortune otherwise; and his demonstration must be allowed the praise of ingenuity at least: “In the year 1649” (says he), “1 proceeded M. D. after the charges whereof, and my admission into the college of London, I had left about 60l. From that time till about August 1652, by my practice, fellowship at Gresham, and at Brazen-nose college, and by my anatomy lecture at Oxford, I had made that 60l. to be near 500?. From August 16, 1652, when I went for Ireland, to December 1654 (when I began the survey and other public entanglements) with WOl. advance money, and of 365l.*a year well paid salary, as also with my practice among the chief in the chief city of the nation, I made my said 5001. above 1,600l. Now the interest of this 1600l. for a year in Ireland, could not be less than 200l. which, with 550l. (for another year’s salary and practice, viz. until the lands were set out in October 1655) would have encreased my said stock to 2,3 50l. With 2,000l. whereof I would have bought 8,000l. in debentures, which would have then purchased me about 15,000 acres of land, viz. as much as I am now accused to have. 'These 15,000 acres could not yield me less than, at 2s. per acre, 1,500l. per ann. especially receiving the rents of May-day preceding. This year’s rent with 550l. for my salary and practice, &c. till December 1656, would have bought me even then (debentures growing dearer) 6,000l. in debentures, whereof the five 7thg then paid would have been about 4,000l. neat, for which I must have had about 8,000 acres more, being as much almost as I conceive is due to me. The rent for 15,000 acres and 8,000 acres, for three years, could not have been less than 7,000l. which, with the same three years’ salary, viz. 1,650l. would have been near 9,000l. estate in money, above the abovementioned 1,500l. per ann. in lands. The which, whether it be more or less than what I now have, I leave to all the world to examine and, judge. This estate I might have got without ever meddling with surveys, much less with the more fatal distribution of lands after they were surveyed, and without meddling with the clerkship of the council, or being, secretary to the lord lieutenant: all which had I been so happy as to have declined, then had I preserved an universal favour and interest with all men, instead of the odium and persecution I now endure.” In this manner, he endeavours to prove how he might have made his fortune. How he did make it will appear hereafter in his will.

In 1659, he had enough of the republican spirit as to become a member of the Rota Club at Miles’ s coffee-house in New Palace-yard, Westminster. The whimsical scheme of this club was, that all officers of state should be chosen by balloting, and the time limited for holding their places; and that a certain number of members of parliament should be annually changed by rotation. But he returned to Ireland not long after Christmas, and at the Restoration came into England, and was received very graciously by his majesty; and, resigning his professorship at Gresham, was made one of the commissioners of the court of claims. On April 11, 1661, he received the honour of knighthood, and the grant of a new patent, constituting him surveyor-general of Ireland; and was chosen a member of parliament there. Upon the foundation of the Royal Society, he was bne of the first members, and of the first council; and, though he had left off the practice of physic, yet his name appears in the list of the fellows in the new charter of the college of physicians in 1663. About this time he invented a double-bottomed ship, to sail against wind and tide, the model of which he gave to the Royal Society. In 1665, he communicated “A Discourse about the Building of Ships,” containing some curious secrets in that art. This was said to have been taken away by lord Brounker, president of the Royal Society, who kept it in his possession till 1682, and probably till his death, as containing matter too important to be divulged. Sir William’s ship performed one voyage from Dublin to Holyhead, into which narrow harbour she turned in against wind and tide, July 1663; but after that was lost in a violent storm.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

His will is altogether, perhaps, the most extraordinary composition of the kind in our language, and is more illustrative of the character of sir William Petty than any information derived from other sources.

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

“I would not have my funeral charge to exceed 300l. over and above which sum I allow and give 150l. to set up a monument in the church of Rumsey, near where my grandfather, father, and mother, were buried, in memory of them, and of all my brothers and sisters. I give also 5l. for a stone to be set up in Lothbury church, London, in memory of my brother Anthony, there buried about 18th October, 1649. I give also 50l. for a small monument to be set up in St. Bride’s church, Dublin, in memory of my son John, and my near kinsman, John Petty, supposing my wife will add thereunto for her excellent son, Sir William Fenton, bart. who was buried there 18th March, 1670-71; and if I myself be buried in any of the said three places, I would have Joo/. only added to the above-named sums, or that the said 100l. shall be bestowed on a monumentfor me in any other place where I shall die. As for legacies for the poor, I am at a stand as for beggars by trade and election, I give them nothing; as for impotents by the hand of God, the public ought to maintain them; as for those who have been bred to no calling nor estate, they should be put upon their kindred; as for those who can get no work, the magistrate should cause them to be employed, which may be well done in Ireland, where is fifteen acres of improvable land for every head; prisoners for crimes, by the King; for debts, by their prosecutors; as for those who compassionate the sufferings of any object, let them relieve themselves by relieving such sufferers, that is, give them alms pro re nata, and for God’s sake relieve those several species above-mentioned, where the above-mentioned obligors fail in their duties: wherefore I am contented that I have assistc I all my poor relations, and put many into a way of getting their own bread, and have laboured in public works, and by inventions have sought out real objects of charity; and do hereby conjure all who partake of my estate, from time to time to do the same at their peril. Nevertheless, to answer custom, and to take the surer side, 1 give 20l. to the most wanting of the parish wherein I die. As for the education of my children, I would that my daughter might marry in Ireland, desiring that such a sum as I have left her, might not be carried out of Ireland. I wish that my eldest son may get a gentleman’s estate in England, which, by what I have gotten already, intend to purchase, and by what I presume he may have with a wife, may amount to between 2000l. and 3000l. per ann. and buy some office he may get there, together with an ordinary superlucration may reasonably be expected; so as I may design my youngest son’s trade and employment to be the prudent management of our Irish estate for himself and his elder brother, which I suppose his said brother must consider him for. As for myself, I being now about three-score and two years old, I intend to attend the improvement of my lands in Ireland, and to get in the many debts owing unto me; and to promote the trade of iron, lead, marble, fish, and timber, whereof my estate is capable: and as for studies and experiment, I think now to confine the same to the anatomy of the people and political arithmetic as also to the improvements of ships, land- carriages, guns, and pumps, as of most use to mankind, not blaming the studies of other men. As for religion, I die in the profession of that faith, and in the practice of such worship, as I find established by the law of my country, not being able to believe what I myself please, nor to worship God better than by doing as I would be done unto, and observing the laws of my country, and expressing my love and honour to Almighty God by such signs and tokens as are understood to be such by the people with whom I live, God knowing my heart, even without any at all; and thus begging the Divine Majesty to make me what he would have me to be, both as to faith and good works, I willingly resign my soul into his hands, relying only on his infinite mercy, and the merits of my Saviour, for my happiness after this life, where I expect to know and see God more clearly than by the study of the Scriptures and of his works I have been hitherto able to do. Grant me, O Lord, an easy passage to thyself, that, as I have lived in thy fear, I may be known to die in thy favour. Amen.”

His family, at his death, consisted of his widow and three children, Charles, Henry, and Anne; of whom Charles was created baron of Shelbourne, in the county of Waterford, in Ireland, by king William III.; but dying without issue, was succeeded by his younger brother Henry, who was created viscount Dunkeron, in the county of Kerry in that kingdom, and earl of Shelbourne, Feb. 11, 1718. He married the lady Arabella Boyle, sister to Charles earl of Cork, who brought him several children. He was member of parliament for Great Marlow in Buckinghamshire, a fellow of the royal society; and died April 17, 1751. Anne was married to Thomas Fitz-Morris, baron of Kerry and Lixnaw, and died in Ireland, anno 1737. The descent to the present marquis of Lansdown may be seen in the peerage.

"I remember there was a great difference between him and sir (Hierom Sankey), one of Oliver’s knights, about 1660. They printed one against the other. * The knight had been a soldier, and challenged sir William to fight with him. Sir William is extremely short-sighted, and being the cballengee it belonged to him to nominate place and weapon. He nominates for the. place a dark cellar, and the weapon to be a great carpenter’s axe. This turned the knight’s challenge into ridicule, and it came to nought Sir William can be an excellent droll, if he has a mind to it, and will preach extempore incomparably, either in the presbyterian way, independent, capucin friar, or Jesuit.

"He had his patent for earle of Kilmore and baron of 166 which he stifles during his life to avoyd envy,

but his sonne will have the benefitt of the precedency f. He is a person of an admirable inventive head, and practicall parts. He hath told me that he hath read but little, that is to say, not since 25 <etat. and is of Mr. Hobbes his mind, that had he read much, as some men have, he had not known so much as he does, nor should have made such discoveries and improvements.

"I remember one St. Andrew’s day (which is the day of the general meeting of the royal society for annual elections) I sayd, ‘ Methought ’twas not so well that we should pitch upon the patron of Scotland’s day, we should rather have taken St. George or St. Isidora (a philosopher canonized).‘ ` No,’ said sir William, ` I would rather that it had been on St. Thomas’s day, for he would not believe till he had seen and putt his fingers into the holes, according to the motto Nullius in verba.'

“He told me that he never gott by legacies in his life but only 10l. which was not payd. He hath told me, that whereas some men have accidentally come into the way of preferment by lying at an inne, and there contracting an acquaintance, on the roade; or as some others have donne: he never had any such like opportunity, but hewed out his fortune himselfe.”

The variety of pursuits in which sir William Petty was engaged, shews him to have had a genius capable of any thing to which he chose to apply it; and it is very extraordinary, that a man of so active and busy a spirit could find time to write so many things, as it appears he did by the following catalogue 1. “Advice to Mr. S. Hartlib,” &c. 1648, 4to. 2. “A brief of Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author,” &c. 1659, fol. 3. “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. 1660, 8vo. 4.' “A Treatise of Taxes and Contribution,” &c. 1662, 1667, 1685, 4to, all without the author’s name. This last was republished in 1690, with two other anonymous pieces, “The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments,” and “The Politician discovered” with a new tide-page, where they are all said to be written by sir William, which, as to the first, is a mistake. 5. “Apparatus to the hjstory of the common practice of Dyeing,” printed in Sprat’s History of the R. S. 1667. 6. “A Discourse concerning the use of Duplicate Proportion, together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastic Motions,” 1674, i 2mo. See an account of it in “Phil. Trans.” No. cix. and a censure of it in Dr. Barlow’s “Genuine Remains,” p. 151. 1693, -8vo. 7.“Colloquium Davidis cum aniina sua,” &c. 1679, fol. 8. “.The Politician discovered,” &c. 1681, 4to. 9. “An Essay in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1682, 8vo. 10. “Observations upon the Dublin Bills of Mortality in 1681,” &c. 1683, 8vo. II. “An account of some Experiments relating to Land-carriage,” Phil. Trans. No. clxi. 12. “Some Queries, whereby to examine Mineral Waters,” ibid. No. clxvi. 13. “A Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,” &c. ibid. No. clxvii. 14. “Maps of Ireland, being an actual Survey of the whole kingdom,” &c. 1685, folio. This contained thirty-six accurate maps viz. a general map the province of Leinster, consisting of eleven counties, each in a distinct map that of Munster of six Ulster nine; and Connaught five. Another edition was afterwards made from the same plates. Sir William’s surveys, says Mr. Gough, as far as they go are tolerably exact as to distances and situations, but neither the latitudes nor roads are expressed, nor is the sea-coast exactly laid down; his design being only to take an account of the forfeited lands; many other tracts are left blank, and from such a survey his maps are formed. 15. “An Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind,” 1686, 8vo. N. B. The Essay is not printed here, but only the substance of it. 16. “A further assertion, concerning the Magnitude of London, vindicating it from the objections of the French,” Phil. Trans, clxxxv. 17, “Two Essays in Political Arithmetic,” c. 1687, 8vo. An extract of these is in Phil. Trans. No. clxxxiii. 18. “Five Essays in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1687, 8vo, printed in French and English on opposite pages. 19. “Observations upon London and Rome,” 1687, 8vo, three leaves. His posthumous pieces are, 1. “Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1690, 8vo, and 1755, with his Life prefixed; and a Letter of his never before printed. 2. “The Political Anatomy of Ireland,” to which is added, “Verbum Sapienti,” 1691, 1719. In the title-page of the second edition this treatise is called “Sir William Petty’s Political Survey of Ireland.” This latter was criticized in “A Letter from a gentleman,” &cr. 1692, 4to. 3. “A treatise of Naval Philosophy, in three parts,” &c. printed at the end of “An account of several new Inventions, &c. in a discourse by way of letter to the earl of Marlborougb,” &c. 1691, 12mo. Wood suspects this may be the same with the discourse about the building of ships, mentioned above to be many years in the hands of lord Brounker. 4. “What a complete Treatise of Navigation should contain,” Phil. Trans. No. cxcviii. This was drawn up in 1685. Besides these, the following are printed in Birch’s History of the H. S. 1. “A discourse of making Cloth and Sheep’s Wool.” This contains the history of the clothing trade, as No. 5. above, does that of dyeing; and he purposed to have done the like in other trades; in which design some other members of the society engaged also at that time. 2. “Supellex Philosophica.”

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

, student of the Middle Temple, bencher and treasurer of the Inner Temple, and keeper of the records in the Tower, was born in 1636, at a place called, in his Latin epitapir, Siorithes, near Skipton, in Craven, Yorkshire. Of his progress through life we have no information, except that he enjoyed much reputation as a law-writer, and particularly as the collector of a very curious library, and many valuable Mss. now in the Inner Temple library. He died at Chelsea, Oct. 3, 1707, aged seventy-one, but was buried in the Temple church, where is a long Latin epitaph, recording his many virtues and his collections, donations, &c. It is probable Chelsea was his favourite residence, as the year before his death he built a vestry and school-room adjoining the church-yard, with lodgings for the master, entirely at his own expenee.

In 1680 he asserted the “Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, in a discourse proving by records, &c. that they were ever an essential part of parliament,” 8vo. This gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which the following pieces were published, 1. “Jani Anglorum facies nova, or several monuments of antiquity touching the great councils of this kingdom and the courts of the king’s immediate tenants and otficers,” 1680, 8vo, said to be written by Mr. Atwood. 2. “A full Answer to a book written by William Pettyt, esq. with a true account of the famous Colloquium, or Parliament 40 Hen. Ill and a glossary expounding some few words in ancient records, together with some animadversions on a book called Jani Anglorum facies nova,” 1683, 8vo. 3. “Jus Anglorum ab antique, or a confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords and commons, under the pretence of answering Mr. Pettyt, and the author of * Jam Anglorum facies nova,'” 1681, 8vo. 4. “Argumentum Anunormanicum; or an argument proving from ancient histories and records, that William duke of Normandy made no absolute conquest in England,” 1682, 8vo. This is thought by Dr. Brady to be also written by Mr. Atwood; but by others it is attributed to Mr. Cooke. To this an answer afterwards appeared by the principal champion in the dispute, Dr. Robert Brady, who collected all he had written on the occasion into “An Introduction to the Old English History, in three tracts,” and by the same author the same subject was connected with “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs, or Boroughs,” (See Brady) 1704, 1711,fol. 1777, 8vo.

In 1680, 1681, Mr. Petty t published his “Miscellanea Parliamentaria,” 12mo; and other collections were left by him upon the subject of the law of parliament, which, after his death, were published under the title of “Jus Parliamentarium, or the ancient power, jurisdiction, rights, and liberties of the most high court of Parliament, revived and asserted,” 1739, fol. He also left a summary or table of the records kept in the Tower; some Mss. containing copies of records and law matters, relating chiefly to naval concerns; and other Mss. containing a great number of collections from records and other authentic materials, chiefly relating to the law and constitution of England, which are preserved in the Inner Temple library, and are much recommended to the notice of the English lawyer and historian, by Mr. Justice Barrington in his “Observations on the Statutes.”

, a celebrated physician and mathematician, was born at Bautzen in Lusatia in 1525, and became a doctor and professor of medicine at Wirtemberg. He married a daughter of Melancthon, whose principles he contributed to diffuse, and whose works he published at Wirtemberg in 1601, in five volumes folio. He had an extreme ardour for study. Being for ten years in close imprisonment, on account of his opinions, he wrote his thoughts on the margins of old books which they gave him for amusement, making his ink of burnt crusts of bread, infused in wine. He died at seventy-eight, on the 25th of September, 1602. He wrote several tracts, 1. “De praecipuis divinationum generibus,” 1584, 4to. 2. Methodus curatidi morbos internes,“Francfort, 1614, 8vo. 3.” De Febribus,“1614, 4to. 4.” Vita? illustrium medicowjm.“5.” Hypotheses astronomicas.“6.” Les no, us des Monnoies, des Poids, et Mesures," 8vo. His character, as drawn by himself, is that of a man who did no injury to any one, but, on the contrary, gave all the aid in his power to all who might require it. For these things he calls God to witness.

, a celebrated scholar, was born at Augsburg in 1465, and studied successfully in the principal cities of Italy. When he returned home he was appointed secretary to the senate of Augsburg, and employed by that body in the diets of the empire, and in the various courts of Europe. In his private character he conferred happiness on an excellent and learned wife; and, in his public, was always rendering essential services to his country. This excellent citizen died at eighty-two, in 1574, having lost his faculties for some time before. He is most known by an ancient itinerary, which from him is called “Tabula Peutingeriana.” It is a curious chart found in a monastery in Germany, and communicated to Peutinger by one Conrad Celtes. It was formed under the reign of Theodosius the Great, and marks the roads by which the Roman armies passed at that time to the greater part of the empire. It is not a geographical work, and seems to have been made by a Roman soldier, who thought of nothing, or perhaps knew nothing, but what respected the roads, and the places for encampment. A magnificent but now very scarce edition of it was published by F. C. Scheib at Vienna in 1753, fol. Peutinger’s own works are, 1. “Sermones convivales,” in the collection of Schardius; Jena, 1683, 8vo. 2. “De inclinatione Romani imperil, et gentium commigrationibus,” subjoined to the former, and to Procopi us. 3. “De rebus Gothorum,” Bale, 1531, fol. 4, “Romanae Vetustatis fragmenta, in Augusta Vindelicorum,” Mayence, 1528, fol.

, a native of Schaffhausen in Switzerland, is famous for having first given an accurate account of the intestinal glands, which, in a state of health, separate a fluid, for the lubrication of the intestines, and which in diarrhoeas, or upon taking a purge, supply the extraordinary discharge that happens upon these occasions. His works are, “Exercitatio Anatomico-Medica, de Glandulis Intestinorum, SchatFhausse, 1677,” Amstelod. 162. This is in the Bibiioth. Anatom. of Mangetus and Le Clerc. “Paeonis & Pythagoras Exercitationes Anatomicae,” Basil, 1682; “Methodus Historiarum Anatoniico-Medicarum,” &c. 1679; “Parerga Anatomica & Medica,” Amstel. 1682; "Experimenta nova circa Pancreas, extant in the Biblioth. Anatom. of Le Clerc and Mangetus.

, a French protestant, horn at Bourdeaux in 1592, entered into the service of the prince of Cond6, whom he pleased by the singularity of his humour. Peyrera believed himself to have discovered from St. Paul, that Adam was not the first man; and to prove this, he published in Holland, 1655, a book in 4to and 8vo with this title: “Praeadamitae; sive exercitatio super versibus 12, 13, 14, capitis xv. Epistoloe Pauli ad Romanes.” This work was condemned to the flames, and the author imprisoned at Brussels; but, getting his liberty through the interest of the prince of Conde“, he went to Rome in 1656, and abjured Calvinism and Praeadamitism before Alexander VII. He was not, however, thought sincere, for, returning to Paris, in spite of all the means this pope used to detain him at Rome, he became librarian to the prince of Conde 1 and some time after retired to the seminary des Vertus, where he died in 1676, aged 84. He submitted to receive the sacraments, yet was not believed to be attached to any religion. Besides the piece above mentioned, he wrote” Une Relation du Greenland,“in 8vo; and” Une Relation d'Islande,“in 8vo; both reckoned curious and interesting: and a very singular tract entitled” Rappel des Juifs," in which his object was to prove that two Messiahs were intended; the first Jesus Christ, who, according to his notion, came only for the Christians; and the second, he whom the Jews have so long expected, and who is to be a great temporal prince and render them lords of the earth. This was printed in 1643, 8vo, a circumstance which the translator of his life in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LXXXII. p. 431.) positively denies, yet we find mention of this edition in every French biography. It probably, however, attracted no great degree of attention, and Brunei places it among rare books; but being known to some of the adherents of Buonaparte it was reprinted, when it became his pleasure to assemble a Jewish Sanhedrim in Paris in 1806. It was then supposed that the Jews might be made to believe that the great temporal prince that was to restore them, was no other than the ruler of the French nation. In the authority just quoted are many curious particulars of Peyreyra, from father Simon.

, first surgeon to the king, was distinguished above all the eminent surgeons who have appeared in France, by his ardent zeal for the progress and improvement of surgery, and the sums he expended for that purpose. He was born in 1678, and died April 24, 1747. Among the important services he rendered his country, we find that he procured the establishment of the “Royal Academy of Surgery” at Paris in 17.51; and left his library, and estate of Marigny, to the company of surgeons in that city, who sold them to his majesty for 200,000 livres; he also appointing the same company universal legatees to two-thirds of his property, M. de la Peyronie bequeathed to the surgeon’s company of Montpeilier, two houses situated there, with 100,000 livres, for the erection of an amphitheatre for surgery; and also left the said company universal legatees to the third part of his property. Every clause in his will tended to the public good, and the encouragement and improvement of surgery, by which, as well as by his talents, this celebrated surgeon rendered his name immortal in France.

, was born at Paris, with a natural turn for literature, but entered into the military line, and was captain of dragoons, in which situation he had the honour to be the instructor of Louis XVI. in the art of tactics. Being appointed inspector-general of the coasts, he executed his office with considerable attention; but having made enemies, by a decree of haughtiness in his manner, complaints were lodged against him, which caused him to be banished to his own estate. In this situation he died soon after, in 1778. He cultivated the Muses a good deal, and was intimate with Dorat, whose style he imitated. His poems have an elegance which makes amends for a certain degree of negligence.' Such: as, 1. “Zelie au bain,” a poem in six cantos 2 A Letter from Ovid to Julia. 3. Several fugitive pieces published in the Almanach des Muses. 4. An indifferent translation of Catullus. 5. “Les Soirees Helvetiennes, Alsaciennes, & Franc-Comtoises,” 1770, 8vo, a work agreeably varied, but not sufficiently correct in style. 6. “La Rosiere de Salency,” a pastoral, in three acts, which was approved. 7. “Les Campagnes de Maillebois,” 3 vols. 4to, printed in 1775, and now rare and of great value in France. 8. There is said also to be extant a manuscript work entitled “Les Soirees Proven9ales,” not inferior to his “Soirees Helvetiennes.”

, a learned Jesuit, born at Avignon in 1692, where he died some little time after 1770, was for a long time professor of physics and hydrography at Marseilles. His works and translations on these and similar subjects are very numerous: 1. “Elemens du Pilotages,” 1737, 12mo. 2. A translation of Maclaurin’s Fluxions, 1749, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Pratique du pilotage,” 1749, 8vo. 4. “Theory and practice of gauging,” 8vo. 5. “Maclaurin’s Algebra translated,” 1750, 8vo. He translated also the Course of Experimental Philosophy by Desaguliers, Dyche’s Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, which was supplanted by Prevot’s “Manuel Lexique,” Ward’s Young Mathematician’s Guide, and Smith’s Optics. From the German he translated Baker’s Treatise of the Microscope, 1754. His ideas and language were clear, and he was esteemed for the mildness and agreeableness of his character, as well as for his talents.

, a learned and ingenious Frenchman, was born at Hennebon in Bretagne, in 1639 and admitted of the order of Cistercians in 1660. He made the scriptures the principal object of his study: aware of the assistance to be derived from profane history, he read with attention the ancient Greek and Latin historians. His judgment, however, did not improve with his erudition, as appeared by a new system, which he communicated to the public, in a work printed at Paris in 1687, 4to, and called “L‘Antiquite’ des temps retablie,” &c. that is, “The Antiquity of Time restored, and defended, against the Jews and modem Chronologers.” His design here is to prove, upon the authorities of the septuagint and profane history, that the world is more ancient than modern chronologers have supposed; and that, instead of 4000 years between the creation of the world and the birth of Christ, there were almost 6000. The great principle on which this supposition is built is, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, who otherwise must have been forced to acknowledge, upon their own principles, that the Messiah was actually come. Pezron’s book was extremely admired for the ingenuity and learning of it; yet created, as was natural, no small alarm among the religious. Martianay, a Benedictine, and Le Quien, a Dominican, wrote against tnis new system, and undertook the defence of the Hebrew text Martianay with great zeal and heat, Le Quien with more judgment and knowledge. Pezron published, “Defense de l'Antiquite des temps,” in 1691, 4to; which, like the work itself, abounded with curious and learned researches. Le Quien replied, but Martianay brought the affair into another court; and, in 1693, laid the books and principles of Pezron before M. de Harlai, archbishop of Paris. Harlai communicated the representation of this adversary to Pezron; who defended himself with so much ingenuity as to render the accusation of no effect.

Pezron was the author of other curious and learned works, as, “Antiquité de la Nation & de la Langue de Celtes,” in 1703, 8vo; “Dissertation touchant L'ancienne demeure des Cananeens,” printed in the Memoires de Trevoux, for July 1703; and “Dissertation sur les anciennes & veritables bornes de la Terre Promise,” in the same Memoires, for June 1705; “Essai d'un Commentaire litteral & historique sur les Prophetes,” 1693, 12mo; and “Histoire Evangelique confirmée par la Judaïque & la Romaine,” 1696, in 2 vols. 8vo.

This ingenious and learned man died October 10, 1706, aged 67; having gone through several promotions, the last of which was the abbey of Charmoye, to which he was nominated by the king, in 1697.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, was born May 28, 165), at Pfullingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg. He taught theology with reputation at Tubingen, and died there February 6, 1720,“leaving” A collection of Controversies;“” A dissertation on the passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New;“and other works in Latin, which are esteemed. Christopher Matthew Pfaff, one of his sons, was professor of divinity, and chancellor of the university of Tubingen, and has also written several learned works in Latin; among others,” Institutiones Theologicx,“1719 and 1721, 8vo; and” S. Irenaei fragmenta anecdota,“8vo, Greek and Latin, with many doctrinal and critical works; hut the most valuable of all is his” Introductio in Historiam Theologiae Literariam," 1724, 3 vols. 4to. This is a complete system of theological bibliography, and particularly accurate in what relates to English authors and English books.

, the son of a counsellor at Augsburg, born in 1641, was secretary of the archives to the duke of Saxe Gotha, and instructor of the princes Ernest, and John-Ernest, in history and politics. He so well fulfilled his duties in these situations, that he was promoted to a higher place, of secretary to the Ernestine branch of the family; and was so deeply learned in matters of record, that he was called the living archives of the house of Saxony. His manners were pure, but his temper inclined to melancholy, which was thought to be increased by too intense application to study. He died at Gotha in 1717. His principal works are; 1. “The History of the Peace of Westphalia,” 8vo, the best edition is 1697. 2. “The History of the Assemblies of 1652 4,” Weimar, 1694, 8vo. 3. “The Treaties of the German Princes.” 4. “The Theology of the Pagans.” 5. “A Treatise on the Principle of historic Faith.” All these are written in Latin, not so much with elegance, as with strict care and exactness.

, was a famous converted Jew, of whom it is recorded that he would have persuaded the emperor Maximilian to cause all the Hebrew books to be burned, except the Bible: “because (said he) they contain magic, blasphemies, and other dangerous things.” The emperor, astonished with this report, was so far wrought upon, as to publish an edict, in 1510, by which he ordered all the Hebrew books to be carried to a certain house, that those which contained any blasphemy might be burnt. Capnio, however, shewed the danger of this edict, and was supported by Ulric de Hutten: many writings were published on both sides; but Capnio at length prevailed, and the edict was not executed. It is commonly believed, that Pfeffercorn was so chagrined with this, as to return to Judaism; and that he was burned alive in 1515, for profaning the eucharist, at Hall; but this must have been another person of his name, since this Pfeffercorn was living in 1517. He is the author of some Latin pieces, and among the rest of one “De abolendis Judasorum scriptis.”

, a German orientalist, was born at Lawenbourg in 1640. He professed the oriental languages at Wirtemberg, at Leipsic, and in other places, and in 1690 was called to Lubeck to be superintendant of the churches. In that city he died, in January 1698. When only rive years old he was near losing his life by a fall, which fractured his skull. His sister discovered accidentally that he was not quite dead, and he was restored, when actually on the point of being buried. He wrote, 1. “Pansophia Mosaica.” 2. “Critica Sacra,” Dresden, 3680, 8vo. 3 “DeMasora.” 4. “De trihaeresi Judaeorum.” 5. “Sciagraphia Systematica Antiquitatum Hebraearum.” His philosophical works were collected at Utrecht in 4to, but are not now much known or esteemed. His learned works are better, though heavy.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of EHs, was originally a slave but, when Socrates had obtained his freedom, and he became that great man’s disciple, studied philosophy, and, retiring to Elis, established a distinct school called from the place of his birth the Eliac, or Eliatic school, which was continued by Plistanus and Menedemus. Plato, in honour of him, gave the name of Phcedo to one of his dialogues. Phaedo wrote several dialogues in defence of Socrates, and never left him till his death. He flourished 400 B. C.

, an ancient Latin author, who wrote five books of “Fables” in Iambic verse, was a Thracian and was born, as there is reason to suppose, some years before Julius Caesar made himself master of the Roman empire. His parentage is uncertain; though some have imagined his liberal education to be an argument that it was not mean. Perhaps he might have been made captive by Octavius, the father of the emperor Augustus; for we read, that while Octavius was prcetor in Macedonia, he gave the Thracians a very great overthrow. This fell out the same year that Q. Cicero was proconsul of Asia, and Csesar sole consul at Rome. As this opinion would carry his age pretty high, Phsedrus outliving the 18th year of Tiberius, pome have therefore rejected it, though with little reason; since many proofs may be collected, from his Fables, that he lived to be very old. How he came into the service of Augustus is unknown: but his being called “Augustus’s freedman,” in the title of his book, shews that he had been that emperor’s slave. It should seem as if he had arrived early in life at Rome for he quotes a line from “Ennius,” which, he says, he remembers to have read when he was a boy and it is not probable that he should have read it before he left Thrace. He received his freedom from Augustus, and no doubt such a competency, as enabled him to enjoy that valuable gift. He expresses a great regard for that prince’s memory, which he had indeed the more reason to do, since misfortunes overtook him after his decease. Under Tiberius, he was unjustly persecuted by Sejanus, to which he has frequently alluded in his “Fables;” and particularly in the preface to his third book. We know not the cause of this persecution, but it was not for his wealth: he represents himself, in the very same place, as a man who had never cared to hoard up riches; and mentions this as one of the reasons which should facilitate his promotion to the rank of a poet. He seems to have written all his Fables after the death of Augustus; the third book he certainly wrote after that of Sejanus, who perished in the eighteenth year of Tiberius; for, in the dedication of that book to his patron Eutychus, he has mentioned the favourite with a resentment which would never have been pardoned had he been living. How long Phsedrus survived him, is uncertain; but, supposing him to have lived a little longer, he must have been above seventy at his death; for so many years there are from Caesar’s first dictatorship to the eighteenth of Tiberius. Chronologers place him between 41 and 54 A. C.

The Fables of Phaedrus are generally valued for their wit and good sense, expressed in great purity, terseness, and elegance of language: and they who, like Scioppius, imagine they discover something foreign and barbarous in the style, form their criticisms upon the knowledge that JMuvdrus was a Thracian. They might as well object solecisms and false Latin to Terence, because he x wus born in Africa. We cannot, however, but observe it as somewhat singular, that the Roman language has been transmitted to posterity, in its greatest purity 'and elegance, by two slaves, who were brought from countries by the Romans deemed barbarous.

It is remarkable, that no writer of antiquity has made any mention of this author; for it is generally supposed, that the Phcedrus mentioned by Martial is not the same. Seneca evidently knew nothing of him; otherwise he never could have laid it down, as he does, for matter of fact, that the Romans had not attempted fables and Esopean compositions: “Fabellas et ^sopeos logos, intentatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” This may account for the obscurity in which the name and reputation of Quintus Curtius lay buried for so many years; which was likewise the case with Velleius Paterculus and Manilius. Even Isaac Casaubon, with all his learning, did not know there was a Phaedrus among the ancients, till Peter Pithou, or Pithceus, published his “Fables.” c It is by your letter,“says Casaubon,” that I first came to be acquainted with Phaedrus, Augustus’s freedman, for that name was quite unknown to me before; and I never read any thing either of the man or of his works, or, if I did, I do not remember it.“This letter of Casaubon was written in 1596, at which time Pithceus published the” Fables of Phoedrus," at Troyes. He sent a copy of them to father Sirmond, who was then at Rome; and this Jesuit shewed it to the learned men in that city, who judged it, at first, a supposititious work; but, upon carefully examining, altered their opinion, and thought they could observe in it the characteristical marks of the Augustan age.

Since that edition of 1596, there have been several others, with notes by the most eminent critics. That of 16 1 J8, in 8vo, which Burman produced, contains, besides the notes of Gudius never before published, the entire commentaries of Rittershusius, Rigaltius, Nic. Heinsius, ScheflFerus, and of Praschius, with extracts from other commentators. An edition since this, at Amsterdam, 1701, in 4to, by the care, and with the notes, of Hoogstraten, is the most beautiful of all that have yet been printed, with regard to the letter and the plates. These fables were subjoined to the edition of Terence by Bentley, in 1746, 4to, with the corrections and emendations of that great critic. The more recent editions are those of Brotier, Paris, 1783, and of Schwabe, Brunswick, 1806, which are both much esteemed.

, a Welsh physician and poet, a native of Pembrokeshire, and the first English translator of Virgil, was educated at Oxford, whence he removed to LincolnVinn, to undertake the study of the law. So far was he in earnest, for a time, in this pursuit, that he published two books on subjects of law; one on the nature of writs, and the other, what is now called a book of precedents. Why he quitted law for physic is unknown, but he became a bachelor and a doctor in the latter faculty, both in 1559, and his medical works were collected at London in 1560. They consist chiefly of compilations and translations from the French. Among his poetical works is “The Regimen of Life,” translated from the French, London, 1544, 8vo. The story of “Owen Glendower,” in the “Mirror for Magistrates;” and his translation of the first nine books, and part of the tenth, of Virgil’s uEneid. There is a commendatory poem by him prefixed to Philip Betham’s “Military Precepts.” Warton mentions also an entry in the stationers’ books for printing “serten verses of Cupydo by Mr. Fayre,” and that he had seen a ballad called “Gadshill” by Faire, both which names were probably intended for that of Phaer. His translation of the first seven books of Virgil was printed in 1558, by John Kyngston, and dedicated to queen Mary. The two next books, with part of the tenth, were translated afterwards by him, and published after his death by William Wightman, in 1562. He has curiously enough marked at the end of each book the time when it was finished, and the time which it cost him in translating; which amounts, at separate intervals between the year 1555 and 1560, to 202 days, without reckoning the fragment of the tenth book. It appears, that during the whole of this period he resided very much at his patrimonial territory in Kilgerran forest, in South Wales. The fifth book is said, at the end, to have been finished on the 4th of May, 1557, “post periculum ejns Karmerdini,” which, whether it relates to some particular event in his life, or means that he made a trial upon it at Caermarthen, is a little uncertain; probably the former. Wightman says that he published all he could find among his papers; but conjectures, nevertheless, that he had proceeded rather further, from the two lines which he translated the very day before his death, and sent to Wightman. They are these,

Ech mans day stands prefixt, time short and swift with cure­ less bretche

He died soon after the 12th of August, 1560, on which day his will was dated. His translation of Virgil is written, like the preceding specimen, in long Alexandrines of seven feet. The translation was completed, with the addition of Maphaeus’s thirteenth book, by Thomas Twyne, a young physician, afterwards author of other works: his part is deemed by Warton evidently inferior to that of his predecessor, though Phaer has omitted, misrepresented, and paraphrased, many passages. Of what he did of this nature Phaer himself has given an account, in his postscript to the seven books: “Trusting that you, my right worshipful maisters and studentes of universities, and such as be teachers of children and readers of this auctour in Latin, will not be to muche offended, though every verse answere not to your expectation. For (besides the diversitie between a construction and a translation) you know there be many mistical secretes in this writer, which uttered in English would shewe little pleasour, and in mine opinion are better to be untouched than to diminish the grace of the rest with tediousnes and darknes. I have therefore followed the counsel of Horace, teaching the duety of a good interpretour, * qui quae desperat nitescere posse relinquit;' by which occasion, somwhat I have in places omitted, somwhat altered, and some things I have expounded, and al to the ease of inferior readers; for you that are learned nede not to be instructed.” A ridiculous error of the press stands in the opening of the second Æneid, as reprinted by Twyne, Phaer had translated “conticuere omnes” by “they whusted all,” for “they whisted,” or kept silence but Twyne has printed it “they whistled all.” Sir Thomas Chaloner, in his Encomia, printed at London, 1579, 4to, p. 356, has pathetically lamented Phaer 7 as a most skilful physician. As to his name, it is written Phayer by Wood, and Phaier by Warton; but as we find it Phaer in every part of the translation of Virgil, and in the “Mirror for Magistrates,” we have so given it. His story of Owen Glendour is in stanzas of seven lines, the same as Sackville’s Induction, and the greater part of those narratives.

was a famous tyrant of Agrigentum, in Sicily, who having made himself master of that city about 571A.C. exercised the most unheard of cruelties, and caused a brazen bull to be formed, in which those whom he condemned were to be burnt alive. When Perillus, the author of the cruel invention, demanded his reward, Phalaris ordered him to be the first person put to death in the machine. The people of Agrigentum at length rose, and burnt Phalaris himself in it, 563 A. C. We have some letters to this tyrant under the name of Abaris, with the answers, which occasioned the memorable controversy between Bentley and Boyle, to whose articles we refer for the particulars of it. These letters were printed at the Sorbonne about 1470, 4to; at Trevisa, 1471, 4to; and Oxford, 1718, 8vo; and the controversy itself has been translated at large into Latin, and republished, with the epistles by Lennep, 1777, 4to.

, or as some say is the proper form, Favorinus (Varinus), who flourished in the 16th century, was born at Favera, near Camerino, a ducal town of Umbria, from which he is said to have taken his name. His real name was Guarino, which he changed to Varinus. He was a favourite disciple of the celebrated Angelo Politian, and John Lascaris, at Florence, and was patronized by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Having determined on an ecclesiastical life, he undertook the care of a congregation, and was appointed preceptor to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Favorinus was appointed keeper of the Medicean library in the year 1512, and in 1514 bishop of Nocera. He died in 1537. It was in 1523 that he published his Greek lexicon at Rome, one of the earliest modern lexicons of that language, and compiled, from Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, Phrynicus, Hesychius, Harpocration, and other ancient lexicons, published and unpublished and from the notes of Eustathius, and the scholiasts. It is written entirely in Greek, and is now superseded by other works of more popular use; though it may still be serviceable, in supplying various readings of Suidas and others, of which Favorinus probably consulted very ancient manuscripts. The best edition is that of Bartoli, Venice, 1712, folio.

, a celebrated Greek comic poet, contemporary with Plato and Aristophanes, flourished about 420 B.C. He followed the style of the ancient comedy, which, instead of feigned and imaginary persons, introduced living characters on the stage, who were known to the spectators by their names and distinguishing marks, and turned them into ridicule; but Pherecrates is said to have been very moderate in his use of this licence. Twenty one comedies are attributed to this poet, of which we have only some fragments remaining, collected by Hertelius and Grotius. It appears from these fragments, some of which are given by Cumberland, or rather Bentley, in “The Observer,” that Pherecrates wrote very pure Greek, and excelled in that nice and delicate raillery distinguished by the name of Attic urbanity. He invented a kind of verses, called, from his name, Pherecratian; consisting of the three last feet of an hexameter, the first of these three feet being always a spondee. This verse of Horace, for example, “Quamvis Pontica Pinus,” is a Pherecratian verse. M. Burette, in torn. XV. of the academy of inscriptions, has examined a fragment of this poet concerning music, which may be found in Plutarch.

, an eminent philosopher, and the first preceptor of Pythagoras, was a native of the island of Scyrus, one of the Cyclades, near Delos, and flourished about the 45th olympiad, or B. C. 600. It has been maintained, with great erudition, that Pherecydes derived his principles of philosophy and theogony from the sacred books of the Phoenicians; but little dependence, Brucker thinks, is to be placed upon the authorities by which this opinion is supported; and it will appear, upon inquiry, that the tenets of this philosopher were not less similar to those of the most ancient Grecian and barbaric philosophers, than to the doctrine of the Phoenicians. The opinion of Josephus, that Pherecydes studied philosophy in Egypt, seems more probable; for Egypt was, at that universally resorted to as the seat of learning; the symbolical method of teaching, which was made use of by Pherecydes, was perfectly after the Egyptian manner; and the general aspect of his doctrine bears a strong resemblance to the dogmas of the Egyptian school.

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

, the most celebrated sculptor of antiquity, was an Athenian, and a contemporary of the celebrated Pericles, who flourished in the 83d olympiad, or B.C. 440 to 450. This wonderful artist was not only consummate in the use of his tools, but accomplished in those sciences and branches of knowledge which belong to his profession; as history, poetry, fable, geometry, optics, &c. He first taught the Greeks to imitate nature perfectly in this way; and all his works, distinguished for their grandeur and sublimity, were received with admiration. They were also incredibly numerous; for he united the greatest facility with the greatest perfection. His Nemesis was ranked among his first works: and is said to have been carved out of a block of marble which was found in the camp of the Persians, after they were defeated in the plains of Marathon. He made an excellent statue of Minerva for the Plateaus; but the statue of this goddess, in her magnificent temple at Athens, of which there are still some ruined remains, was a more astonishing production of human art. Pericles, who had the care of this pompous edifice, gave orders to Phidias, whose talents he well knew, to make a statue of the goddess; and Phidias formed a figure of ivory and gold, thirty-nine feet high. Writers never speak of this illustrious monument of skill without raptures; yet what has rendered the name of the artist immortal, proved at that time his ruin. He had carved upon the shield of the goddess his own portrait and that of Pericles, which the envious censured as a crime. He was also charged with embezzling part of the materials which were designed for the statue. Upon this he withdrew to Elis, and took a most honourable revenge over the ungrateful Athenians, by making for that place the Olympic Jupiter, which was afterwards ranked among the most wonderful pieces of art in the world. It was executed with astonishing sublimity of conception; its dimensions being sixty feet high, and every way proportioned. * c The majesty of the work equalled the majesty of the God,“says Quintilian;” and its beauty seems to have added lustre to the religion of the country." Phidias concluded his labours witu this master-piece; and the Eleans, to do honour to his memory, appropriated to his descendants an office, which consisted in preserving from injury this magnificent image.

, a learned Italian, was born in 1398, at Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He studied at Padua, where he made such progress, that at eighteen he became professor of eloquence. The fame of his talents having gained him an invitation to Venice, he was honoured with the rank of citizen, and was sent by the republic as secretary to their embassy at Constantinople in 1419, and he took advantage of this employment to make himself master of Greek. He there married Theodora, daughter of the learned Emmanuel Chrysoloras, about 1419. Becoming at length known to the emperor John Palaeologus, he was sept on an embassy to Sigismund emperor of Germany, to implore his aid against the Turks. After this he taught at Venice, Florence, Siena, Bologna, and Milan, with astonishing success. He was not, however, without his defects. He wished to reign alone in the republic of letters, and could not bear contradiction without being extremely irritated. He would dispute on the most trivial points; and once wagered 100 crowns, on some minute question of grammar, against the beard of a Greek philosopher named Timotheus. Having won, no solicitation could prevail upon him to remit the fine, and he most unmercifully shaved his antagonist, in spite of very ample offers. To this presumptuous turn he joined a prodigality and a restlessness, which filled his life with uneasiness. Menage has accused him of destroying a copy of Cicero “De Gloria,” the only one then existing, after having transfused the greater part of it into a treatise of his own; but it does not appear that this accusation was just. Other learned men have been also suspected; but all that is certain is, that the work was extant in the time of Petrarch, who mentions having a copy of it, which has since been utterly lost. Philelphus died at Florence July 31, 1481, being then 83. His works consist of odes, dialogues, orations, &c. of which the following editions are in most request: 1. “Orationes et nonnulla alia opera, Plutarchi apophthegmata, ab eodem e Graeco in Latinum con versa,” 4to. This is a very rare edition, and contains a letter from Philelphus to Maria Sforza, dated from Milan, 1481. There are reprints at Venice in 1482, 1491, 1492, &c. but of little value. 2. “Odae,” Brix. 1497, 4to. 3. “Satyrarum Hecatosticon prima decas (decades decem),” Milan, 1476, small folio, of uncommon rarity. 4. “Satyrarum decades deceni,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 5. “Satyrae centum distinctae decem decadibus Catholicis passim refertoe sententiis: praemissa authoris vita ab Egid. Perrino Campano, &c.” Paris, 1508. De Bure says, that the life announced in the title of this edition is not to be found in such copies as he has seen. 6. “Epistolarum familiarum libri triginta septem,” Venice, 1502, folio. 7. “Fabulae,” Venice, 1480, 4to. In his letters are innumerable proofs of his arrogant and suspicious temper. His works, collected, were published at Basle in 1739.

, an Athenian comic poet, contemporary with Menander, whose rival he was, and though inferior, was frequently successful against him by means of intrigue or the partiality of friends, was, by the account of Suidas, a Syracusan by birth; but Strabo says that he was born at Solae, in Cilicia. He was some years older than Menander, and in the opinion of Quintilian fairly next to him in merit, though unfit to be preferred to him. Apuleius speaks still more favourably, saying only that he was fortasse impar; and adds, that there are to be found in his dramas “many witty strokes, plots ingeniously disposed, discoveries strikingly brought to light, characters well adapted to their parts, sentiments that accord with human life, jests that do not degrade the sock, and gravity that does not intrench upon the buskin.” Philemon, who flourished 274 B.C. lived to the extraordinary age of 101 years, and composed ninety comedies. Menander, indeed, composed more, and in less time, but even this was extraordinary. His longevity was the result of great temperance, and a placid frame of mind. Frugal, to a degree that subjected him to the charge of avarice, he never weakened his faculties or constitution by excess: and he summed up all his wishes in one rational and moderate petition to heaven, which throws a most favourable light upon his character: “I pray for health in the first place; in the next, for success in my undertakings; thirdly, for a cheerful heart; and lastly, to be out of debt to all mankind.” A petition which seems to have been granted in all its parts. As he lived in constant serenity oi mind, so he died without pain of body; for, having called together a number of his friends to the reading of a play which he had newly finished, and sitting, as was the custom in that serene climate, under the open canopy of heaven, an unforeseen fall of ruin broke up the company, just when the old man had g'>t into the third act, in the very wannest interests of his fahle. His hearers, disappointed by this unlucky check to their entertainment, interceded with him for the remainder on the day following, to which he readily assented; and a great company being then assembled, whom the fame of the rehearsal had brought together, they sat a considerable time in expectation of the poet, till wearied out with waiting, and unable to account for his want of punctuality, some of his intimates were dispatched in quest of him, who, having entered his house, and made their way to his chamber, found the old man dead on his couch, in his usual meditating posture, his features placid and composed, and with every symptom that indicated a death without pain or struggle. The fragments of Philemon are in general of a sentimental tender cast; and though they enforce sound and strict morality, yet no one instance occurs of that gloomy misanthropy, that harsh and dogmatizing spirit, which too often marks the maxims of his more illustrious rival. They were collected and published by Grotius, together with those of Menander; the greater part having been preserved by Stobtcns. Several of them, as well as the fragments of the other Greek comic poets, have been translated by Mr. Cumberland in his “Observer,” to which we refer our readers for further information.

, an eminent musician and chess-player, born at Dreuxin 1726, was descended from a long line of musical ancestors, who, in different branches of the art, had been attached to the court ever since the time of Louis XIII. The family-name was Danican; and it is pretended that this monarch, himself a dilettante musician, occasioned the surname of Philidor, a famous performer on the hautbois, whom this prince had heard in his progress through France, to be given to Danican, whose instrument being the hautbois, when the king heard him perform, he cried out, “Here’s anotuer Philidor!” Andrew was educated as a page or chorister in the chapelroyal, under Citmpra, and in 1737 he produced his first anthem, which was performed in the chapel, and complimented by the king as an extraordinary production for a child of eleven years old. On his change of voice, and quitting the chapel, he established himselt at Paris, where he subsisted by a few scholars, and by copying music; but every year he went to Versailles with a new motet.

The progress which he had made at chess awakened in him a desire to travel, in order to try his fortune; and in 1745 he set out for Holland, England, Germany, &c. In these voyages he formed his taste in music upon the best Italian models. In 1753 he tried his strength as a musical composer in London, by new setting Dryden’s ode on St. Cecilia’s day. Handel is said, by his biographer, to have found his chorusses well written, but discovered a want of taste in his airs. As his time was more occupied by chess than music, he printed in London, by a large subscription, in 1749, his “Analysis of the Game of Chess.” In 1754 he returned to Paris, in the month of November, and devoted his whole time to music. He had his “Laudaj Jerusalem” performed at Versailles; but it was found to be too Italian; and as the queen of Louis XV. disliked that style of music in the church, his hopes of obtaining, by this composition, a place of m<rftre de chapelle, were frustrated.

In 1757 he composed an act of a serious opera; but Ribel, opera-manager, would not let it be performed, telling him that he would have no airs introduced in the scenes of that theatre. From this time, however, to 1779, he composed various operas for the French stage, that were much approved. In the last-mentioned year, he composed, in London, “The Carmen Seculare,” of Horace,“in the conduct of which, Philidor placed himself under the guidance of Baretti. The performance was attended, at Freemasons’ Hall, by all persons of learning and talents, in expectation of a revival of the music of the ancients, and, by many, of its miraculous powers. To wh,it kind of music the” Carmen Seculare" was performed at Rome, we pretend not to say; but in London, adds Dr. Burney, we could trace the composer’s models for the chorusses in the oratorios of Handel, and the operas of Rameau; and for the airs, in his own comic operas, and the favourite melodies then in vogue in that theatre, many of which, with Italian words and Italian singing, particularly those of Gretry, would he elegant and pleasing music any where. Philidor, however, in setting the secular ode, it must be confessed, manifested his knowledge of counterpoint in the style of the old masters; and that, in spite of chess, he had found time for the serious study of music. We believe that no one found himself much the wiser concerning the music of the ancients, after hearing this music performed to Latin words, than after hearing an oratorio of Handel, or an opera of Rameau. For the last two months of his life, he was kept alive merely by art, and the kind attentions of an old and worthy friend. To the last moment of his existence he enjoyed, though near seventy years of age, a strong retentive memory, which had long rendered him remarkable in the circle of his acquaintance in this capital. Mr. Philidor was a member of the chess-club riear 30 years; and was a man of those meek qualities that rendered him not less esteemed as a companion than admired for his extraordinary skill in the intricate and arduous game of chess, fpr which he was pre-eminently distinguished. Not two months before his death he played two games blindfold, at the same time, against two excellent chess-players, and was declared the conqueror. What seemed most to have shook the poor old man’s constitution, and to have precipitated his exit, was the not being able to procure a passport to return to France to visit his family, who were living there, before he paid the last debt of nature. But this refusal was rendered more bitter, on its being intimated that he was a suspected character, and had been one of those persons denounced by a committee of French informers. From the moment he was made acquainted with this circumstance, he became the martyr of grief: his philosophy forsook him; his tears incessantly flowed; and he sunk into the grave without a groan, oil the 3 1st of August, 1795.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Luxemburg, in the vicinity of St. Hubert’s, in the Ardennes, in 1575. He entered the society of the Jesuits at the age of twenty-one: and besides his other accomplishments, was distinguished for his knowledge of scriptural history and chronology. After taking the degree of doctor of divinity, he was employed, according to the usual practice of his order, in teaching philosophy, scholastic divinity, and biblical literature, in the universities of Gratz, Vienna, and Prague. He died at Ratisbon in 1636, about the age of 6 I, leaving, among other works of inferior importance, 1. “Chronologica Synopsis sacrorum Temporum,” 1624. 2. “Manuale Chronologicum veteris Testamenti,” 1635. 3. “Chronologic Veteris Testament! accuratum Examen,” 1637, &c.

, an English poet, was descended from an ancient family in Leicestershire, and educated at St. John’s-college, in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A.B. in 1696, and A.M. in 1700, at which time he obtained a fellowship. ' While at college also he is supposed to have written his “Pastorals,” which involved him so seriously with the wits and critics of the age. When he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, he became, as Jacob expresses himself, “one of the wits at Button’s; n and there contracted an acquaintance with the gentlemen of the belles lettres, who frequented it. Sir Richard Steele was his particular friend, and inserted in his Tatler, N. 12, a little poem of his, called” A Winter Piece,“dated from Copenhagen, the 9th of May, 1709, and addressed to the earl of Dorset. Sir Richard thus mentions it with honour:” This is as fine a piece as we ever had from any of the schools of the most learned painters. Such images as these give us a new pleasure in our sight, and fix upon our minds traces of reflection, which accompany us wherever the like objects occur.“Pope, too, who had a confirmed aversion to Philips, while he affected to despise his other works, always excepted this out of the number, and mentioned it as the production of a man” who could write very nobly."

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

In the mean time, he fell under the severe displeasure of Pope, who satirized him with his usual keenness. It was said he used to mention Pope as an enemy to the government; and it is certain that the revenge which Pope took upon him for this abuse, greatly ruffled his temper. Philips was not Pope’s match in satirical attack, and therefore had recourse to another weapon, for he stuck up a rod at Button’s coffee house, with which he threatened to chastise his antagonist whenever he should meet him. But Pope prudently declined going to a place where he must have felt the resentment of an enraged author, as much superior to him in bodily strength, as inferior in genius and skill in versifying.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.

, one of the nephews of Milton, Was the son of Edward Phillips, who came from Shrewsbury, and rose to be secondary in the Crown-office, by Anne, sister of the celebrated poet, and was born in the Strand, near Charing-cross, in August 1630, and received his earliest education under his uncle. In 1648 he became a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued till 1651. The time of his death is not ascertained. He published two small works, entitled “Tractatulus de carmine Dramatico Poetarum, praesertim in choris Tragicis, et veteris Comediae,” and “Compendiosa enumeratio Poetarum (saltern quorum fama maxime enituit) qui atempore Dantis Aligerii usque ad hanc aetatem claruerunt; nempe Italorum, Germanorum, Anglorum, &c.” These were added to the seventeenth edition of Job. Buchlerus’s book, entitled “Sacrarum profanarumque phrasium poeticarum Thesaurus,” &c. Lond. 1669, 8vo. But he is better known by his “Theatrum Poetarum, or a compleat collection of the Poets, especially the most eminent of all ages, the Ancients distinguish't from the Moderns in their several alphabets. With some observations- and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our own nation. Together with a prefatory discourse of the Poets and Poetry in general,” Lond. 1675. Into this work there is, says Warton, good reason to suppose that Milton threw many additions and corrections. It contains criticisms far above the taste of that period, and such as were not common after the national taste had been just corrupted by the false and capricious refinements of the court of Charles II. The preface, however, discovers more manifest traces of Milton’s hand than the book itself.

In 1800 sir E. Brydges published a new edition of the “Theatrum” as far as respects the English poets, and has subjoined very valuable additions to every article. The arrangement in this edition is greatly improved by being made chronological; and industrious research has gathered much curious information from obscure or neglected sources. Few more acceptable presents could have been given to the public, unless indeed the learned and accomplished editor would perform his promise to add a second Tolume.

To Edward Phillips, Wood attributes the following works, most of which render it probable that he was an author by profession 1 “A new World of English Words, or General Dictionary, &c.” Lond. 1657, folio. Jn this he had made so much use of JBlouiu’s “Glossographia,” without acknowledgment, that the latter complained of the injury in a letter to Wood, and speaks of Phillips, as a “beggarly half-witted scholar, hired for the purpose by some of the law-booksellers,” to transcribe that in four or five months, which cost him (Blount) twice as many years in compiling. At last he was provoked to expose Phillips in a pamphlet entitled “A world of Errors discovered in the New World of Words,” 1673, folio. Phillips had a yet more formidable antagonist in Skinner, who in his “Etymologicon” takes many opportunities to expose his ignorance. 2. A supplement to “Speed’s Theatre,” 1676, folio. 3. A continuation of “Baker’s Chronicle.” 4. “Tractatulus de modo et ratione formandi voces derivativas Latinae Linguae,” 1684, 4to. 5. “Enchiridion Linguae Latinae, or a compendious Latin Dictionary, &c.” 1684, 8vo. 6. “Speculum Linguae Latinos,” 1684, 4to. These two last are chiefly taken from Milton’s ms Latin “Thesaurus.” 7. “Poem on the coronation of his most sacred majesty James II. and his royal consort our gracious queen Mary,” 1685, folio. He also published an edition of Drummond of Hawthornden’s poems, in 1656; and translated Pausanias into Latin; and, into English, two novels from J. Perez de Montalvan; and “The Minority of St. Lewis, with the politic conduct of affairs by his mother queen Blanch of Spain, during her regency,” 1685, 12mo. But next to his “Theatrum,” we are mostly indebted to him for his life of his illustrious uncle.

, the other nephew of Milton, appears to have been at first a warm adherent to his uncle’s political opinions, and published “Milton’s Defensio” in answer to the “Apologia pro rege, &c.” which was falsely ascribed to bishop Bramhall. His other publications imply some change of sentiment, particularly his “Satyr against Hypocrites,” published about the time of the restoration, and reprinted in 1671 and 1680, 4to. These other writings, according to Wood, are, 1. “Montelion; or the prophetic almanack for the year 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Maronides; or Virgil Travestie,” a burlesque on the 5th and 6th books of the Eneid,“1672 and 1673, 8vo, and reprinted together in 1678. 3.” Duellum Musicum,“printed with Locke’s” Present practice of Musick vindicated.“4.” Mercurius Verax; or the prisoner’s prognostications for the year 1675,“1675, 8vo. 5. A Continuation of Heath’s Chronicle, 1676, folio, a wonderful production from the author of” Miltoni Defensio.“6.” Dr. Oates’s Narrative of the Popish Plot vindicated,“1680, folio. 7.” Character of a Popish Successor,“the second part, 1681, folio, disowned by Elkanah Settle, author of the first part. 8.” Speculum Crape-Gownorum; or, an old Looking-glass for the young academics new foiPd, &c.“9.” Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon his celebrated reasons for abrogating the test, and notion of idolatry, answered by Sam. archdeacon of Canterbury,“1688, 4to. In Wood we have no account of his death, but he adds that he was” a man of very loose principles, atheistical, forsakes his wife and children, makes no provision for them." He appears, indeed, from his publications, to have reflected very little credit on his family.

, author of several books relating to ancient customs and privileges in England, was the son of a gentleman, and born at Prestbury in Gloucestershire, Sept. 28, 1601. When he was very young, he spent some time in one of the inns of chancery; and thence translated himself to the Middle-temple, where he became learned in the law. In the civil war he continued loyal, having always been an assertor of the king’s prerogative; and was so zealously attached to Charles I. that, two days before the king was beheaded, he wrote a protestation against the intended murder, which he caused to be printed, and affixed to posts in all public places. He also published, in 1649, 4to, a pamphlet entitled “Veritas inconcussa; or King Charles I. no man of blood, but a martyr for his people:” which was reprinted in 1660, 8vo. In 1653, when the courts of justice at Westminster, especially the chancery, were voted down by Oliver’s parliament, he published “Considerations against the dissolving and taking them away:” for which he received the thanks of William Lenthall, esq. speaker of the late parliament, and of the keepers of the liberties of England. For some time, he was tilazer for London, Middlesex, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire; and spent much money in searching records, and writing in favour of the royal prerogative: yet he was but poorly rewarded by the place of one of the commissioners for regulating the law, worth 200l. per annum, which only lasted two years. After the restoration of Charles II. when the bill for taking away the tenures was depending in parliament, he wrote and published a book, to shew the necessity of preserving them. Its title is “Tenenda non Tollenda: or, the Necessity of preserving Tenures in Capite, and by KnightVservice, which, according to their first institution, were, and are yet, a 'great part of the salus populi, &c, 1660,” 4to. In 1663 he published “The Antiquity, Legality, Reason, Duty, and Necessity of Prae-emption and Pourveyance for the King,” 4to and, afterwards, many other pieces upon subjects of a similar kind. He likewise assisted Dr. Bates in his “Elenchus Motuum;” especially in searching the records and offices for that work. He died Nov. 17, 1690, in his eighty-ninth year; and was buried near his wife, in the church of Twyford in Middlesex. He was a man well acquainted with records and antiquities; but his manner of writing is not close or well digested. He published various political pamphlets, and among them one in 1681, which, supposing him to have been sincere, proves his passion for royal prerogative to have been mu h superior to his sagacity and judgment: it is entitled “Ursa Major et Minor; shewing, that there is no such fear, as is factiously pretended, of popery and arbitrary power.” In the Archaeologia, vol. XIII. is an account of a ms. of his in the Harleian collection, entitled “An Expedient or meanes in want of money to pay the sea and land forces, or as many of them as shall be thought expedient without money in this year of an almost universal povertie of the English nation.” In Strype’s life of Whitgift (p. 89), is a notice of one Fabian Phillips, one of the council of the marches of Wales, who appears to have been an ancestor of our author.

, an Lnglish poet, was son of Dr. Stephen Philips, archdeacon of Salop; and born at Barnpton in Oxfordshire, Dec. 30, 1676. After some domestic education, he was sent to Winchester, where, as we are told by Dr. Sewel, his biographer, he was soon distinguished by the superiority of his exercises; and, what is less easily to be credited, so much endeared himself to his schoolfellows, by his civility and good-nature, that they, without murmur or ill-will, saw him indulged by the master with particular immunities. It is related, that, when he was at school, he seldom mingled in play with the other boys, but retired to his chamber; where his sovereign pleasure was to sit, hour after hour, while his hair was combed by somebody, whose service he found means to procure.

From school, where he became acquainted with the poets ancient and modern, and fixed his attention particularly on Milton, he was, in 1694, removed to Christ church, Oxford, where he performed all his university exercises with applause. Following, however, the natural bent of his genius to poetry, he continued the study of his favourite Milton, so intensely, that it is said there was not an allusion in “Paradise Lost,” drawn from any hint in either Homer or Virgii, to which he could not immediately refer. Yet he was not so much in love with poetry, as to neglect other branches of learning, and, having some intention to apply to physic as a profession, he took much delight in natural history, particularly botany; but he appears to have relinquished these pursuits when he had begun to acquire poetical fame. While he was at Oxford, he was honoured with the acquaintance of the best and politest men in it; and had a particular intimacy with Mr. Edmund Smith, author of the tragedy of Phaedra and Hippolitus. The first poem which distinguished him, in 1703, was his “Splendid Shilling;” his next, entitled “Blenheim,' 1 he wrote, as a rival to Addison’s on the same subject, at the request of the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Henry St. John, afterwards lord Bolingbroke, on occasion of the victory obtained at that place by the duke of Marlborough in 1704. It was published in 1705; and the year after he finished a third poem, upon” Cyder,“the first book of which had been written at Oxford. It is founded upon the model of Virgil’s” Georgics.“All that we have more by Philips is, a Latin” Ode to Henry St. John, esq.;“which is also esteemed a master-piece. He was meditating a poem on the” Last Day," when illness obliged him to relinquish all pursuits, except the care of his health. His disorder, however, became a lingering consumption, attended with an asthma, of which he died at Hereford, Feb. 15, 1708, when he ha'd not reached his thirty-third year. He was interred in the cathedral there, with an inscription over his grave; and had a monument erected to his memory, in Westminster- abbey, by sir Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, with an epiuipli upon it, written by Dr. Atterbury, though commonly ascribed to Dr. Freind. Philips was one of those few poets, whose Muse and manners were equally excellent and amiable; and both were so in a very eminent degree.

Dr. Johnson observes, that “Philips has been always praised, without contradiction, as a man modest, blameless, and pious; who bore a narrow fortune without discontent, and tedious and painful maladies without impatience; beloved by those that knew him, but not ambitious to be known. He was probably not formed for a wide circle. His conversation is commended for its innocent gaiety, which seems to have flowed only among his intimates; for I have been told, that he was in company silent and barren, and employed only upon the pleasures of his pipe. His addiction to tobacco is mentioned by one of hjs biographers, who remarks that in all his writings, except ‘ Blenheim,’ he has found an opportunity of celebrating the fragrant fume. In common life, he was probably one of those who please by not offending, and whose person was loved, because his writings were admired. He died honoured and lamented, before any part of his reputation had withered, and before his patron St. John had disgraced him His works are few. The ‘ Splendid Shilling,’ has the uncommon merit of an original design, unless it may be thought precluded by the ancient Centos. To degrade the sounding words and stately construction of Milton, by an application to the lowest and most trivial things, gratifies the mind with a momentary triumph over that granueur which hitherto held its captives in admiration; the words and things are presented with a new appearance, and novelty is always grateful where it gives no pain. But the merit of such performances begins and ends with the 6rst author. He that should again adapt Milton’s phrase to the gross incidents of common life, and even adapt it with more art, which would not be difficult, must yet expect but a small part of the praise which Philips has obtained: he can only hope to be considered as the repeater of a jest.”

“There is a Latin ‘ Ode’ written to his patron St. John, in return for a present of wine and tobacco, which can-not be passed without notice. It is gay and elegant, and exhibits several artful accommodations of classick expressions to new purposes. It seems better turned than the odes of Hannes. To the poem on ‘ Cider,’ written in imitation of the ‘ Georgicks,’ may be given this peculiar praise, that it is grounded in truth that the precepts which it contains are exact and just; and that it is therefore at once a book of entertainment and of science. This I was told by Miller, the great gardener and botanist, whose expression was, that * there were many books written on the same subject in prose, which do nut contain so much truth as that poem.' In the disposition of his matter, so as to intersperse precepts relating to the culture of trees with sentiments more generally pleasing, and in easy and graceful transitions from one subject to another, he has very diligently imitated his master; but he unhappily pleased himself with blank verse, and supposed that the numbers of Milton, which impress the mind with veneration, combined as they are with subjects of inconceivable grandeur, could be sustained by images which at most can rise only to elegance. Contending angels may shake the regions of heaven in blank verse; but the flow of equal measures, and the embellishment of rhyme, must recommend to our attention the art of engrafting, and decide the merit of the redstreak and pearmain. What study could confer, Philips had obtained; but natural deficience cannot be supplied. He seems not born to greatness and elevation. He is never lofty, nor does he often surprise with unexpected excellence; but perhaps to his last poem may be applied whatTuily said of the work of Lucretius, that * it is written with much art, though with few blazes of genius.” 1 Of the “Cider,” an excellent edition, with notes and illustrations, was published by Mr. Dunster in 1791, 8vo.

, sometimes called Phillip Morgan, a native of Monmouthshire, entered a student at Oxford about 1533. Being admitted to the degree of B. A. in 1537, he distinguished himself so much by a talent for disputing, then in high vogue, that he was called Morgan the sophister. Afterwards proceeding M. A. he was chosen a fellow of Oriel college, and entered into orders. In 1546 he was chosen principal of St. Mary-hall, and was in such reputation with the popish party, that he was one of the three selected to dispute with Peter Martyr on the sacrament. His share was published in 1549, under the title “Disputatio de sacramento Eucharistiae in univ. Oxon. habita, contra D. Pet. Martyr. 13 Mali, 1549.” We hear nothing of him during the reign of Edward VI.; but in that of queen Mary, he was appointed chanter of St. David’s. Being deprived of this by queen Elizabeth, he went abroad, and after a journey to Rome with Allen (afterwards the cardinal), he joined with him in 1568 in establishing the English college at Doway, and was the first who contributed pecuniary aid to that institution. Wood places his death at 1577, but the records of Doway college inform us that he died there in 1570, and left his property for the purchase of a house and garden for the English missionaries. A very scarce work, entitled “A Defence of the Honour of queen Mary of Scotland, with a declaration of her right, title, and interest, in the crown of England,” (London, 1569, Liege, 1571, 8vo), was attributed to him; but Camden and others assure us that it was written, as we have noticed in his life, by John Leslie, bishop of Ross. The only other treatise, therefore, we can ascribe to him with certainty, is that written in answer to Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet” and entitled “A Treatise shewing, the Regiment (government) of Women is conformable to the law of God and Nature,” Liege, 1571, 8vo.

, a Roman catholic divine, and author of some works of considerable merit, was descended from an ancient family. His father was a Roman catholic, but had become a convert to popery. Where or when he was born we are not told, but it appears that when at school, he became an enthusiastic admirer of some catholic books, lives of the saints, &c. He was thence removed to St. Omer’s, where he made great progress in polite literature, and obtained the first academical prizes. At one time, he felt an inclination to become a member of the society of the Jesuits, but changed his mind in that respect, and after a course of study at St. Omer’s, travelled through the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy, during the course of which, he visited persons eminent for learning; assisted at various academical exercises looked over the principal libraries, and considered the productions of the polite arts, and those magnificent structures which ancient and modern piety had raised and dedicated to public worship. He observed the different face and product of each country, and that endless variety of manners which seems merely or principally to arise from clU mate and education. He did not trust his remarks to memory alone, but committed them briefly to writing; but whether they are now existing, we are unable to ascertain.

Having finished his travels, he determined to devote himself to the ministry, and accordingly was admitted into orders. Soon afterwards his father died, but his perseverance in his religious sentiments deprived him of the estate he would otherwise have enjoyed: Thus, though an eldest son, he had no other provision but what the frugality of his parents had made for him. This however was something more than mediocrity, and placed him above dependence.

The preceding account is extracted from our author’s pamphlet, printed in 1761, and entitled “Philemon,” of which a few copies only were given to friends. The other circumstances collected by his biographer relate chiefly to his publications. In 1756, he published “The Study of Sacred Literature, fully stated and considered in a Discourse to a student in divinity (the rev. John Jenison, who died at Liege, Dec. 27, 1790),” a second edition of which appeared in 1758, and a third in 1765. This work is entitled to considerable praise; but his principal performance was “The History of the Life of Reginald Pole,” 1764, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1767, 2 vols. 8vo. It cannot be denied that this work, though penned with no small degree of spirit and elegance, contains much matter of an exceptionable nature, many of the facts distorted, and many of the characters introduced in it virulently abused. It excited, therefore, on the protestant side a general alarm, and met, as might be expected, with a firm opposition; many answers soon made their appearance, from several eminent hands, and the mistakes and improprieties of our author’s performance were pointed out and exposed. The following, we believe, is an exact list of his answerers: 1. “A Letter to Mr. Phillips, containing some observations on his History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Rich. Tillard, M. A. 1765, 8vo. 2. “A Review of Mr. Phillips’s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Glocester Ridley, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions upon Mr. Phillips’ s History of the Life of Cardinal Pole.” By Timothy Neve, D.D. Rector of Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire, 1766, 8vo. To this are added some remarks by Dr. Jortin. 4. “Remarks upon the History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Edw. Stone, Clerk, A. M. and late fellow of Wadham college, Oxford, 1766, 8vo. These remarks were first printed in the Public Ledger. 5. “The Life of Cardinal Reginald Pole, written originally in Italian, by Lodovico Beccatelli, archbishop of Ragusa, and now first translated into English, with notes critical and historical. To which is added an Appendix, setting forth the plagiarisms, false translations, and false grammar in Thomas Phillips’ s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By theRev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 6. “Catholick Faith and Practice, addressed to the ingenious author of the Life of Cardinal Pole,” anonymous, 1765; the author of which was Mr. John Jones, of Welwyn. (See before, vol. XIX.)

In vindication of himself he published in 1767, an “Appendix to the Life,” with some remarks on the chief objections which had been made to it and at the end of the third edition of his “Essay on the study of Sacred Literature,” he added some strictures on his opponents, and some corrections of mistakes. Speaking of this pamphlet in a letter to Mr. Cole, he says, “I am about to give another edition with considerable changes; especially as I have been informed that a seeming partiality to the order of the Jesuits, is the chiefest objection to the performance: which maybe avoided in a future edition, and the instruction be as complete as at present.” This seems to shew that his object was the general usefulness of the work, independent of party-considerations. All he could allege, however, in defence of his Life of Pole, was not sufficient to establish the credit of the work.

Mr. Phillips, after he entered into holy orders, obtained a dispensation to quit the Jesuits; and this step is said to have been taken in consequence of some dissatisfaction and difference with his superiors and professors, by whom, he would not submit to be guided and controlled in his theological studies. From Liege, where he took his dismission, he went to Rome, and there obtained, by the interest of the Pretender, a prebend in the collegiate church of Tongres, but was dispensed from residence on condition of serving the English mission, and for many years lived in the family of the late earl of Shrewsbury, and afterwards in that of Mrs. Berkeley, of Spetchley, near Worcester. In the decline of life he retired to the English college at Liege, with the design, which he could not effect, of reentering into the society he had withdrawn himself from, for which he retained a tender regard and affection. During the last four or five years of his life he was afflicted with epileptic fits, and, as his temper was naturally eager, his friends were cautious not to engage him in conversation upon his past studies or literary subjects, by which they observed his infirmity was increased. He was, we are told, a man of eminent piety, and always appeared strongly affected with the idea of the presence of God, particularly in his last illness, which happened at Liege in 1774.

He had a sister Elizabeth, who became abbess of the BeneJictine nuns at Ghent, to whom he addressed some elegant and spirited poetry, which may be seen in our principal authority. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cole attributes to him “Reasons for the repeal of the Laws against the Papists;” and his biographer adds that he was the author of an elegant translation in metre, of the beautiful prose “Lauda Sion Salvatorem;” and an equally elegant “Censura Commentariorum Cornelii a Lapide,” in Latin, printed on a single sheet.

, an ancient Greek writer, and of a noble family among the Jews, flourished at Alexandria in the reign of Caligula. He was the chief person of an embassy which was sent to Rome about the year 42, to plead the cause of his nation against Apion, who was commissioned by the Alexandrians to charge it with neglecting the honours due to Caesar; but that emperor would not suffer him to speak, and behaved to him with such anger, that Philo was in no small danger of losing his life. He went a second time to Rome, in the reign of Claudius; and then, according to Eusebius and Jerome, became acquainted, and upon terms of friendship, with St. Peter. Photius says further, that he was baptized into the Christian religion, and afterwards, from some motive of resentment, renounced it; but there is much uncertainty in all this, and few believe that St. Peter was at Rome so early as the reign of Claudius, if he was there at all.

Philo was educated at Alexandria, and made an uncommon progress in eloquence and philosophy. After the fashion of the time, he cultivated, like many of his religion, the philosophy of Plato, whose principles he imbibed so deeply, and whose manner he imitated so well, that it grew to be a common saying, “aut Plato ptrilonizat, aut Philo platonizat” Josephus calls him a man “eminent on all accounts;” and Eusebius describes him “copious in speech, rich in sentiments, and sublime in the knowledge of holy writ.*' He is said, however, to have been so much immersed in philosophy, the Platonic in particular, that he neglected to acquaint himself with the Hebrew language, and the rites and customs of his own people. Scaliger, in his usual way, says that Philo” knew no more of Hebrew and Syriac than a Gaul or a Scythian.“Grotius is of opinion that” he is not fully to be depended on, in what relates to the manners of the Hebrews;“and Cudworth goes somewhat farther when he says, that” though a Jewby nation, he was yet very ignorant of Jewish customs." Fabricius, however, while he allows some inadvertencies and errors of Philo with regard to these matters, yet he does not think them a sufficient foundation on which to charge so illustrious a doctor of the law with ignorance. Others think that Philo’s passion for philosophy had made him more than half a Pagan for it led him to interpret the law and the prophets upon Platonic ideas; and to admit nothing as truly interpreted, which was not agreeable to the principles of the academy. This led him still farther, to turn every thing into allegory, and to deduce the darkest meanings from the plainest words; which pernicious practice Origen imitated Afterwards, and exposed himself by it to the scoffs of Celsus and Porphyry. The writings of Philo abound with high and mystical, new and subtile, farfetched and abstracted notions, where the doctrines of Plato and Moses are so promiscuously blended, that it is not an easy matter to assign to each his own principles. In the mean time, we should greatly injure this Jewish Plato not to own, that although he is continually Platonizing, and allegorizing the Scriptures, yet he abounds with just sentiments and lessons of morality: and his morals are rather the morals of a Christian than of a Jew. History likewise, as well as his own writings, gives us all imaginable reason to conclude, that he was a man of great prudence, constancy, and virtue.

His works were first published in Greek by Turnebus, at Paris, in 1552; to which a Latin translation, made by Geleoius, was added in 1561, and printed several times with it. The Paris edition of 1640, in folio, was the best thai was published for a whole century; which made Cotelenus say, that “Philo was an author that deserved to have a better text and a better version.” This was accomplished in 1742, in a handsome edition published at London, by Dr. Mangey, in 2 vols. folio.

In 1797, the learned Jacob Bryant published “The Sentiments of Philo Judoeus concerning the Logos, or Word of God,” with a view to prove that Philo borrowed his sentiments and expressions, relative to the second person of the Trinity, from the conversation or writings of the apostles, which he considers as a striking argument in favour of the truth of Christianity. Philo’s authority, however, had been before repeatedly alleged by writers in favour of that fundamental principle of our religion, the existence of God if) a trinity of persons; particularly by Dr. Allix in his “Judgment of the ancient Jewish church,” 1699, and by the Ute Mr. Whitaker in his “Origin of Arianism disclosed,” 1791.

There are two others of the name of Philo on record, but little is known of them the one, Philo Biblios, from Biblios, the place of his nativity, flourished from the reign of Nero to that of Adrian, and wrote in Greek, “De Paran d is et Deligendis Libris;” “De Urbibus;” “De claris Viris;” and “De Imperio Adriani:” but he is chiefly known as the translator of Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician history into Greek, of which a few fragments. only remain. The other, Philo of Byzantium, au architect, flourished about 300 years before the Christian sera, and wrote a treatise of machines used in war, which is printed with “Mathematici veteres,” in 1693. There is also a piece attributed to him, entitled “De septem Orbis Spectaculis,” printed at Rome in 1640.

, of Crotona, was a celebrated philosopher of the ancients, who flourished about 375 B. C. He was of the school of Pythagoras, to whom that philosopher’s Golden Verses have been ascribed. He made the heavens his chief object of contemplation; and has been said to be the author of that true system of the world which Copernicus afterwards revived; but erroneously, because there is undoubted evidence that Pythagoras learned that system in Egypt. On that erroneous supposition however it was, that Bulliald placed the name of Philolaus at the head of two works, written to illustrate and confirm that system.

"He was (says Brucker) a disciple of Archytas, and flourished in the time of Plato. It was from him that Plato purchased the written records of the Pythagorean system, contrary to an express oath taken by the society of Pythagoreans, pledging themselves to keep secret the mysteries of their sect. It is probable that among these books were the writings of Timaeus, upon which Plato formed the dialogue which bore his name. Plutarch relates, that Philolaus was one of the persons who escaped from the house which was burned by Cylon, during the life of Pythagoras; but this account cannot be correct. Philolaus was con,­temporary with Plato, and therefore certainly not with Pythagoras. Interfering in affairs of state, he fell a sacrifice to political jealousy.

“Philolaus treated the doctrine of nature with great subtlety, but at the same time with great obscurity; referring every thing that exists to mathematical principles. He taught, that reason, improved by mathematical learning, is alone capable of judging concerning the nature of things: that the whole world consists of infinite and finite; that number subsists by itself, and is the chain by which its power sustains the eternal frame of things; that the Monad is not the sole principle of things, but that the Binary is necessary to furnish materials from which all subsequent numbers may be produced; that the world is one whole, which has a fiery centre, about which the ten celestial spheres revolve, heaven, the sua, the planets, the earth, and the moon; that the sun has a vitreous surface, whence the fire diffused through the world is reflected, rendering the mirror from which it is reflected visible; that all things are preserved in harmony by the law of necessity; and the world is liable to destruction both by fire and by water. From this summary of the doctrine of Philolaus it appears probable that, following Timfeus, whose writings he possessed, he so far departed from the Pythagorean system as to conceive two independent principles in nature, God and matter, and that it was from the same source that Plato derived his doctrine upon this subject.”

, an ancient ecclesiastical historian, was born in Cappadocia, about the year 388, or as some say 368. He pursued his studies principally at Constantinople; but we have few particulars of his life, and no account of his death. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in twelve books, which begins with the controversy between Arius and Alexander, and ends about the year 425. As he was brought up in Arian principles, his history is not free from partiality; but there are many useful things in his writings relating to the antiquities of the church. We have only extant an abridgment of it in Photius, and some extracts taken out of Suidas and other authors. Jac. Gothofredus, a learned lawyer, first published them at Geneva, in 1643, 4to, with a Latin translation and large notes. Valesius, having reviewed this abridgment by the manuscripts, and corrected the text in several places, caused it to be printed with the other ecclesiastical historians, at Paris, in 1673, folio. It was afterwards reprinted at London, in 1720, when Reading republished Valesius’s edition, in three volumes, folio.

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

There were many of the name of Philostratus among the ancients and there were many other works of the Philostratus here recorded but we have mentioned all that are extant.

, a learned English divine and martyr, was the son of sir Peter Philpot, knight of the Bath, and twice sheriff of Hampshire. He was born at Compton in. that county, and educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted of New college, Jan. 27, 1534, was made fellow, and took the degree of bachelor of laws. In a manuscript list of persons educated in that college, preserved in the Bodleian library, he is termed, “constans martyr pro verbo Dei, regnante Maria regina,” a faithful martyr for the word of God in queen Mary’s reign. He was, according to Wood, esteemed a good civilian, and admirably well skilled in the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Strype says, that when at college, “he profited in learning so well, that he laid a wager of twenty-pence with John Harpsfield, that he would make two hundred verses in one night, and not make above two faults in them. Mr. Thomas Tuchyner, schoolmaster, was judge; and decreed the twenty-pence to Mr. Philpot.”

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

While archdeacon of Winchester he was a frequent preacher, and active in promoting the reformed religion in the county of Hampshire; and considering the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance, was a decided enemy both in word and writing to the Arian opinions which appeared first in that reign. He and Ridley were reckoned two of the most learned men of their time, yet Philpot‘ s zeal was sometimes too ardent for the prudent discharge of his duty, and the tract he wrote against the Arians has the air of a coarse invective in the title of it. On the accession of queen Mary he disdained to temporize, or conceal his sentiments, but publicly wept in the first convocation held in her reign, when he saw it composed of men who were determined to restore popery. He wrote a report of this convocation, which fell into bishop Bonner’ s hands among other of Philpot' s books, which Bonner had seized. It was not long, therefore, before he was apprehended, and after various examinations before Bonner, and a most cruel and rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months, was condemned to be burnt in Smithfield. This was accordingly executed December 18, 1555, and was suffered by the martyr with the greatest constancy. He wrote “Epistolue Hebraicæ” and “De proprietate linguarum,” which are supposed to be in manuscript; “An Apology for Spitting upon an Arian, with an invective against the Arians,” &c. Lond. 1559, 8vo and 4to; “Supplication to king Philip and queen Mary;” “Letters to lady Vane;” “Letters to the Christian Congregation, that they abstain from Mass;” “Exhortation to his Sister;” and “Oration.” These are all printed by Fox, except the last, which is in the Bodleian. He also wrote translations of “Calvin’s Homilies” “Chrysostome against Heresies;” and Crelius Secundus Curio’s “Defence of the old and ancient anthority of Christ’s Church:” and his account of the convocation above mentioned, or what appears to be so, under the title of “Vera Expositio Disputationis institute mandate D. Mame reginae Ang. &c. in Synodo Ecclesiastico, Londini, in comitiis regni ad 18 Oct. anno 1553;” printed in Latin, at Rome, 1554, and in English at Basil.

, Somerset herald in the reign of James I. was a native of Folkstone, in Kent, and descended from an ancient and reputable family, long seated in that county. From his infancy he had a taste for heraldry and antiquities. He was respected by Camden, who employed him much as his deputy or marshal in his visitations. In 1636 he published a catalogue of the chancellors of England; and in 1657 an edition of Camden’s “Remains,” with additions. When the civil war broke out, he adhered, amidst all dangers, to the royal cause. In 1643, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. In the following year he fell into the hands of his enemies, being surprised whilst in his quarters, at a village about two miles from Oxford, by some of the parliamentary forces, who sent him up to London a prisoner; but he soon obtained his liberty. It was the king’s intention to have rewarded his loyalty by the place of Norroy, but he died prematurely, in London, according to Wood, or near Eltham, in Kent, as Hasted says, Nov. 25, 1645.

His eldest son, Thomas Philipott, or Philpot, M. A. was educated at Clare-hall, and published the “Villare Cantianum,” London, 1659, folio; a book which is written in an affected style, yet is a very valuable performance, as an early history of property, and continues to be highly and justly prized. Though the son takes the credit, there can be little doubt but that much of it was written by the father. The, son, however, was a man of good abilities, a tolerable poet, and well versed in divinity and antiquities. He published a whimsical, mystical, heraldic book, entitled “A brief Historical Discourse of the original and growth of Heraldry, demonstrating upon what rational foundations that noble and heroic science is established,” London, 1672, 8vo, dedicated to John earl of Bridgewater. There are some verses of his prefixed to the “Monasticon Favershamiensis,” 1671, 12mo; also an appendix to it by him of the descent of king Stephen. The book was written by his friend Thomas Southouse, of Gray’s Inn, esq. His*' Poems,“Lond. 1646, vo, is a volume of rare occurrence. The elder Ptiilipot is supposed to have been the author of” The Citie’s great concern in this case, or question of Honour and Arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? discoursed; with a clear refutation of the pernicious error that it doth,“1674, 12mo. Another production of John Philipot was,” A perfect Collection or Catalogue of all Knights Bachelours made by king James,“&c. 1660, 8vo. Mr. Lysons gives an extract from the parish register of Greenwich, which has been supposed to relate to him:” Mr. Thomas Philipott, buried September 30, 1682;“adding,” that besides the above works, he wrote on the origin and growth of the Spanish Monarchy, and a Life of jsop," and remarking, that Anthony Wood attributes to him some theological works; but Mr. Lysons thinks it is more probable that they were the production of his contemporary, Thomas Philipott, D. D. rector of Turveston and Akeley, Bucks. Wood places his death in 1684-.

, sirnamed Trallianus, from Tralles, a city of Lydia, where he was born, was one of the emperor Adrian’s freedmen, to whom he gave a liberal education, and lived at least to the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, as appears from his mentioning the consuls of that year. He appears to have been a man of great talents, and the contemporary of Epictetus, Florus, Arrian, and other eminent men who adorned the court of Adrian. Of his works, however, we have nothing left but fragments. The titles of them were an “History of the Olympiads;” “A Treatise of long-lived Persons;” and another of “Wonderful Things;” the short and broken remains of which Xylander translated into Latin, and published at Basil in 1568, with the Greek and with notes. Meursius gave a new edition of them, with his notes at Leyden, in 1622. The titles of part of the rest of Phlegon’s writings are preserved by Suidas; but the “History of Adrian,” published under Phlegon' s name, was written by Adrian himself.

What has made Phlegon’s name more familiar among the moderns, is his being cited, though a heathen, as bearing witness to the accomplishment of prophecies, and to the miraculous darkness which prevailed during our Lord’s passion. This last was the origin of a controversy in the early part of the last century, although the immediate cause was the omission of the passage from Phlegon in an edition of Clarke’s Boyle’s Lectures, published soon after his death, at the persuasion of Dr. Sykes, who had suggested to Clarke, that an undue stress had been laid upon it. Whiston, who informs us of this affair, expresses great displeasure against Sykes, and calls “the suggestion groundless.” Upon this, Sykes published “A Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon; or, an Enquiry, whether that Eclipse had any relation to the Darkness which happened at our Saviour’s Passion,” 1732, 8vo. Sykes concludes it to be most probable that Phlegon had in view a natural eclipse, which happened Nov. 24, in the first year of the 202d olympiad, and not in the fourth year of the olympiad in which Christ was crucified.

, a famous heretic of the fourth century, known in church history as the chief of a sect called Photinians, was a native of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and bishop of Sirmium, or Sirmich, the chief city of Illyricum. He had been the disciple of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. He spoke with ease, and his eloquence gained him great power over his people after he was consecrated bishop; but his life was corrupted, and his doctrine soon became so too. He espoused the same opinions with Paul of Samosata, and wrote with great obstinacy against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for which in the year 345 he was condemned by the council of Antioch; in the year 374, by the council of Milan. However, he still maintained his see till he was deposed by the council of Sirmich, A. D. 251, and by the emperor sent into banishment, where he spent the remainder of his life, during which time he composed a piece against all heresies in general, with an intent to establish his own. He wrote in Greek and Latin. The emperor Julian sent him a letter, commending him for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Photinus died A. D. 375 (377, Cave), in Galatia, whither he had been banished. This heresy was, amongst many others, anathematized in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. It afterwards was revived by Socinus.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, was descended from an illustrious family, and born in that city. He had great natural talents, which he cultivated with the utmost application, and there was no branch of literature, sacred or profane, or scarcely any art or science, with which he was not intimately acquainted. He seems to have been by far the greatest man of the age in which he lived; and was so intimately concerned in the chief transactions of it, that ecclesiastical writers have thence called it “Seculum Photianum.” He was first raised to the chief dignities of the empire, being made principal secretary of state, captain of the guards, and a senator; in all which stations he acquitted himself with a distinction suitable to his great abilities for he was a refined statesman, as well as a profound scholar.

When Ignatius was expelled and deposed from the see of Constantinople, Photius was nominated by the court to succeed him; and although at this time only a layman, in the space of six days he accumulated the degrees of monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, and in this rapid manner rose to the patriarchate on Christmas- day 858. The metropolitans, subject to the see of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but great opposition was made to this uncanonical ordination from other quarters, and he was actually degraded at Rome. Photius, however, ordered a council to be called at Constantinople, and got himself confirmed in 'his patriarchal dignity; in which, by various arts not very worthy of his high and sacred office, he continued during the life of his friend the emperor Michael. But Michael being murdered by the order of Basilius, who succeeded him in the year 867, the affairs of Photius were ruined, and Basilius banished him to a monastery, and reinstated Ignatius in his see. In this degraded state Photius remained for more than ten years, until a division between the pope and Ignatius afforded him an opportunity to attempt his own restoration; and, having obtained the emperor’s favour, he returned to Constantinople while Ignatius was yet alive. It is said Ignatius would have proposed conditions, but Photius, determined upon full restoration to the patriarchate, would be satisfied with nothing less. Ignatius however died Oct. 23, 878; and Photius immediately went into St. Sophia’s church with armed men; forced a great many bishops, clerks, and monks, to communicate with him; deposed and persecuted all that refused; and to prevent all opposition from the papal side, prevailed by threats and presents on two of the pope’s legates who were there, to declare publicly to the clergy and people, that they had come to depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their patriarch. He kept his seat, thus forcibly obtained, till the year 886, and then was turned out, and banished by the emperor Leo into a monastery in Armenia, where he is supposed to have died soon after. He was, as we have observed, a man of great talents, great learning, and every way accomplished; but his ardent love of glory, and unbounded ambition, prompted him to such excesses, as made 'him rather a scourge than a blessing to those about him. He was the author of many intestine tumults and civil commotions; and not only divided the Greek church, but laid the foundation of a division between the Greek and Latin churches.

Amidst all his ambitious intrigues he found leisure for more honourable pursuits, and wrote some works which will preserve his name in the learned world. Among those extant the most considerable is his “Bibliotheca,” composed by him while he was yet a layman, and an ambassador in Assyria. It contains the argument or abstracts of 280 volumes of many authors upon various subjects; among whom are grammarians, critics, poets, orators, sacred and profane historians, physicians, philosophers, divines, &c. not ranked according to their several arts and professions, but introduced promiscuously as they occurred in the course of his reading. Fabricius very justly calls this “Bibliotheca,” or library, non liber, sed insignis thesaurus, “not a book, but an illustrious treasure” in which are contained many curious things relating to authors, and many fragments of works which are no where else to be found. It was first brought to light by Andreas Schottus, and communicated by him to David Hoeschelius, who caused it to be printed in 1601, at Vienna, in Greek only. Schottus, considering the usefulness of this work, translated it into Latin, and printed his translation alone in 1606. Afterwards, the Greek text and the translation were printed together at Geneva in 1611; but the best edition is that printed at Rouen in 1653, folio, under the title“Photii Myriobiblion, sive Bibliotheca librorum, quos legit et censuit Photius, Gr. et Lat.” There are large paper copies of this edition, which bear a very high price.

Photius’s “Nomocanon” is another proof of his great abilities. It is a collection digested in an excellent method, and brought under fourteen different titles, of the canons of the councils, and of the canonical epistles, and of the emperor’s laws relating to ecclesiastical matters. Balsamon has written commentaries on this work; and with these it appeared in public, by the care of M. Justel, being printed at Paris with a Latin version in 1615, 4to. There are also 253 “Letters of Photius,” which shew the same strength of judgment and depth of learning as are to be seen in his other works. They were published in 1651, folio, with a Latin version and notes, by Richard Montague, bishop of Norwich, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library. There are ether small pieces of Photius that have been printed, and not a few still extant in manuscript only. The most remarkable is a very considerable fragment of a Greek lexicon, in which the greater part of the alphabet is complete. The various M8S of this Lexicon, in different libraries on the continent, are mere transcripts from each other, and originally from one, venerable for its antiquity, which was formerly in the possession of the celebrated Thomas Gale, and which is now deposited in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge. This ms. which is on parchment, bears such evident marks of antiquity, that it may not unreasonably be supposed to have been a transcript from the author’s copy. It is written in various hands. The compendia, which are used in some parls of it, are extremely difficult to decipher, though, on the whole, they are less so than the contractions which occur in many Mss. and particularly those in the library of St. Germain. A copy of this Lexicon, at Florence, was transcribed about the end of the sixteenth century, by Richard Thomson, of Oxford, who probably intended to publish it. (See Scahger Epist. p. 503, printed 1715.) Professor Porson had transcribed and corrected this valuable Lexicon for the press, and after it had been consumed by fire, he began the task afresh, and such were his incredible industry and patience, that he completed another transcript in his own exquisite hand-writing. Mr. Person’s copy of the Codex Galeanus is said to be among the papers of that incomparable scholar, which are preserved by the learned society of which he was long a distinguished ornament. But whilst the publication of it was anxiously expected and delayed, an edition appeared at Leipsic in 1808, by Godfrey Hermann, from two Mss., both of them extremely inaccurate.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

, a native of Italy, was the author of “A short and true Account of the Inquisition and its Proceedings, as it is practised in Italy, set forth in some particular Cases. Whereunto is added, an Extract out of an authentic Book of Legends of the Roman Church. By Hierom Bartholomew Piazza, an Italian born; formerly a Lector of Philosophy and Divinity, and one of the delegate Judges of that Court, and now by the grace of God, a Convert to the Church of England.” London, printed by Wm. Bowyer, 1722. He taught Italian and French for many years at Cambridge, where he died about 1745. He had been once a Dominican friar, and a priest, but married here, to prove the sincerity of his conversion. He was regarded as an honest man, but never esteemed as having abilities, even in the two modern languages which he taught.

, an artist who flourished from 1524 to 1545, was of Lodi, and imitated the style of Titian, and sometimes of Giorgione, with distinguished and often unrivalled success. Such is the surprising beauty of some heads painted by him in one of the chapels of the Incoronata at Lodi, that a tradition prevailed of their having been painted by Titian himself, on his passage through that place. His picture of the Madonna with some saints, at S. Francesco in Brescia, reminds us of Giorgione. To the memory of this great man, Ridolfi has done little justice, by praising him only for his colour in fresco and distemper, without noticing the grandeur of his design, and the elegance of his forms. He likewise mistakes the name of his native place for his surname, and calls him a Brescian, in defiance of the inscriptions at the Incoronata, and elsewhere, of Callixtus de Platea, and Callixtus Laudensis.

, a modern artist, was born at Venice in 1683. He was the son of a statuary in wood, who probably gave him what foundation he had in design. He exchanged the gay and open manner in which he painted at first, for the dark and murky one that ever after characterised his works, from the contemplation of Spagnoletto’s and Guercino’s styles. He attempted to surprise by cutting contrasts of light and shade, and succeeded; such decision of chiaroscuro gave value to his drawings, and was eagerly imitated in prints; but his method of colouring destroyed its effect in a great measure on the canvas; increased and altered shades, faded lights, dingy yellows, produced dissonance and spots. When this is not the case, and in better-preserved pictures, the effect is novel, and strikes at first sight, especially in subjects that border on horror, such as the decollation of St. John in a dark prison, at Padua; a work painted in competition with the best painters of the state, and preferred. Piazzetta had no great vigour of mind for copious composition; he consumed several years in finishing a Rape of the Sabines, for a Venetian nobleman; and in the expressions of his altar-pieces he had certainly more devotion than dignity. His chief strength lay in busts and heads for cabinets. In caricatures he was perhaps unparalleled. He died in 1754, aged seventy-one.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

All these, and some other of his works, which are much esteemed, are given in the sixth and seventh volumes of the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences.

, a famous engraver, was son of Stephen Picart, a good engraver also, and born at Paris in 1673. * He learned the principles of design, and the elements of his art, from his father, and studied architecture and perspective under Sebastian le Clerc. His uncommon talents in this way soon began to shew themselves and, at ten years of age, he engraved the hermaphrodite of Poussin, which was soon followed by two pieces of cardinal de Richelieu’s tomb. These works laid the foundation of that great reputation which this celebrated artist afterwards acquired. When he was grown up, he went into Holland, where his parents had settled themselves; and, after two years’ stay, returned to Paris, and married a lady who died soon after. Having embraced the reformed religion, he returned to Holland in 1710, for the sake of that freedom in the exercise of it, which he could not have at Paris; but connoisseurs are of opinion, that in attempting to please the taste of the Dutch, he lost much of the spirited manner in which he executed his works while in France, and on which they tell us his reputation was more firmly founded. Others inform us, that he was not so fond of engraving as of drawing, that he took up the graver with reluctance, and consequently many of his prints are better drawn than engraved. The greater part of his life was certainly spent in making compositions and drawings, which are said to have been very highly finished; and they are sufficient testimonies of the fertility of his genius, and the excellency of his judgment. He understood the human figure extremely well, and drew it with a tolerable degree of correctness, especially in small subjects. He worked much for the booksellers, and book-plates are by far the best part of his works. The multitude of these which he engraved, chiefly from his own compositions, is astonishing. One estimate makes them amount to 1300 pieces. The most capital of his separate plates is the “Massacre of the Innocents,” a small plate lengthways. After his death, which happened April 27, 1733, his friends published a small folio volume, called the “Innocent Impostures;” a set of prints from the designs of the great masters, in which he has attempted to imitate the styles of the old engravers. Strutt, who has, with apparent justice, censured this production, in the essay prefixed to his second volume, laments that Picart’s friends shouldhave been so injudicious as to publish what must diminish our respect for this artist.

, an eminent musician, born in 1728, at Bari, in the kingdom of Naples, may be ranked among the most fertile, spirited, and original composers that the Neapolitan school has produced. His father designed him for the church, and made him study for that intent; but, for fear of his neglecting serious business for amusement, he would not let him learn music. The young man, however, having an invincible passion for that art, never saw an instrument, especially a harpsichord, without emotion, and practised in secret the opera airs which he had heard, and which he retained with surprising accuracy. His father having carried him, one day, to the bishop of Bari, he amused himself in the room, where he was left alone, with a harpsichord which he found there, thinking he could be heard by no one; but the prelate, in the next apartment, having heard him, condescended to go to the harpsichord, and obliged him to repeat many of the airs which he had been playing; and was so pleased with his performance, that he persuaded his father to send him to the conservatorio of St. Onofrio, at Naples, of which the celebrated Leo was then the principal master.

The young Piccini was admitted in that seminary in 1742, and was placed at first under the tuition of a subaltern master, whose lessons, given in a dry and contracted manner, soon disgusted him; and, in a few months, his discontent at such unprofitable instructions drew on him the resentment of his tutor, expressed in no very gentle way. Shocked with this treatment, he resolved to study by himself, and began composing without rules, or any other guides than his own genius and fancy, psalms, oratorios, and opera airs; which soon excited the envy or admiration of all his fellow-students. He even had the courage to compose an entire mass. One of the masters who had seen it, and even permitted him to have it rehearsed, thought it right to mention it to Leo; who, a few days after, sent for Piccini, who, frightened at this message, obeyed the order with fear and trembling. “You have composed a mass,” said Leo, with a cold and almost severe countenance. “Yes, sir.” “Shew me your score.” “Sir, sir,” “Shew it me, I say.” Piccini thought himself ruined, but he must obey. He fetched his score at which Leo looked, turned over the leaves, examined each movement, smiled, rung the bell, as the signal for a rehearsal. The young composer, more dead than alive, begged in vain to be spared what he thought such an affront. The singers and instrumental performers obeyed the summons: the parts were distributed, and the performers waited only for Leo to beat the time. When, turning gravely to Piccini, he presented him the baton, which was then used every where, in the performance of full pieces. Piccini, put to new confusion, wished he had never dared to meddle with composition; but at length rnustere 1 his courage, and marked with a trembling hand the first bars. Soon, however, animated and infl imed by the harmony, he neither saw Leo nor the standers by, who were numerous: he was absorbed in his music, and directed its performance with a fire, energy, and accuracy, which astonished the whole audience, and acquired him great applause. Leo kept a profound silence during the performance. When, it was over “I forgive you, for once,” said he; “but if you are again guilty of such presumption, you shall be punished in such a manner as you will remember as long as you live. What! you have received from nature so estimable a disposition for study, and you lose all the advantages of so precious a gift! Instead of studying the principles of the art, you give way to all the wild vagaries of your imagination, and fancy you have produced a master-piece.” The boy, piqued by these reproaches, related what had passed between him and the assistant-master under whom he was placed. Leo became calm, and even embraced and caressed him; ordering him to come to his apartments every morning, to receive instructions from himself.

This truly great master died suddenly some months after. Happily for his promising pupil, his successor was the celebrated Durante, one cf the most learned composers Italy ever produced. He soon distinguished Piccini from the rest of his class conceived a particular affection for him; and had pleasure in communicating to him all the secrets of his art. “Others are my pupils,” he sometimes used to say, “but this is my son.” At length, after twelve years’ study, Piccini, in 1754, quitted the Conservatorio, knowing all that is permitted to an individual to know in practical music, and possessed of such a creative and ardent imagination, as perhaps, till then, was unexampled

He began his career at the Florentine theatre in Naples, which is that of San Carlo, what Foote’s theatre used to be compared with Drury-Jane or the Opera House. His first production there was “Le Donne Dispettose;” and the next year, “Le Gelosie,” and “II Curioso del suo Proprio Danno,” of all which the success increased in a duplicate ratio. At length, in 1756, he set the serious opera of “Zenobia” for the great theatre of San Carlo, which was crowned with still greater success than his comic operas. In 1758, he composed “Alessandro nell' Indie,” for Rome; and after this, every theatre in Italy was eager to engage him. In 1760, his celebrated comic opera of the “Bnona Figliuolo” had a success that no musical drama could boast before. It was no sooner heard at Rome than copies were multiplied; and there was no musical theatre in Europe where this burletta was not frequently performed, in some language or other, during many years. In 1761, he composed six operas, three serious and three comic, for different theatres of Italy; and was at once applauded in Turin, Reggio, Bologna, Venice, Rome, and Naples. Sacchini assured us, in 1776, that Piccini had composed at least three hundred operas, thirteen of which were produced in seven months. On his arrival at Paris, he received many mortifications before hrs reputation was firmly established, from the partizans of the old French music, as well as the friends of Gluck. The success of his operas of “Roland,' 1” Atys,“” IphigSnie en Tauride,“”Adele de Ponthieu,“” Didon,“” Diane et Endymion,“and” Penelope,“seems to have solved a problem which was long thought insolvable:” Whether the French language was capable of receiving Italian melody?" If we add to so many dramatic works the oratorios, masses, cantatas, and occasional songs and scenes in pasticcio operas, it would prove, that in twenty-five years he had produced more music, and good music, than any other ten masters had done in their whcJe lives.

What still more astonishes, in such innumerable works, is the prodigious variety which reigns in them all, and the science which never degenerates into pedantry or affectation; an harmony pure, clear, and profound; a melody perfectly suited to the subject and situation of the performers; and a force, an originality, and resources of all kinds, unknown till his time, and of which, perhaps, the secret will long remain undiscovered. And what appears as extraordinary as the rest is, that the genius of this master, far from being exhausted by so many labours, by frequent and severe sickness, by domestic disquietude and chagrin, inseparable from a numerous family, seemed, before the revolution, to continue in full force. Deprived of all his appointments and well-earned theatrical pensions, he returned to Naples; where, after he had established himself in France, all his appointments had been disposed of. On the arrival of a French army at Naples, he was supposed to be in correspondence with them, which occasioned his precipitate flight back to Paris, where he was received with open arms, and placed at the head of a new singing-school. He died at Passy, May 7, 1800.

, archbishop of Patras, and coadjutor of Sienna, his native place, was born in 1503. His family was illustrious, and originally Roman, but settled afterwards at Sienna. He was a successful writer of the drama; but, though involved in that seducing pursuit, preserved the credit of exemplary morals, as well as genius. His general charity was extreme, but he was particularly considerate of the wants of literary men, His works are numerous, all written in Italian, which language he was the first author who applied to philosophical subjects. He died at Sienna on the 12th of March, 1578. The most distinguished of his works are these: 1. Several dramatic compositions, which formed the chief basis of his reputation. 2. “The Morality of Nobles,” Venice, 1552, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the Sphere.” 4. “A Theory of the Planets.” 5. “A Translation of the Rhetoric and Poetic of Aristotle,” 4to. 6. “The Institution of Morality,” Venice, 1575, 4to. Many of his works evince a profound knowledge of natural philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. One work attributed to him, “Delia bella Creanza della Donne,” “On the Education of Ladies,” printed in 1541, 1558, and 1574, has been valued because scarce, but is disgraced by many dangerous maxims, and must have been a production of his youth; during which, we are told, he was a correspondent of the infamous Peter Aretin.

, a learned man of the same family, was born in 1520, and having taught philosophy for twenty-two years in the most celebrated universities of Italy, retired to Sienna, where he died in 1604. Hewas so much respected, that the whole city put on mourning at his death. His works are less numerous than those of his relation, but they were esteemed in their day. They are, 1. “Commentaries on Aristotle,” 4to, published at Mayence in 1603. 2. "Universa Philosopbia de Moribus, in Venice, 1583, folio.

, a theologian and historian, born at Geneva in 1655, was ofa distinguished family, and went through his studies with success. He travelled into Holland and England, and then became a professor of theology in his native city, with a considerable reputation. He was invited to Leyden, but refused to leave his own country. From excess of application to his duties, he fell into a languid state, and died on the 9th of June, 1724, at the age of 69. He was a Protestant, of a mild and tolerant disposition, and a father to the poor. His principal works are, 1. “Theologia Christiana,” 3 vols. 4to, the best edition of which is that of 1721. 2. “Christian Morality,” Geneva, 1710, 8 vols. 12mo; a very excellent work. 3. “The History of the 12th and 13th Centuries,” intended as a continuation of that of Le Sueur; but the supplementary work is more esteemed than the original, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Sermons.” 5. “Letters.” 6. “A Treatise against indifference in Religion,” 1716, 12mo. 7. Many tracts of morality and piety, among which that on “The Art of living and dying well,” Geneva, 1716, in 12mo, is particularly esteemed. The subject is the same, and the title nearly the same, as one by our countryman Taylor. 8. Several controversial tracts.

, of Mirandula, considered as a prodigy of learning in his day, was the youngest child of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula and Concordia, by Julia, of the noble house of Boirado; and was born Feb. 24, 1463. His father dying early, his mother took great care of his education; and the progress he made in letters was so extremely rapid, that his friends are said to have seen with astonishment a mere boy become one of the first poets and orators of his age. What contributed to this progress, besides intense application, was great vigour of intellect, and a memory so tenacious, as to let nothing be lost which he had ever read or heard. At fourteen years of age, being designed for the church, he was sent to Bologna to study canon law; and though he was soon disgusted with a study so lirtle suited to his talents and fertile imagination, he acquired a knowledge of it sufficient to enable him to compose an abbreviated digest, or manual, of the pontifical letters, termed Decretals, in a manner that would have done credit to the most accomplished professor. Having afforded this proof of early capacity, on a subject so ungenial, he left Bologna, and visiting successively all the most celebrated schools and colleges of Italy and France, he profited so well by what was taught there, or by what he learned in discussions with the eminent scholars and professors, that, before he had attained to manhood, he was universally recognized as a most consummate philosopher and divine.

During this early period he distinguished himself likewise as a poet, by his compositions both in the Latin and Italian languages, almost all which, however, as they were disapproved either by the nicety of his maturer judgment, or by the purity of his religious and moral feelings, at a later period, he was induced to destroy. Many also of his letters, which are still extant, were written whilst he was yet very young; and from them proofs might be selected, tending greatly to support the high juvenile reputation of their author. We have, indeed, few other documents to illustrate his literary career; and the little we know of his progress, during the seven years that he spent in visiting the universities, must be taken from them, as Mr. Gressvvell has done with great judgment. Among the academies where he passed the greater part of the above period, were those of Ferrara, Padua, Florence, and Perugia; and among the eminent scholars, with whom he entered into friendship and correspondence, were Guarinus, Marsilius Ficinus, Politian, and Nic. Leonicenus. When not engaged in any literary excursion, he spent his time at Fratta, a rural retreat in the neighbourhood of Mirandula. In 1482, he informs Leanicenns that he had erected this villa, and had written a poem in its, praise. With the commencement of 1484, the literary career of Picus became more distinct and conspicuous: he was now approaching the age of manhood; and went to Florence to perfect himself in the Greek. Within a few months after his arrival here, he composed his well-known panegyrical criticism on the Italian poems of Lorenzo de Medici. It is drawn up in the form of a letter, and addressed to Lorenzo himself. With many remarks in the true spirit of criticism, there is, perhaps, rather too much of a courtly partiality to the productions of Lorenzo. While at Florence, we find Picus employed in investigating the manuscripts of ancient authors, both in Greek and Latin, of the value of which he was already enabled to form a just estimate. Indeed the mere discovery of them was a service of high importance at that time, when the invention of printing was forming a new oera in literature. He had now added to his correspondents Jerome Donatus, Hermolaus Barbarus, Philip Beroaldus, and Alexander Cortesius, the latter of whom seems to carry his admiration of Picus to the very borders of gross and extravagant flattery; which, however, a little moderated, was a distinguishing feature in the literary correspondence of that age.

Picus quitted Florence about the end of the year 1485, with a view to visit Perugia, and appears to have beea employed, for some time, in adding to his other stores a knowledge of the oriental languages; stimulated, as he says, by the acquisition of certain oriental works, which he deemed of inestimable value, and which were thrown in his way, he adds, by the peculiar kindness of Providence. In a letter, written in Oct. 1486, to Andreas Corneus, another of his learned correspondents, he says: “I have, by assiduous and intense application, attained to the knowledge of the Hebrew and Chaldaic languages, and am at present struggling with the difficulties of the Arabic. Such are the achievements which I have ever thought, and still think, worthy the ambition of a nobleman: though the expression may contain as much satire as truth.” In this letter he gives a hint of his intended visit to Rome, which constitutes one of the most singular occurrences in his life,

The love of fame (says his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow in this sketch,) and a too ardent thirst for praise, have perhaps justly been imputed to Picus, as constituting his ruling passion (notwithstanding the modesty and diffidence with which he frequently speaks of his own talents and productions), especially if the charge be restricted to that period of his life, when ma^turer experience and those religious impressions by which his latter years were more especially influenced, had not yet combined to rectify the errors of youth. Caressed, flattered, courted, extolled as a prodigy of erudition by the most distinguished scholars of his age, he was at the same time conscious of his own qualifications and powers, and began to think that they ought to be exhibited on the most extensive stage which the world then afforded. With this view he resolved on a journey to Rome; and immediately on his arrival, in November 1486, he published a most remarkable challenge to the learned of Europe, under the title of- “Conclusiones,” consisting of 900 propositions, or subjects of discussion, in almost every science that could exercise the speculation or ingenuity of man; and which, extraordinary and superfluous as many of them appear to a reader of the present times, certainly furnish a more adequate idea of the boundless extent of his erudition and research, than any words can describe. These he promised publicly to maintain against all opponents whatsoever: and that time might be allowed for the circulation of his “Conclusiones” through the various universities of Italy, in- all of which he caused them to be published, notice was giv^n, that the public discussion of them was not intended to take place till after the feast of the Epiphany next ensuing. A further object of this delay was, to afford to all scholars, even from the remotest of those seats of learning, who were desirous to be present and to assist at his disputations, an opportunity of repairing to Rome for such a purpose. So desirous was Picus of attracting thither, on this occasion, all the united wit, ingenuity, and erudition, that Italy could boast, that he engaged to defray, out of his own purse, the charges of all scholars, from whatever part, who should undertake the journey to Rome, for the purpose of disputing publicly with him on the subjects proposed. He had previously obtained the express permission of pope Innocent VIII. and professed all possible deference to the authority of the church, in the support of his theses. The boldness of this challenge could not fail to astonish the learned in general; but astonishment soon gave place to envy: and the Roman scholars and divines in particular, whose credit was more immediately implicated, endeavoured to render his design abortive, first, by lampoons and witticisms; and, when these proved insufficient, by the more alarming expedient of presenting thirteen of Picus’s theses, as containing matter of an heretical tendency. This answered their purpose; and although Picus continued at Rome a whole year, in expectation of reaping the harvest of praise which his juvenile vanity had led him to desire, he at last found himself not only debarred from all opportunity of signalizing himself publicly, as a disputant, but involved in a charge of heterodoxy, and therefore thought it expedient to leave Rome, and seek a temporary asylum at Florence, in the friendship of Lorenzo de Medici. Here he immediately set about the composition of his “Apologia,' 1 a work which not only served to refute the calumnies of his enemies, but convinced the world that his pretensions to very extraordinary powers were not spurious or empirical. On its completion, he sent it to the pope, who, although he fully acquitted the author of all bad intention, thought proper to suppress the circulation of it; and Picus, on further reflection, not only acquiesced in this, but in his disappointment, acknowledging with thankfulness that divine Providence, which often educes good out of evil, had rendered the malevolence of his enemies a most salutary check to the career of vain glory, in which he had been led so far astray. But Picus had not yet seen all the disagreeable consequences of this affair: his enemies began to cavil at the” Apologia" itself, which appears to have had considerable weight with pope Innocent; and it was not until 1493 that he was acquitted from the charge, and from all prosecutions, pains, and penalties, by a bull of pope Alexander VI.

In the beginning of 1488, we find Picus in the possession of a peaceful asylum at Fiesole, in the vicinity of Florence, which had been given him by Lorenzo de Medici, who had a villa in the neighbourhood; and he and Politian spent many of their hours of literary leisure together. Here also he enjoyed the friendship of Robert Salviatus and the family of the Benivieni, four in number, and all men of learning and talents. Jerome Benivieni, or Benivenius, became more especially the intimate friend of Picus, the depositary of his religious and moral opinions, and all that congeniality of opinion and disposition can render one person to another. Picus wrote a commentary on one of Benivieni’s Canzone, which will be noticed hereafter* In 1489, Picus’s “Heptaplus” was published, and received with great encomiums by the learned of the age, as worthy of its author’s talents and pre-acquired celebrity It can scarcely, however, says his biographer, be productive of any valuable purpose, very minutely to inquire into the merit of a woik which the tacit consent of posterity has consigned to almost total oblivion. Picus intermixes much of Platonism in all his theological writings; and they are also tinctured with the fancied doctrines of the Jewish Cabala, which is particularly observable in the work in question. After this he appears to have been employed on a commentary on the Psalms of David, at the request of Lorenzo de Medici; but respecting thecompletion of this, nothing satisfactory is upon record. About the beginning of 1490 he was employed on his favourite object of reconciling Plato and Aristotle. “To this work,” he says in a letter to Baptista Mantuanus, “I daily devote the whole of my morning hours; the afternoon I give to the society of friends, those relaxations which are requisite for the preservation of health, and occasionally to the poets and orators, and similar studies of a lighter kind; my nights are divided betwixt sleep and the perusal of the Holy Scriptures.” In 1491 he published his treatise “De Ente et Uno,” which, says his biographer, exhibits a chain of the most profound and abstract reasoning concerning the Deity, expressed in a language consistent with the sacred ness of the subject, much more free from the terms and phraseology peculiar to the schoolmen than might be expected, and which (in comparison with the mode then usual, of treating arguments so metaphysical and abstruse) may be denominated luminous and classical. This work afterwards gave occasion to a friendly controversy between Picus and Antonius Faventinus, or Cittadinus, the whole of which is included in the works of Picus, who, as a controversial writer, appears in a very amiable view.

The society and conveniencies of study which Florence afforded, had reconciled him to a lasting abode in that city, when, in 1492, he hadthe misfortune to lose his illustrious patron and associate, Lorenzo de Medici, who was carried off bya fever in the prime of life. He and Politian, of all the Florentine scholars, had possessed perhaps the very first place in Lorenzo’s esteem. Picus now resolved to leave Florence, at least for a time, where every object reminded him of the loss he had sustained; and went to Ferrara, where he endeavoured to divert his grief by again deeply engaging in his oriental studies. A short time previously to this period, being willing to exonerate himself from the weight of secular dignities and cares, he had, for a very inadequate consideration, transferred to his nephew (the subject of our next article), John Francis PicLi.s, all his territories and other rights and possessions in Mirandula and Goncordia, comprehending one-third part of the patrimonial inheritance. The sums arising from this transfer, he employed partly in the purchase of lands, to secure an annual revenue for the due support of his household, and partly in charitable donations; to the later purpose also the produce of a great part of his rich furniture and plate was appropriated. Benevolence towards the poor seems to have been a distinguishing feature in his character; for, not content with performing acts of munificence and charity, the necessity and propriety of which suggested themselves to his own observation, he engaged his friend Jerome Benivenius to be constantly in search of such cases of indigence and di&tress amongst the poorer citizens of Florence as might happen to escape general observation; authorizing him to supply immediate relief as necessity required, and engaging lo refund from his own purse whatever sums he should disburse on these benevolent occasions. In his latter days, to which we are now approaching, we are told that pride, ambition, anger, and all the turbulent passions, had subsided; that vanity and self-conceit were extinguished, and that no events, whether prosperous or adverse, discomposed the constant and uniform serenity of his mind. These great qualities, however, were not wholly unmixed with some portion of the superstition incident to the age. He is represented as having, at particular seasons, added to the usual mortifications prescribed by the church, by voluntary penances and self-inflicted pains, which the erring judgment of those times considered as meritorious. Of many, however, of the abuses and corruptions of the papal hierarchy he appears to have been sensible, and on various points of doctrine his views have been pronounced much more rational than could be expected from the time.

He now devoted himself to theological studies. We have already mentioned his “Hexaplus,” or explanation of the six days gf the creation; and he appears at this time to have been making preparations for farther elucidating the Holy Scriptures, and for combating the errors of his time; but of these and other undertakings, scarce any now remain except his work “Contra Astrologiam Divinatricem” and a few “Opuscula*” Of the immense mass of manuscripts found after his decease, few could be decyphered or methodized* but his nephew, by great pains uiul labour, was enabled to transcribe that portion of his voluminous work which was levelled against judicial astrology, and which proved to be in a more finished state than the rest. It was afterwards published in various collections of his works, under the title of “De Astrologia Disputationum Libri duodecim,” and has entitled Picus to the praise of having been the first who boldly and successfully exposed the fallacy of a species of superstition, which, notwithstanding his endeavours, continued long after this to hold its empire over the human mind.

is attributed to the pen of Hercules Strozza. The regret excited amongst the learned in all parts of Europe, by the tidings of the decease of Picus, was proportionate to the high reputation of his talents and character.

In the religious opinions held by Picus, and inculcated in his works, he seems to have accorded chiefly with those of his own age and church, whom ecclesiastical writers have denominated by the general appellation of mystics; though, doubtless, if the minuter shades of difference be compared, he will, as a religious writer, be found to possess his wonted originality, and to reason and judge of many speculative points in a manner peculiar to himself. His devotional feelings were indeed subject to variation, and he once formed a resolution to dispose of all his property to the poor, and taking the crucifix in his hand, to travel barefooted from city to city as a preacher of the gospel; but this resolution he is said afterwards to have changed for that of joining the order of the Dominicans, at the instance of their general Savonarola; and his remains previous to interment (which was also the case with Politian’s) were invested with the habit of this order. Of the general character of Picus, with all the deductions which must be made from the reports of his contemporaries, Mr. Gresswell says, with great justice, that it still merits the admiration of those who contemplate with philosophical curiosity the powers and capabilities of the human rnind.

The works of Picus were printed together at Bologna, in 1496; at Venice, 1498; at Strasburg, 1504; at Basil, 1557, 1573, 1601, all in folio. The edition of 1601 contains the following works: 1. “Heptaplus, id est, de Dei Creatoris opere sex dierum, libri septem,” which seems to have been written chiefly with a view to authorize and support those Platonic ideas, with which his warm imagination was not a little inebriated. 2. “Conclusiones 900, quas olim Roma? disputandas exhibuit.” But the editors have omitted the advertisement subjoined at their first pubJication, which runs thus: “Conclusiones non disputabuntur nisi post Epiphaniam, interim publicabuntur in omnibus Italiae gymnasiis & si quis philosophus aut theologus ab extrema Italia arguendi gratia Romam venire voluerit, ipse pollicetur dominus disputaturus, se viatici expensas illi soluturum de suo.” 3. “Apologia adversus eos, qni aliquot propositiones theologicas carpebant.” 4. “De ente & uno, opus in quo plurimi loci in Moise, in Platone & Aristotele explicantur.” 5. “De hominis dignitate oratio.” Mirandula discovers here many secrets of the Jewish Cabala, of the Chaldean and Persian philosophers. 6. “Regulse XII. partim excitantes, partim dirigentes hominem in pugna spiritual!.” 7. “In Psalmum XV. commentarius.” 8. “In orationem Dominicam expositio.” 9. “Aureae & familiares epistola?,” which are perhaps, at present, the most useful and entertaining part of his works: on which account the public is much obliged to the learned Christopher Cellarius, for giving a correct edition of them with notes, 1682, in 8vo. 10. “Disputationum in astrologiam libri XII.” the most solid and argumentative of all his works. 11. “Commento sopra una canzone de amore, composta da Girolamo Benivieni, secundo la mente & opinione de' Platonici” translated into English by Thomas Stanley, 1651, in 8vo. 12. “Elegia in laudem Hieronymi Benivieni;” in Latin and Italian.

His life, prefixed to his works, and afterwards inserted in Bates* “Vitae illustrium virorum,” was written by his nephew, John Francis Picus; but a more valuable, and certainly the most elaborate account yet given of this extraordinary man, is that for which we are indebted to the Rev. W. Parr Gresswell, published in 1805, with the Lives ofPolitian, &.c. and to which it is sufficient to refer, as including every species of authority.

, was the son of Galeoti Picus, the eldest brother of John Picus, just recorded, and born fcbout 1409. He cultivated learning and the sciences, after the example of his uncle; but he had dominions and a principality to superintend, which involved him in great troubles, and at last cost him his life. Upon the death of his father, in 1499, he succeeded, as eldest son, to his estates; but was scarcely in possession, when his brothers Louis and Frederic combined against him; and, by the assistance of the emperor Maximilian I. and Hercules I. duke of Ferrara, succeeded. John Francis, driven from his principality in 1502, was forced to seek refuge in different countries for nine years; till at length pope Julius II. becoming master of Mirandula, put to flight Frances Trivulce, the widow of Louis, and re-established John Francis in 1511. But he could not long maintain his post; for the pope’s troops being beaten by the French at Ravenna, April 11, 1512, John James Trivulce, general of the French army, forced away John Francis again, and set up Frances Trivulce, who was his natural daughter. John. JFrancis now became a refugee a second time, and so continued for two years; when, the French being driven out of Italy, he was restored again in 1515. He lived from that time in the quiet possession of his dominions, till October 1533; and then Galeoti Picus, the son of his brother Louis, entered his castle by night with forty armed men, and assassinated him, with his eldest son Albert Picus. He died embracing the crucifix, and imploring pardon of God for his sins,

He was a great lover of letters, and applied himself intensely, at the seasons of his leisure, to reading and writing. He seems to have been a more voluminous writer than his uncle; and such of his tracts as were then composed, were inserted in the Strasburgh edition of his uncle’s works, in 1504, and continued in those of Basil 1573 and 1601. Among these are, 1. “De studio divinae & humanse philosophise, libri duo.” In this he compares profane philosophy with the knowledge of the Holy Scripture, and shews how preferable the latter is to the former. 2. “De imaginatione liber.” 3. “De imitatione, ad Petrum Bembum epistolse duge, & ejus responsum.” 4. “De re T rum prtenotione, libri IX.” In this book of the prescience of things, he treats of the Divine prescience, and of that knowledge which some pretend to have of things future, by compacts with evil spirits, by astrology, chiromancy, geomancy, and similar means, which he confutes at large. 5. “Examen vanitatis doctrinse gentium, & veritatis discipline Christianas, &c.” in which he opposes the errors of the philosophers, those of Aristotle particularly. 6. “Epistolarum libri quatuor.” 7. “De reformandis moribus oratio ad Leonem X.” These and some more compositions are to be found in the editions above mentioned of his uncle’s works; but there are others of his writings, which have nevef been collected together, but have always continued separate, as they were first published as, “Vita Hieronymi Savonarolae; De veris calamitatum temporum nostrorum causis liber De animae immortalitate Dialogus cui nomen Strix, sive de ludificatione dsemonum Hymni heroici tres ad Trinitatem, Christum, & Virginem De Venere & Cupidine expellendis carmen heroicum Liber de Providentia Dei, contra philosophastros De auro turn sestimando, turn conficiendo, turn utendo, libri tres, &c.” “There is not,” says Dupin, “so much wit, sprightliness, subtlety, and elegance, in the works of Francis Picus, as in those of his uncle; nor yet so much learning: but there is much more evenness and solidity.”

, an English painter, who flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and II. was eminent both in history and landscapes. He also drew architecture, perspective, &c. and was much esteemed in his time. But there is little of his work now remaining, the far greater part being destroyed in the fire of London, in 1666. It chiefly consisted of altar-pieces, ceilings of churches, and the like; of which last sort there was one lately remaining, in Covent-garden church, in which were many admirable qualities of a good pencil. He worked some time for Vandyke; and several pieces of his performing are to be seen at Belvoir castle in Leicestershire. He died in London about fifty years ago, leaving behind him three sons, who all became famous in their different ways. One was an excellent sculptor, as appears by a noble marble vase, executed by him, at Hampton-court, the statues of sir Thomas Gresham and Edward III. at the Royal Exchange, and of sir William Walworth at Fishmongers’-hatl; and the busts of Thomas Evans in Painters’-hall, and of sir Christopher Wren in the picture-gallery at Oxford, &c.

, Cornelius a Lapide, born at a village in the diocese of Liege, entered early in life among the Jesuits, and having learned Greek and Hebrew, devoted himself to the study of the sacred writings. This father taught at Louvain, and afterwards at Rome, in which, city he died, March 12, 1657, aged seventy-one, leaving long “Commentaries” on the whole Bible, except the Psalms, Antwerp, 10 vols. folio. They contain great learning, and many curious researches, but, says l'Avocat, little critical knowledge, and no taste.

, one of the most celebrated sculptors that France has produced, was born at Paris in 1714, the son of a joiner, and by his talents became not only sculptor to the king, but chancellor of the academy of painting, and knight of the order of St. Michael. He did not manifest any early disposition for designing; he loved to model, but set about it awkwardly, and finished nothing but by means of indefatigable labour. A visit to Italy gave him that facility which he could not acquire at home. He there studied the works of the great artists, and returned thoroughly inspired with their genius. He died at Paris, Aug. 20, 1785. His most known works are, 1. “A Mercury and a Venus,” which he made by order of Louis XV. and which were presented to the king of Prussia. The king, who was delighted with them, was desirous to see the sculptor; and Pigalle, some time after, went to Berlin, but, being announced as the author of the Mercure de France, could not obtain an audience. When Frederic understood the mistake, he was very anxious to repair it; but Pigalle was already gone in some digust. Pigalle maintained that none of the heads of Frederic did justice to his physiognomy, which, in point of spirit, was the finest he had ever seen; and much regretted that he had not been allowed to model it. 2. The monument of marechal Saxe, in which the beauty of the whole obliterates all objections to the parts. 3. The pedestrian statue of Louis *XV. executed in bronze for the city of Rheims. 4. The statue of Voltaire. 5. A little boy holding a cage. '6. A girl taking a thorn from her foot. 7. Several busts of men of letters who were his friends. If Pigaile cannot be ranked among the men of the first genius in his art, the good sense of his designs, and the soundness of his taste, afford him a place in the very next class.

, a Dutch divine and mathematician, was born at Campen in Overyssell, towards the close of the fifteenth century, and was educated at Louvain. He acquired considerable distinction by his publications against Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and Calvin, and was much esteemed, as indeed he deserved, by popes Adrian VI. Clement VII. and Paul III for, even by the confession of the catholic historians, he was most blindly attached to the powers, privileges, and usurpations of the Romish pontiffs. He died at Utrecht, where he was provost of the church of St. John the Baptist, Dec. 29, 1542, leaving many works; the most considerable among which is entitled “Assertio Hierarchiae Ecclesiastical,” Colog. 1572, folio. His mathematical treatises, which do him most credit, were, “De Ratione Paschalis celebrationis,” 1520; “De Æquinoctiorum Solstitiorumque inventione” a defence of the Alphonsine tables, and “Astrologiae Defensio” against the pretenders to prognostics, and annual predictions.

, nephew to the preceding, was born at Campen in 1520;. and, when grown up, went to Rome, where he spent eight years in the study of Roman antiquities, of which he acquired a knowledge that was not exceeded by any of his time. He then returned to Germany, and was taken into the family of the cardinal de Granvelle, who made him his librarian. He published an early, but not very correct eaition of Valerius iYlaximus, in 1567, 8vo. Afterwards he became preceptor to Charles, prince of Juliers and Cleves, and was to have attended him to Rome: but in this he was disappointed by the death of the prince, whose loss he deplored in a panegyric, entitled “Hercules Prodicus;” for which the prince’s father, William, made him canon of the church, and head master of the school, at Santen. He died at Santen in 1604, aged eighty-four.

His “Annales, seu Fasti Romanorum magistratuum et provinciarum,” which are drawn up in a more correct and copious manner, than even those of Sigohius and Onuphrius Panvinius, he commended to his friends upon his death-bed and Andreas Schottus published them at Plantin’s press, 1615, in 3 vols. folio, with this character “I have really found, and hope I shall prove to others, that it is not possible to have a better commentary upon Tally’s historical work, Livy, Dionysius Halicarnassus, Dion Cassius, Florus, and all the writers of Roman affairs, than these Annals of Pighius.” Vossius also bestows the highest encomiums upon the author, and pronounces him, “Vir de Valerio Maximo, de annalibus suis Romanis, de uni versa antiquitate Romana, prseclare meritus.”

, an Italian historian and miscellaneous writer, was born at Ferrara in 1530, and prosecuted his studies with so much success, that at the age of twenty he obtained the professorship of rhetoric in his native city. Alphonsus II. who was then hereditary prince of Ferrara, having heard some of his lectures, conceived a high opinion of him, and when he succeeded his father, extended his friendship to Pigna in a manner calculated to raise ambition in him, and envy among his contemporaries. Pigna, however, while he set a proper value on his prince’s favours, studiously avoided every occasion of profiting by them, and refused every offer of preferment which was made, employing such time as he could spare from his attendance at court, on his studies. He died in 1575, in the forty-sixth year of his age, greatly lamented by the citizens of Ferrara, who had admired him as a favourite without pride, and a courtier without ambition. His chief work, as an historian, was his history of the house of Este, “Historia de' Principi di Este, in sino al 1476,” published at Ferrara, 1570, folio. This is a well- written account, but contains too much of the fabulous early history of that illustrious family, which was never judiciously investigated until Muratori and Leibnitz undertook the task. Pigna’s other works are, I. “11 Principe,” Venice, 1560, 8vo, in imitation of Machiavel’s Prince, but written upon sound principles, which, says one of his biographers with too much truth, is the reason why it is almost unknown. 2. “II duello, &c.” 1554, 4to. 3. “I Romanzi in quali della poesia e della vita d'Ariosto si tratta,” Venice, 1554, 4to. 4. “Carminum libri quatuor,” in a collection consisting likewise of the poems of Calcagnini and Ariosto, printed at Venice in 1553, 8vo.

, another learned Italian, was born at Padua Oct. 12, 1571, and after being educated among the Jesuits, became confessor to a nunnery, and parish priest of St. Lawrence, to which a canonry of Treviso was added by cardinal Barberini. He was in habits of intimacy with many of the most illustrious men of his time, and collected a valuable library and cabinet of antiquities. He died of the plague in 1631. He distinguished himself by deep researches into antiquity, and published the “Mensa Isiaca,” and some other pieces, which illustrate the antiquities and hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and gained him the reputation of a man accurately as well as profoundly learned. He was also skilled in writing verses, consisting of panegyrics, epitaphs, and a long poem inscribed to pope Urbao VIII. It must be remembered to the honour of Pignorius, that the great Galileo procured an offer to be made to him, of the professorship of polite literature and eloquence in the university of Pisa; which his love of studious retirement and his country made him decline. He wrote much, in Italian, as well as in Latin. G. Vossius has left a short but honourable testimony of him and says, that he was “ob eximiam eruditionem atque humanitatem mini charissimus vir.”

, or Leo Pilatus, a monk of Calabria, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is considered as one of the most industrious of those eminent scholars who contributed to the revival of literature and taste in Europe, and was the first who taught Greek in Italy, where he had Petrarch and Boccaccio for his scholars. He was on his return from a journey through Greece, in search of manuscripts in that language, when he was killed by lightning. Notwithstanding his knowledge of Greek, he was thought but moderately skilled in Latin.

, an ingenious Frenchman, was born at Clameci, of a good family, in 1635 and was educated at Nevers, Auxerre, and Paris, and lastly studied divinity in the Sorbonne. In the mean lime, he cultivated the art of painting, which he was supposed to understand in theory as well as practice. The former accomplishment led him to an acquaintance with du Fresnoy, whose Latin poem upon painting he translated into French. Menage also became acquainted with his great merit, and procured him, in 1652, to be appointed tutor to the son of Mons Amelot: in which he gave such satisfaction, that, when his pupil was old enough to travel, he attended him to Italy. There he had an opportunity of gratifying his taste for painting; and upon his return to Paris, he devoted himself to the study of that art, and soon acquired a name among connoisseurs. In 1682, Amelot, his quondam pupil, being sent on an embassy to Venice, de Piles attended him as secretary; and, during his residence there, was sent by the marquis de Louvois into Germany, to purchase pictures for the king, and also to execute a commission relating to state affairs. In 1685, he attended M. Amelot to Lisbon; and in 1689 to Switzerland, in the same capacity. In 1692, he was sent to Holland, apparently as a picturecollector, but in reality to act secretly with the friends of France. On this occasion, however, he was discovered, and thrown into prison, where he continued till the peace of Ryswick, and amused himself with writing “The Lives of Painters.” In 1705, old as he was, he attended Amelot into Spain, when he went as ambassador extraordinary: but, the air of Madrid not agreeing with him, he was forced to return, and died in 1709, aged seventy-four.

Besides his “Translation of Fresnoy,” and “Lives of the Painters,” of which there is an English translation, he wrote “An Abridgement of Anatomy, accommodated to the arts of Painting and Sculpture;” “Dialogues upon the Knowledge of Painting, and the judgement to be formed of Pictures;” “A Dissertation upon the Works of the most famous Painters;” “The Elements of practical Painting,” &c. In all these there is a considerable knowledge of his art, but many of his opinions have been justly controverted by more recent writers, and particularly by sir Joshua Reynolds in his Lectures,

, a learned and pious English prelate, was the third son of Richard Pilkington of Riving-­ton, in the county of Lancaster, esq. as appears by the pedigree of the family in the Harleian collection of manuscripts in the British Museum. He was born at Rivington in 1520, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken the degree of D. D. but Mr. Baker and Mr. Cole are of opinion he proceeded only B. D. In 1558, however, he was made master of that college, and was one of the revivers of the Greek tongue in the university. Strype says that he was presented by Edward VI. to the vicarage of Kendal in Westmoreland. Tie was obliged to leave the country during the Marian persecution, and abroad he appears to have associated with the Geneva reformers, and imbibed their opinions as to externals. When he returned, he was made bishop of Durham by queen Elizabeth, Feb. 1560-1, a proof that he must have been distinguished for learning and abilities, as he appears always to have been for piety. In 1562 he is said to have been queen’s reader of divinity lectures. For this, Mr- Baker allows that he was well qualified, for besides that he bore a part in the disputation at the visitation of Cambridge, under king Edward, while Bucer was at Cambridge, he voluntarily read in public upon the Acts of the Apostles, and acquitted himself learnedly and piously.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

The year 1564 was remarkable for a contest about the ecclesiastical habits, and about various irregularities which had taken place in the service of the church. Bishop Pilkington, who had adopted the notions of the Geneva reformers on such subjects, entertained some scruples in his own mind about the habits, and particularly disliked the cap and surplice, though not so as to refuse to wear them. He was, however, very averse to forcing compliance upon others; and when he observed that this matter was about to be urged by the court, he wrote a long and earnest letter, dated from Auckland, Get 25, 1564, to the earl of Leicester, entreating him to use his interest to oppose it, and at the same time justified his own practice as we'aring the habits for the sake of peace, but not forcing others whose consciences prevented their compliance. In all other respects our prelate was a true friend to church and state, as appears by many of his writings, and was very assiduous in ecclesiastical duties.

He wrote a “Commentary of Aggeus (Haggai) the Prophet,” 1560, 8vo. A sermon on the “Burning of St. Paul’s Church in London, in 1561,” 1563, 12mo. This occasioned a short controversy, as the papists and protestants mutually accused each other. He wrote also “Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Epistle of St. Peter, and of St. Paul to the Galatians,” and “A Defence of the English Service;” but it seems doubtful whether these were printed. After his death, his “Exposition on Nehemiah” was published 1585, 4to. He left in manuscript “Statutes for the Consistory.” He died Jan. 23, 1575, aged fifty-five, and was first buried at Auckland; but afterwards removed and interred in the choir at Durham cathedral, with an inscription, now defaced, but which Willis copied from a ms. in the Bodleian library. Mr. Baker has a different one. His brothers, John and Leonard, were prebendaries of Durham; Leonard was D. D. master of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and regius professor there. Our prelate founded a school at Rivington, the seat of his family. He had by his wife Alicia, of the family of the Kingsmills, at Sigmanton, in Hampshire, two sons and two daughters. He had a brother, Leonard, who was a prebendary of Durham, rector of Middleton, regius professor of divinity, Cambridge, in 1561, and master of St. John’s college. He died probably about 1600.

, an English wit and poetess, of no very eminent rank, was the daughter of Dr. Van Lewen, a gentleman of Dutch extraction, who settled in Dublin, by a lady of good family; and born there in 1712. She had early a strong inclination and taste for letters, especially for poetry; and her performances were considered as extraordinary for her years. This, with a lively manner, drew many admirers; and at length she became the wife of the rev. Matthew Pilkington, a gentleman once known in the poetical world by his volume of Miscellanies, revised by dean Swift, who had reason afterwards to be ashamed of the connection. In a short time Mr. Pilkington grew jealous, as she relates, not of her person, but of her understanding; and her poetry, which when a lover he admired with raptures, was changed now he was become her husband, into an object of envy. During these jealousies, Mr. Pilkington, in 1732, went into England, in order to serve as chaplain to Mr. Barber, lord mayor of London; and absence having brought him into better humour with his wife, he wrote her a very kind letter, in which he informed her that her verses were full of elegance and beauty; that Pope, to whom he had shewn them, longed to see the writer; and that he himself wished her heartily in London. She accepted the invitation, went, and returned with her husband to Ireland, where they were soon after separated, in consequence of a gentleman being found in her bed-chamber at two o'clock in the morning. Her apology is rather curious: “Lovers of learning, I am sure, will pardon me, as I solemnly declare it was the attractive charms of a new book, which the gentleman would not lend me, but consented to stay till I read it through, that was the sole motive of my detaining him.” Of her guilt, however, no doubts were entertained. “Dr. Delany,” says dean Swift, in a letter to alderman Barber, “is a very unlucky recommender, for he forced me to countenance Pilkington; introduced him to me, and praised the wit, virtue, and humour of him and his wife; whereas he proved the falsest rogue, and she the most profligate w e in either kingdom. She was taken in the fact by her own husband; he is now suing for a divorce, and will not compass it; she is suing for a maintenance, and he has none to give her.”

She came afterwards to England, and settled in London; where, Col ley Gibber making interest for her, she lived some time upon contributions from the great; but at length these succours failed, and we find her in the prison of the Marshalsea. After lying nine weeks here, she was released by another effort of her friend Gibber, and then, weary of attending upon the great, she resolved to employ five guineas she had left, in trade; and accordingly, taking a little shop in St. James’s-street, she furnished it with pamphlets and prints. She did not probably succeed in this scheme, for on Aug. 29, 1750, she died at Dublin, in her thirty-ninth year.

Considered as a writer, she holds some rank in dramatic history, as the author of “The Turkish Court, or London Apprentice,” a comedy acted at Dublin in 1748, but never printed. The first act of her tragedy, “The Roman Father,” was no bad specimen of her talents in that way. Her “Memoirs” are written with great sprightliness and wit, and describe the different humours of mankind very naturally, but they must, as to facts, be read with the caution necessary in the Apologies of the Bellamys and Baddelys of our own days. She had a son, John Carteret Pilkington, who also became an adventurer, and somewhat of a poet. He published a volume of his “Memoirs,” 1760, 4to, and died in 1763.

is the name of an ancient fabulist, a Bramin; he was, as is supposed, governor of part of Indostan, and counsellor to a powerful Indian king, named Dabschclin, whose preceptor he had been. His work is said to have been written 2000 years B. C. but all internal evidence is against this. It is called in the Indian language, Kelile Wadimne, a name the Orientals give to an animal very much resembling a fox, and which is made to speak throughout the work. All the modern translations of this Orientalist, are made either from the Greek or the Persian, and are said to differ much from the original. His fables were translated into French, by Ant. Galland, 1714, 12mo. Another work is also attributed to him, entitled, in the translation, “Le Naufrage des isles flotantes,” or, “The Basiliade,” 1755.

, usually styled the prince of Lyric poets, was a contemporary of Æschylus, and born somewhat above forty years before the expedition of Xerxes, against the Greeks, and more than 500 B. C. His birth-place was Thebes, the capital of Bceotia; a country, the air of which was esteemed gross, and the stupidity of its inhabitants proverbial. We find the poet, in his sixth Olympic, confessing the disadvantage of his climate, yet resolving to exempt himself from the general censure. His parents are supposed to have been of low condition, so that he was more indebted for his attainments to his genius than to any advantages of education. We hrtve, however, few particulars of his life, amidst the numerous panegyrics to be found in ancient writers. He was highly courted and respected by most of the princes and states of Greece, and even allowed a share with the gods in their gifts and offerings, by the command of the oracle itself. For the priestess at Delphi ordered the people to give a part of thrir (irstfruits, which they brought thither, as a present to Pindar: and he had an iron stool set on purpose for him in that temple, on which he used to sit and sing verses in honour of Apollo. His countrymen, the Thebans, were irritated at his commending their enemies, the men of Athens; and fined him, for this affront to the state. Out of spleen too, they determined a poetical prize against him, in favour of a woman, the ingenious and beautiful Corinna. In the mean time, the Athenians made him a present of double the value of his fine; and erected a noble statue in honour of him. His greatest patron was Hiero king of Syracuse, whom he has celebrated in his poems, and it is supposed he left Thebes to attend the court of that prince. He is thought to have passed his whole time in the ease and tranquillity commonly allowed to men of his profession, without intermeddling in affairs of state: for we find him, in his “Isthmics,” defending this way of life. His death is said to have been an answer to his wishes: for, having prayed the gods to send him the greatest happiness of which a mortal is capable, he expired immediately after in the public theatre, in his fifty-fifth year. His relations were highly respected after his decease, and such was the veneration for his memory, that the Lacedemonians, at the taking of Thebes, saved his house; a mark of respect which was afterwards repeated by Alexander the Great. The ruins of this house were to be seen in the time of Pausanias, who lived under the reign of Antoninus the philosopher.

Of all the works, which he is said to have composed, we have only his four books of hymns of triumph, on the conquerors in the four renowned games of Greece: the Olympian, the Pythian, the Nemaean, and the Isthmian; and such was his reputation for compositions of this kind, that no victory was thought complete, till it had the approbation of his muse. The spirit of Pindar’s poetry is so sublime, and the beauty so peculiar, that it is hardly possible to examine it by parts: and therefore the best judges have usually contented themselves with confirming his general title of “prince and father of lyric poetry,” without analyzing his particular excellences. “His Pegasus,” as Cowiey says, “flings writer and reader too, that sits not sure.” Horace called him inimitable, and, Quintiiian says, deservedly. Pindar and Sophocles,“says Longinus,” like a rapid fire, carry everything before them, though sometimes that fire is unexpectedly and unaccountably quenched.“The grandeur of his poetry, and his deep erudition, made the ancients give him the title of the Wisest, the Divine, the Great, and the most Sublime Plato calls him the Wisest and the Divine Æschylus the Great and Athenaeus, the most Sublime. Lord Bacon says, that” it is peculiar to Pindar, to strike the minds of men suddenly with some wonderful turn of thought, as it were, with a divine scepter."

It is not improper to observe, that some prejudices have arisen among the moderns against Pindar, from certain writings known by the name of Pindaric odes: but very few under that title, not excepting even those written by the admired Cowley, whose wit and fire first brought them into reputation, have the least resemblance to the manner of the author whom they pretend to imitate, and from whom they derive their name; or, if any, it is such a resemblance only as is expressed by the Italian word caricatura, a monstrous and distorted likeness. This observation has been already made by Congreve, in his preface to two admirable odes, written professedly in imitation of Pindar: “The character of these late Pindarics,” says he, “is a bundle of rambling incoherent thoughts, expressed in a like parcel of irregular stanzas, which also consist of such another complication of disproportioned, uncertain, and perplexed verses and rhimes. On th|g contrary,” adds he, “there is nothing more regular than the Odes of Pindar, both as to the exact observation of the measures and numbers of his stanzas and verses, and the perpetual coherence of his thoughts. For though his digressions are frequent, and his transitions sudden, yet is there ever some secret connexion, which, though not always appearing to the eye, never fails to communicate itself to the understanding of the reader.” Upon the whole, a poetical imagination, a warm and enthusiastic genius, a bold and figurative expression, and a concise and sententious style, are the characteristical beauties of Pindar; very different from the far-fatched thoughts, the witty extravagances, and puerile conceits of his imitators.

The best editions of this poet are, that of Henry Stephens, 1560, 2 vols. 8vo; that of Erasmus Schmidts, in 1616, 4to; and that of Oxford, by West and Welsted, in 1697, folio. From which there was a neat and correct edition, with a Latin version, printed at London by Bowyer in 1755, small 8vo. Of late years, the edition of Heyne, 1773, 8vo, but particularly that of 1798, 3 vols. 8vo, have been in high and just estimation. Two volumes of a more complete edition, with notes on the text, and on the Scholia, were published by the celebrated Beck, in 8vo, at Leipsic, in 1792 and 1795. The remainder is much wanted. We have an excellent translation of this poet bt the amiable Gilbert West, esq.

, an eminent engraver, who, says lord Orford, “need but be mentioned, to put the public in mind of the several beautiful and fine works for which they are indebted to him,” was born in 1690. We have no account of his education, but, independent of his art, he appears to have been a scholar. His first engravings exhibited the splendid ceremonial of the installation of the knights of the bath in 1725. These were followed by his admirable prints, ten in number, representing the tapestry hangings in the House of Lords. These were so highly approved, that the parliament passed an act to secure the emolument arising from their publication to him. Tnese, with the letter-press, form a volume, “rivalling the splendid editions of the Louvre.” The order of the battle, and other circumstances relative to the memorable Spanish armada, are most accurately executed: the portraits of the admirals and captains of the English fleet are not the least valuable part of the whole. He engraved five other plates of the same size, to accompany them, being, 1. A Plan of the House of Peers; another of the House of Commons A View of the Creation of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by Henry VIII. from a drawing in the College at Arms. 2. The House of Peers, with Henry VIII. on the throne, the Commons attending, from a drawing by the then Garter King at Arms. Another View of the House of Peers, with Elizabeth on the throne, the Commons presenting their Speaker at t;he bar, from a painted print in the Cottonian Library. A copy of a beautiful Illumination of the Charter of Henry VI, to the Provost and College of Eton. 3. The House of Lords, shewing his majesty on the throne, the Lords in their proper robes and seats, the Commons at the bar, and the Speaker addressing the throne. 4. The House of Commons, shewing the Commons assembled in their House, the Speaker in his Chair, and sir Robert Walpole, the Minister, standing forth in his usual posture toward the chair. A View of the Lord High Steward, in both Houses of Parliament, Judges, &c. assembled in Westminster-hall, Lord Lovat, the crijmnal at the bar, on his trial. He also engraved the whole text of Horace, illustrating it with ancient bas reliefs and gems, and in the same manner Virgil’s Bucolics and Georgics. These are his principal works, except his “Magna Charta:” one of the copies of which he presented to the Aldermen of London, who voted him a purse with twenty guineas in it. He, with Tinney and Bowles, published a large Plan of London and Westminster, with all their buildings, on a large scale, from an actual survey taken by John Rorque. Jn 1743 he was made Blue Mantle in the Heralds’ roiltge, and his Majtsty, George II. gave him thr appointment of marker of the dice, and afterward his engraver of the signets, seals, and stamps: places which he held to his death, which happened in the college, May 4, 1756, aged sixty-six.

His son, Robert Edge Pine, was a painter of considerable merit at his outset in life, when he painted his “Surrender at the Siege of Calais,” and his “Canute on the Sea-shore;” but did not improve as he went on, and not meeting with encouragement, went to Philadelphia, where he died in 1790. Edwards has given a short, but not very favourable account of him. Mr. Fuseli says that he had breadth, richness, and mellowness of colour, a forcible chiaroscuro, and an historic tone; his composition was not despicable; but his drawing was too provokingly feeble, to suffer the most unexperienced or indulgent eye to dwell long on his work.

, a celebrated lawyer, was born in 1573, of a good family at Angers. He attended the bar with a degree of reputation superior to his age; and going afterwards to Paris, distinguished himself both in the parliament and grand council, by his eloquent pleadings. In 1600 he married Frances Ladvocat, daughter of Amauri Ladvocat, seigneur de Fougeres, and counsellor to the presidial of Angers, and at his return to his native place, was appointed counsellor to the same presidial. Mary de Medicis becoming acquainted with him in 1619, conceived the highest esteem for his merit, created him master of the requests in her palace, and endeavoured to support herself in her disgrace by his credit and advice; but M. du Pineau’s whole aim was to inspire her with resignation, in which he at last succeeded. Louis XIII. in return appointed him mayor and captain-general of the city of AngerSj June 2, 1632, in which situation he gained the flattering title of “Father of the People.” His house became also a kind of academy, in which every one freely proposed his difficulties on the most intricate points of law or history, and when du Pineau had spoken, the point in dispute was considered as decided. He died Oct. 15, 1644, aged 71. His works are, Notes in Latin, against those of du Moulin on the canon law, printed under the inspection of Francis Pinsson, with du Moulin' s works; “Comm. des observations et consultations surlaContume d'Anjou,” reprinted, 1725, 2 vols. fol. by the care of M. de Livoniere, who has enriched them with very useful observations. Menage relates that when his father William Menage, and du Pineau, agreed in their opinions on the same question, the people of Angers used to say, “This must certainly be right, for Pineau has confirmed the opinion of Menage.” His house was so much frequented, that the street in which he lived was called “Rue Pineau.”

, a learned Spaniard, was born at Seville, of a noble family, and entered into the society of Jesuits in 1572. He taught philosophy and theology in several colleges, and was skilled in the oriental languages. He wrote, among other things, 1. Two volumes folio, of “Commentaries on Job.” 2. The same on Ecclesiastes. 3. A book “De rebus Salomonis,” folio, curious and learned, but not always correct. 4. “An universal History of the Church,” in Spanish, 4 vols. folio. 5. “A History of Ferdinand Hi.” in the same language. He died in 1637, much regretted.

, an Italian nobleman, celebrated for his love of letters, and the library he formed, and well compared by Thuanus to Pomponius Atticus, was born at Naples, in 1533, the son of a noble Genoese. After having received an excellent education, he went and settled at Padua, at the age of twenty-four, and early in life began to form his library, which he collected from all parts with incredible diligence. Lipsius, Jos. Scaliger, Sigonius, Pancirollus, Pithou, and all the most learned men of his time, corresponded with him, and have celebrated him for erudition. His whole mind was occupied with the love of knowledge, which embraced history, medals, antiquities, natural history, and botany; and it is said, that in forty -three years he never was out of Padua, except twice, one of which times his removal was occasioned by the plague. He died in 1601. At his death, his library was removed to his heirs at Naples, in 130 cases, fourteen of which were full of manuscripts. Two hundred volumes were retained by the republic of Venice, as treating of affairs pertaining to that state. In 1790, this noble library, augmented considerably by the descendants of this Pinelli, was purchased by Messrs. Edwards and llobson, two eminent booksellers, and sold by auction in London; and thus in a few weeks was dissipated, what it had been the labour of near two centuries to collect.

, a French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, in 1711. In 1727 he became a member of the canons regular of the congregation of France. He was intended for the church, hut the freedom of his opinions displeased his superiors, and after a few years’ study of theology, he devoted himself entirely to the sciences. In 1749 he was appointed a member of the academy of sciences in Rouen, and was elected to fill the office of astronomer, and attained to first-rate excellence. His earliest production, as an author, was the “Calculation of an Eclipse of the Moon,” on the 23d of December 1749. Lacaille had calculated it at Paris; but the calculations differed by four minutes: Lacaille., however confessed his error, and received Pingre into his friendship. In May 1753 he was elected correspondent of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, after having sent them an observation of the transit of Mercury, which he made at Rouen. He was next appointed librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, obtained the construction of an observatory, and was furnished by the abbot and chapter with a six-foot telescope, while he had the loan of an excellent quadrant from the academy. At the desire of Le Monnier, he next engaged in calculating “A Nautical Almanack,” to enable navigators more easily to ascertain the longitude by means of lunar observations. He calculated a table of the eclipses visible of the sun and moon from the commencement of the Christian aera to 1900, and afterwards a table of the eclipses visible from the northern pole to the equator, for a thousand years before our aera. The utility of these labours for verifying historical dates, induced the Academy of Inscriptions to insert a part of them in the forty-second volume of their Memoirs. He published the “State of the Heavens” for 1754: in this the moon’s place was calculated with the utmost exactness according to the tables of Dr. Halley for noon and midnight, with the right ascension in seconds of time twice a day. In 1753 he published “A Memoir relating to the Discoveries made in the South Sea, during the Voyages of the English and French round the World.” In 1760, Pingre left France for the island of Rodriguez, in the Indian ocean, to observe the transit of Venus, that was to take place in the following year; and on the 6th of June of that year he made his observations, from which he concluded that the parallax, of the sun was 10“. 2. At the same time the English astronomer Mason concluded, from the observations which he made at the Cape of Good Hope, that the parallax was 8”. 2. La Lande, in his “Astronomy,” published in 1764, adopted a medium between these conclusions, and supposed l,he parallax to be 9“, in which he was followed by astronomers in general, till more numerous observations, made on the transit of 1769, led to a different result. After the return of Pingre from the East, he published a description of Pekin, in which he shewed the position of that capital from the result of a number of calculations of eclipses; and ascertained its longitude by other calculations, with a degree of precision to which none of the labours of the scientific missionaries had any pretensions. In 1769 he sailed for the island of St. Domingo, on board the Isis man of war, to observe the transit of Venus, and performed the service committed to him in the most able and satisfactory manner possible. An account of this voyage, which proved of considerable importance to the science of geography, as well as astronomy, appeared in 1773, in two vols. 4to. After comparing the results of the immense number of calculations made by the observers of the transit in 1769J the sun’s parallax has been concluded to be about 8”. 6. In 1771, Pingre made another voyage, on board the Flora frigate, with a view of extending the interests of geographical and astronomical knowledge, having with him, as the companion of his pursuits, the chevalier de Borda, a celebrated engineer and geometrician. The account of their proceedings, observations, and experiments, was published in 1778, in two vols. 4to. In 1784, M. Pingre published his “Cometography, or historical and theoretical treatise on Comets,” in two vols. 4tc, which is his most considerable work, and contains calculations of the orbits of all the comets of which an. account has been preserved. After a long life, spent in the most important services to the world, he died in the month of May 179tf, leaving behind him a high character for integrity, having enjoyed the esteem of the public, as well as that of his friends. He was author of many other works besides those that have been already noticed.

, a learned jurist, son of a professor of law of the same name, was born at Bourges in 1612. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Paris in 1633, and rose to various honours in his profession; and was, at his death, sub-dean of the company of advocates. He owed his success in life to his great knowledge of the law of benefices, in which he was regarded as the oracle, and which he illustrated by several learned works. Of these were, “Traité des Benefices;” “La Pragmatique Sanction de St. Louis, et celle de Charles VII. avec Commentaires” “Notes sommaires sur les Indults, accorded a Louis XIV. &c.” “Trait^s des Regales,” 2 vols. 4to, which is said to be a very learned and useful performance. This industrious writer died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1691.

, a celebrated artist, was born at Perugia in 1454, and was a disciple of Pietro Perugino, who often employed him as his assistant. He painted history; but in portraits was in so much esteem, that he was employed to paint those of pope Pius II. and of Innocent VIII; of Giulia Farnese, Caesar Borgia, and queen Isabella of Spain. His style, nevertheless, was extremely dry and Gothic, as he introduced gilding in the architectural and other parts of his pictures, blended with ornaments in relievo, and other artifices quite unsuitable to the genius of the art. The most memorable performance of Pinturicchio is the History of Pius II. painted in ten compartments, in the library at Sienna, in which he is said to have been assisted by Raphael, then a very young man, and pupil of Perugino, who made some cartoons of the most material incidents, and sketched many parts of the compositions.

His last work was a Nativity, for the monastery of St. Francis, at Sienna; in which place he had a room assigned him to paint in, without the danger of his being interrupted, and out of which he requested every thing might be removed. Every thing, accordingly, was taken away, except an old chest, which was so crazy, that when the attempt was made, it broke to pieces, and a treasure of 500 pieces of gold was discovered concealed within it. The joy of the monks was equalled only by the mortification of the painter, who is said to have died of chagrin soon after, in 1513, at the age of 59.

, was called also Venetiano, from Venice, the place of his birth, which occurred in 1485. He was renowned, in early life, as a musician, and particularly for his skill in playing upon the lute. While he was yet in his youth, he abandoned that science, and was taught the rudiments of the art of painting by Giovanni Bellini; but Giorgione da Castel Franco having just then exhibited his improved mode of colouring and effect, Sebastian became his disciple and most successful imitator. His portraits, in particular, were greatly admired for the strength of resemblance, and the sweetness and fulness of style, which made them be frequently mistaken for the work of Giorgione. His portrait of Julio Gonzaga, the favourite of cardinal Hippolito di Medici, is by many writers mentioned in the highest terms. Being induced to go to Rome, he soon attracted public notice; and in the contest respecting the comparative merits of Raphael and M. Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, who in consequence favoured him on all occasions, and even stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael, by painting a picture in competition with that great man’s last great work, the Transfiguration; which had just been placed, with great form, in the church of St. Pietro a Montorio. The subject Sebastian chose was the resurrection of Lazarus; for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael’s; and, when completed, was placed in the same consistory, and was very highly applauded. The cardinal di Medici sent it to his bishopric of Narbonno, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans. It is now in England, and in possession of J. Angerstein esq. who gave 2000 guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author, yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution.

Sebastian continued to exercise his talents, particularly in portraiture, with great industry and success, till he obtained the office of Frate del Piombo, when he ceased to paint for profit, and was henceforward known by the name of Sebastian del Piombo. He lived in great esteem with pope Clement VII. whose portrait he painted with great power and fidelity, as well as that of the infamous satirist Aretine, and those of many persons of rank and renown. He obtained great praise for having discovered a mode of preventing oil-colours, employed on plaster, from becoming dark; which he did, by applying, in the first instance, a mixture of mastic and Grecian pitch. Having passed through a life of great honour and emolument to the age of 62, he died in 1547.

, an English comic painter, was the son of a Kentish gentleman descended from a Walloon family. His father, having a plentiful estate, gave this his eldest son a liberal education, and would have had him bred a scholar, or else a merchant; but his genius leading him wholly to designing, he could not fix to any particular science or business but the art to which he naturally inclined. Drawing took up all his time and all his thoughts; and being of a gay facetious humour, his manner partook of it. He delighted in drawing ugly faces; and had a talent so particular for it, that he would by a transient view of any remarkable face he met in the street, retain the likeness so exactly in his memory, that it might be supposed the person had sat several times for it. It was said of him, that he would steal a face and a man, who was not handsome enough to desire to see his picture, sat in danger in his company. He had a fancy peculiar to himself in his travels: he would often go away, and let his friends know nothing of his departure; make the tour of France and the Netherlands, a-foot; and sometimes his frolic carried him as far as Grand Cairo. He never advertised his friends of his return, any more than he did of his intended absence, delighting to baffle their conjectures, or tantalize their feelings. In this manner he travelled, at several times, through Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Holland; in which several countries he examined the works of the several painters with pleasure and judgment, and formed to himself a manner of design which no man in that kind ever excelled, or perhaps equalled.

Having a good estate of his own, and being generous, as most men of genius are, he would never take any thing for his pieces. He drew them commonly over a bottle, which he loved so well, that he spent great part of his hours of pleasure in a tavern. This was the occasion that some of his best pieces, especially such as are as large as the life, are to be found in those houses; particularly at the Mitre Tavern, in Stocks-market, where there was a room called the Amsterdam, adorned with his pictures in black and white. The room took its name from his pieces; which, representing a Jesuit, a Quaker preaching, and other preachers of most sects, was called the Amsterdam; as containing an image of almost as many religions as are professed in that free city. He drew also other pieces of humour for a Mr. Shepheard, a vintner, at the Bell, in Westminster, which Mr. Holmes, of the Mitre, purchased, to make his collection of this master’s pieces the more complete; and the benefit of shewing them was not a little advantageous to his house. Piper drew also a piece, representing a constable with his myrmidons, in very natural and ludicrous postures. He seldom designed after the life, and neglected colouring: yet he sometimes, though very rarely, coloured some of his pieces, and is said not to have been very unsuccessful in it. He was a great admirer and imitator of Augustine Caracci, Rembrandt, and Heemskirk’s manner of design, and was always in raptures when he spoke of Titian’s colouring: for, notwithstanding he never had application enough to make himself a master of that part of his art, he admired it in those that were so, especially the Italians. He drew the pictures of several of his friends in black and white; and maintained a character of truth, which shewed, that if he had bestowed time to perfect himself in colouring, he would have rivalled the best of our portrait-painters. Towards the latter end of his life, having impaired his fortune, he sometimes took money. He drew some designs for Mr. Isaac Becket, who copied them in mezzothto. Those draughts were generally done at a tavern; and, whenever he pleased, he could draw enough in half an hour to furnish a week’s work for Becket.

His invention was fruitful, and his drawing bold and free. He understood landscape-painting, and performed it to perfection. He was particularly a great master in. perspective. In designing his landscapes, he had a manner peculiar to himself. He always carried a long book about with him, like a music-book, which, when he had a mind to draw, he opened; and, looking through it, made the lower corner of the middle of the book his point of sight: by which, when he had formed his view, he directed his perspective, and finished his picture. His hand was ready, his strokes bold; and, in his etching, short. He etched several things himself, generally on oval silver plates for his friends; who, being most of them as hearty lovers of the bottle as himself, put glasses over them, and made lids of them for their tobacco-boxes. He drew several of the grand seignors’ heads for sir Paul Rycaut’s “History of the Turks,” which were engraved by Mr. Elder. In the latter part of his life, he applied himself to modelling in wax in basso-relievo; in which manner he did abundance of things with good success. He often said, he wished he had thought of it sooner, for that sort of work suited better with his genius than any; and had he lived longer, he would have arrived to great perfection in it. Some time before his death another estate fell to him, by the decease of his mother; when, giving himself new liberty on this enlargement of his fortune, he fell into a fever by his free way of living; and, employing a surgeon to let him blood, the man unluckily pricked an artery, which accident proved mortal. Piper was very fat, which might contribute to this misfortune. He died in Aldermanbury, about 1740.

However corpulent and heavy Piper’s body was, his mind was always sprightly and gay. He was never out of humour, nor dull; and had he borrowed more time from his mirth to give to his studies, he had certainly been an. honour to his country. However, he lives still in the memory of his acquaintance, with the character of an hoiiest man, and a great master in his art. His pieces are scattered up and down, chiefly in London; and the best and most of them were lately in the hands of Mr. Le Piper, his brother, a merchant in that city.

, called more frequently Julio Romano, a very eminent painter, was born in 1492, and was the principal disciple of Raphael, his heir, the cominuator of his works, and himself at the head of a school. Whilst a pupil, he imbibed all his master’s energy of character, and chiefly signalized himself in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and erudition. As a designer, he commands the whole mechanism of the human body; and, without fear of error, turns and winds it about to serve his purposes; but sometimes oversteps the modesty of nature. Vasari prefers his drawings to his pictures, as the original fire which distinguishes his conception was apt to evaporate, in the longer process of finish: and some have, with more reason, objected to' the character of his physiognomies, as less simple than vulgar; and often dismal and horrid, without being terrible. In colour, whether fresco or oil, his hand was as expeditious, a.nd his touch, especially in the former, as decided, as his eye and choice were ungenial: bricky lights, violet demitints, black shades, compose, in general, the raw opaque tone of his oil-pictures. The style of his draperies is classic, but the management of the folds generally arbitrary and mannered; the hair and head-dresses of his women are always fanciful and luxurious, but not always arranged by taste, whilst those of the men frequently border on the grotesque.

He came to Mantua, and there found antique treasures, of which the statues, busts, and basso-relievos, at. present in the academy, are but insignificant remains. To the stores of the Gonzaghi he added his own, rich in designs of Raphael, and studies and plans from the antique; for no designer ever possessed such industry with so much fire, so much consideration with such fecundity, or combiued with equal rapidity such correctness, and with great recondite knowledge in mythology and history, that popularity and ease in treating it. The increased practice, and the authority derived from the superintendance of the works left unfinished by his master, established his reliance on himself, and the call of the Gonzaghi roused that loftiness of conception, and gave birth to those magnificent plans, from which Mantua and the wonders of the palace del T. as it was called, rose, as from enchantment. This palace furnishes specimens in every class of picturesque imagery. Whatever be the dimension, the subject, or the scenery, minute or colossal, simple or complex, terrible or pleasing, we trace a mind bent to surprise or to dazzle by poetic splendor: but, sure to strike by the originality of his conception, he often neglects propriety in the conduct of his subjects, considered as a series, and in the arrangement or choice of the connecting parts; hurried into extremes by the torrent of a fancy more lyric than epic, he disdains to fill the intermediate chasms, and too often leaves the task of connexion to the spectator.

In the palace del T. Julio adopted the method of his master. He prepared the cartoons; they were executed by his pupils; and he thoroughly retouched, corrected, and gave the last finish to the pictures: but unfortunately his master-strokes have been covered again by modern pencils; and the fable of Psyche, the Allegories of Human Life, the Gian.ts storming Heaven, exhibit now, indeed, his composition and design, but not his hand: this is better preserved in the paintings of the old palace, or, as it is now called, the Corte of Mantua: they are in fresco, and chiefly relate histories of the Trojan war. They have the same beauties and the same defects as those of the palace del T. Each, singly considered, is a proof of the poetic spirit and the practic powers of the master; as a cyclus, they want connection and evidence. Helen sleeping, Vulcan forging arms for Achilles, are beautiful; and Minerva in the act of slaying Ajax, the son of Oileus, sublime. Nor is his versatility less admirable in the Bacchic or amorous subjects, the capricci and grotesque conceits with which he decorated the small cabinets of the same palace.

The altar-pieces of Julio are not numerous. He did not live to finish those which he had begun for the cathedral of Mantua. The most remarkable of those which he finished with his own hand, are the three frescoes at S. Marco; and in the church of* S. Christoforo, the athletic figure of that saint, groaning under the weight of the Divine Infant on his shoulders. They are, however, far inferior, for genuine pathos and classic execution, to the Martyrdom of St. Stephen on the head altar of the church di S. Stephano alle porte delP arco, at Genoa. He died at Mantua, in 1546.

, a very celebrated architect and engraver, was a native of Venice, but resident for the greater part of his life at Rome. The time of his hirth is not known here, but it must have been about1711. He was remarkable for a bold and free style of etching; which, in general, he drew upon the plate at once, without any, or with very little previous sketch. He worked with such rapidity and diligence, that the magnitude and number of his plates almost exceed belief; and they are executed with a spirit and genius which are altogether peculiar to hi Ib. The earliest of his works appear to have been published in 1743, and consist of designs invented by himself, in a very grand style; with views of ruins, chiefly the work of imagination, and strongly characterizing the magnificence of his ideas. These are sometimes found in a volume, collected by Bourchard, in 1750: with views of Roman antiquities, not in Rome, among which are several of Pola, in Istria. The dedication to these views is dated 1748. Considering these as forming his first work, we may enumerate the rest from a catalogue print, published by himself many years after. 2. “Antichita Romane,” or Roman Antiquities, comprised in 218 plates of atlas paper, commencing by a topographical view of ancient Rome, made out from the fragments of a most curious antique plan of that city, found in the pavement of the temple of Romulus, and now preserved in the Museum at the Capitol. These, with the descriptions in Italian, form four volumes in folio. 3. “Fasti consulares triumphalesque Romanorum, ab urbe condita, usque ad Tiherium Csesarem.” 4. “Del Castello dell' acqua Giulia, e della maniera in cui anticamente si concedevano e distribuivano le acque,” 21 folio plates. 5. “Antichita d'Albano, e di Castel Gandolfo,” 55 plates. 6. “Campus Martins Antique urbis,” with descriptions in Italian and Latin, 54 plates. 7. “Arcbi trionfali antichi, Tempi, ed Anfiteatri, esistenti in Roma, ed in altre parti d'ltalia,” 31. plates. 8. “Tro.fei d'Ottaviano Augusto,” &c. 10 plates. 0. “Delia Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani,” 44 plates, with above 200 pages of letter- press, in Italian and Latin. This great work appears to have been occasioned, in great measure, by some dialogues published in London in 1755, but now forgotten here, and entitled, “The Investigator.” These, containing many foolish calumnies against the ancient Romans, had been interpreted to Piranesi, and inflamed his ardent spirit to this mode of vindication. 10. “Architetture diverse,” 27 plates. 11.“Carceri d'inventione,” 16 plates, full of the most wild, but picturesque conceptions. 12. About 130 separate views of Rome, in its present state; in the grandest style of design, and the boldest manner of etching. Besides these, there is also extant, in very few hands (as it was not published, but only given to particular friends), a small work of this author, containing letters of justification to lord Charlemont; in which he assigns the reasons why he did not dedicate his Roman antiquities to that nobleman, as had been intended. Piranesi here appears extremely irritated against his lordship, and his agents, for neglect and ill-treatment; but the most curious part of the work is, that he has taken the pains to etch, in a small quarto size, and with the utmost neatness, yet with all his accustomed freedom, exact copies of the four original frontispieces, in which the name of his intended patron was to hare been immortalized: with views of the inscriptions reengraved as they now stand; as if the first inscriptions had been cut out of the stones, and the new ones inserted on small pieces let into them, as the ancients sometimes practised. In this form they still remain in his frontispieces; a peculiarity which would not be understood without this key. There are also head-pieces and tail-pieces, all full of imagination, and alluding to the matters and persons involved in the dispute. This work is dated in 1757. Piranesi was well known to most of the English artists who Studied at Rome; among others, to Mr. Mylne, the architect of Blackfriars-bridge, with whom he corresponded for several years, and for whom he engraved a fine view of that structure, in its unfinished state; representing, with precision, the parts subservient to its construction; such as the centres of the arches, &c. for the sake of preserving a memorial of them. Some of his works are dedicated to another British architect, Robert Adam; and as Piranesi was an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries in, London, he always carefully subjoined that title to his name. He was also a member of the academy of the Arcadi, by the name of Salcindio Tiseio. as he has given it in one of his frontispieces, according to the fantastic custom of that society, of giving new names to the persons admitted. All who knew him agree that he was of a fiery and impetuous temper, but full of genius. He left a son, who has been employed in a diplomatic line. The exact time of his death we have not been able to learn; but it is supposed to have happened in or near the year 1780. Pijanesi has been accused, and not without reason, of suffering his imagination to embellish even the designs that were given as real views. He was employed, as an architect, to ornament a part of the priory of Malta, in Rome; in which place his son has erected a statue of him. It is thus mentioned by baron Stolberg, in his Travels: “Here is a fine statue of the architect Piranesi, as large as life, placed there by his son. It is the work of the living artist Angolini; and though it certainly cannot be compared with the best antiques, it still possesses real merit.” His portrait, engraved by Polanzani, in 1750, is in the style of a mutilated statue, and is very spirited. It is prefixed to some of his works.

, a celebrated Dominican of the seventeenth century, was a native of Calabria. Having acquired a knowledge of the Eastern languages, he was employed in the missions to the East, resided for a considerable time in Armenia, where he gained several converts, particularly the patriarch, by whom he had at first been opposed. He went also into Georgia, and Persia, and afterwards into Poland, as nuncio from pope Urban VIIL to appease the troubles which the Armenians, who were very numerous there, occasioned by their disputes. Having re-united all parties, and embarked for Italy, he was taken in his voyage by some corsairs, and carried to Tunis; but his ransom being paid, he went to Home, and having given an account of his mission, received the most public marks of esteem from the pope, who sent him back to the East, where, in 1655, he was made bishop of Nacksivan, in Armenia. After governing this church nine years, he returned to his native country, was entrusted with the church of Bisignano, in Calabria, where he died three years after, in 1667. Rewrote several controversial and theological works; two dictionaries, one, “Latin and Persian;” the other, “Armenian and Latin;” “An Armenian Grammar” and “A Directory” all of which have been esteemed of great utility.

, a French dramatic poet, was born at Dijon in 1689, where he lived till he was past thirty, in all the dissipation of a young man of pleasure. At length, having given great offence to his countrymen by an ode which he produced, he removed to Paris; where, as his relations could not give him much assistance, he supported himself by his talent of writing an admirable hand. He was first secretary to M. Bellisle, and afterwards to a financier, who little suspected that he had such a genius in his house. By degrees he became known, from producing several small pieces, full of originality, at a little theatre in Paris; till the comedy called “Metromanie,” esteemed one of the best produced in the last century, raised his fame to the highest point. His very singular talent for conversation, in which he was always lively, and inexhaustible in wit, contributed to enhance his popularity; and as his company was more courted for a time than that of Voltaire, who had less good humour, he was inclined to fancy himself superior to that writer. Many traits of his wit are related, which convey, at the same time, the notion that he estimated himself very highly. At the first representation of Voltaire’s Semiramis, which was ill received, the author asked him in the theatre what he thought of it “I think,” said he, “that you would be very glad that I had written it.” The actors wishing him to alter one of his pieces, affronted him by using the word “corrections,” instead of alterations. They pleaded that Voltaire always listened to their wishes in that respect. “What then?” replied Piron, “Voltaire works cabinet-work, I cast in bronze.” The satirical turn of Piron kept him from a seat in the academy. “I never could make nine-and thirty people,” said he, “think as I do, still less could 1 ever think with them.” He sought, however, a species of revenge, in the epitaph which he wrote for himself:

“Here lies Piron, who was nothing, not even an academician.” He died of the effects of a fail, Jan. 21, 1773. His works have been collected in seven vols. 8vo, and nine 12mo. But it is agreed, that out of the seven, five at least might be spared; since, besides his “Metromanie,” his “Gustavus,” a tragedy; his “Courses de Tempe,” a pastoral piece; some odes, about twenty epigrams, and one or two tales, there is very little in the whole collection that is above mediocrity. His comedies are reckoned better than, his tragedies; and the prefaces to his dramas, though not excellent in point of style, are full of new and agreeable thoughts, with natural and happy turns of wit and expression.

, an Italian by birth, but the author of many compositions in French prose and verse, was born at Venice about 1363, being the daughter of Thomas Pisan, of Bologna, much celebrated at that time as an astrologer. When she was five years old, her father settled with her in France, and her extraordinary beauty and wit procured her an excellent husband by the time she was fifteen. After ten years she lost this husband, Stephen Castel, by whom she was most tenderly beloved, and found her chief resource for comfort and subsistence in her pen; her husband’s fortune being entangled in several law-suits. Charles VI. of France, and other princes, noticed and assisted her on account of her talents, and provided for her children. When she died is uncertain. Some of her poems, which are full of tenderness, were printed at Paris in 1529, others remain in manuscript in the royal library. “The Life of Charles V.” written by desire of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, is considered as her best performance in prose. It is preserved in ms. in the library of the king of France, but a transcript was published by the abbé Le Beuf in the third volume of “Dissertations on the Ecclesiastical History of Paris,” where he gives a Life of Cnristina. She wrote also “An hundred Stories of Troy,” in rhyme “The Treasure of the City of Dames,” Paris, 1497 “The Long Way,” translated by John Chaperon, 1549, under the title of “Le Chemin de long etendue.” In the Harleian collection of Mss. (No. 219, 5) is a piece by Christina entitled “Epistre d'Otnea deese de Prudence a Hector, &c. Mis en vers Francois, et dedie a Charles V. de France.” Anthony WidviSle, earl Rivers, translated a work of hers, we know not whether included in any of the above, entitled “The Moral Proverbs of Christian of Pyse,” printed by Caxton. Lord Orford, who has noticed this work in his account of WidviUe, has also introduced an account of Christina, which, although written in his flippant and sarcastic manner, contains some interesting particulars of her history.

, a protestant German divine, was born at Strasburgh in 1546. In his early studies he acquired the character of an able philosopher, but was most approved as a commentator on the scriptures. He inclined at first to the Lutheran opinions, but afterwards embraced those of Calvin, and lastly endeavoured to give an Arminian modification of some of the Calvinistic opinions respecting original sin, grace, and predestination, which, as usual, pleased neither party. He was for some time professor of divinity in the newly-established university of Herborn, where he died in 1626, in the eightieth year of his age. Besides a translation of the Bible into German, he wrote commentaries, in Latin, on the Bible, first printed in 8vo, afterwards in 4 vols. fol. 1643, &c. and many controversial treatises.

, a learned divine, was born February 4, 1546, at Nidda. He first took a doctor’s degree in physic, but, as he did not succeed according to his hopes, he studied the law, and was counsellor to Ernest Frederic, margrave of Baden Dourlach, whom he persuaded to embrace the protestant religion, but turned catholic himself sometime after. After the death of his wife he was admitted doctor in duinity, was made counsellor to the emperor, provost of the cathedral at Breslaw, and domestic prelate of the abbey of Fulde. He died in 1608, at Friburg. He left several controversial tracts against the Lutherans, “Scriptores Rerum Polonicarum,” 1582, 3 vols. fol.; “Scriptores de Rebus Germanicis,” 1607, 1613, 3 vols. fol. a curious collection, which Struvius very much improved in a new edition published at Ratisbon in 1726, 3 vols. fol. Pistorius also published an edition of “Artis cabalisticae Scriptores,” Basil, 1587, fol.

, an eminent Scotch physician of the mechanical sect, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Fife, and born at Edinburgh Dec. 25, 1652. After some classical education at the school of Dalkeith, he was removed in 1668 to the university of Edinburgh; where, having gone through a course of philosophy, he obtained in 1671 his degree of M. A. and studied first divinity, which does not appear to have been to his taste, and then the civil law, which was more seriously the object of his choice, and he pursued it with so much intenseness as to impair his health. He was then, advised to travel to Montpelier in France, but found himself recovered by the time he reached Paris. He determined to pursue the study of the law in the university there; but there being no able professor of it, and meeting with some of his countrymen, who were students in physic, he went with them to the lectures and hospitals. A few months after, he was called home by his father; and now, having laid in the first elements of all the three professions, he found himself absolutely undetermined which to follow. In the mean time he applied himself to the mathematics, in which he made a very great progress; and an acquaintance which he formed with Dr. David Gregory, the celebrated mathematical professor, probably conduced to cherish his natural aptitude for this study. At length, struck with the charms of mathematical truth which been lately introduced into the philosophy of medicine, and hoping to reduce the healing art to geometrical method, he unalterably determined in favour of medicine as a profession. As there was however at this time no medical school in Edinburgh, no hospital, nor opportunity of improvement but the chamber and the shop, he returned to Paris about 1675, and cultivated the object of his pursuit with diligence and steadiness. Among his various occupations, the study of the ancient physicians seems to have had a principal share. This appears from a treatise which he published some time after his return, “Solutio problematis de inventoribus,” which shews that he wisely determined to know the progress of medicine from its earliest periods, before he attempted to reform and improve that science. In August 1680 he received from the faculty of llheims the degree of Doctor, which in 1699 was likewise conferred on him by the university of Aberdeen, and he was likewise appointed a member of the college of surgeons of Edinburgh in 1701. He was before chosen a member of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh from the time it was established by charter in 1681. On his return to Edinburgh, which was about the time of the revolution, he presently came into good business, and acquired an extensive reputation. Such, however, was his attachment to the exiled James II. that he became excluded from public honours and promotion at home, and therefore, Laving in 1692 received an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, to be professor of physic there, he accepted it, and went and made his inauguration speech the 26th of April that year, entitled “Oratio qua ostenditur meclicinam ab omni philosophorum secta esse Jiberam.” He continued there little more than a year; during which short space he published several dissertations, chiefly with a view of shewing the usefulness of mathematics to physic. Pitcairne was the first who introduced the mechanic principles into that art, now so generally exploded, but they do not appear to have influenced his practice, which did not differ essentially from the present. He returned to Scotland in 1693, to discharge an engagement to a young lady, who became his second wife, the daughter of sir Archibald Stephenson, an eminent physician in Edinburgh; and, being soon after married to her, was fully resolved to set out again for Holland; but, the lady’s parents being unwilling to part with her, he settled at Edinburgh, and wrote a valedictory letter to the university of Leyden. His lady did not survive her marriage many years; yet she brought him a daughter, who was in 1731 married to the earl of Kelly.

In 1701 he republished his “Dissertationes Medicæ,” with some new ones and dedicated them to Bellini, professor at Pisa, in return to the same compliment, which Bellini had made him, when he published his “O'puscula.” They were printed at Rotterdam in one volume 4to, under this title, “Disputationes Medicac,” of which there are eight. The last edition published in his life- time carne out at Edinburgh, a few months before his death, which happened' Oct. 13, 1713. Afterwards were published, in 1717, his lectures to his scholars, under the title of “Klementa Medicine Physico-Mathematica,” although he had taken great pains to prevent the publication of any thing in that way. He even shews some concern about this in his Dissertation “de Circulatione Sanguinis in animaiibns genitis, et non genitis.” There are editions of his whole works at Venice, 1733, and Leyden, 1737, 4to. In 169, being hindered by sickness from attending the calls of his profession, he amused himself with writing remarks upon sir Robert Sibbald’s “Prodromus Historic Tslaturalis Scotiae,” who had published a treatise ridiculing the new method of applying geometry to physic; in return to which Pitcairne wrote, “Dissertatio de Legibus Histories Naturalis,” and published it, but not anonymously, as has been asserted, in the abovementioned year. Pitcairne likewise used to divert himself sometimes with writing Latin verses of considerable merit, which were collected after his death. The occasion of their appearance was a remark of Peter Burman, in his preface to his edition of Buchanan’s history, on the inconsiderable number of Latin writers, especially in poetry, whom Britain had produced. Ruddirnan on this endeavoured to vindicate his native country from its share in this degrading censure; and with that view published, in 1727, a small volume entitled “Selecta Poemata Archibaldi Pitcairnii et aliorum,” &c. But, says lord Woodhouselee, this very attempt affords a demonstration of the truth of the proposition it was meant to disprove, for the poems of Pitcairne comprise almost all that are of any merit in the volume; and even these, from the nature of their subjects, temporary political satire (against the revolution) the commemoration of local incidents, or allusions to private characters, have none of the requisites to found either a. general or a permanent reputation.

These poems, says the same critic, which have the merit of excellent Latinity, and easy and spirited numbers, must have had a poignant relish in his own age, from the very circumstances which render them little interesting in ours. Lord Hailes once intended to have redeemed them from oblivion by a commentary, a specimen of which he gave in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for February 1774; but, as he had no congeniality of opinion with Pitcairne, either as to religion or politics, there would have been a perpetual war betwixt the author and his commentator. With respect to his religion, although Dr. Webster tells us he “died a worthy and religious man,” there is reason to think he had not always lived with much religious impression on his mind. He wrote a comedy, called “The Assembly,” printed at London in 1722, which Mr. George Chalmers says is “personal and political, sarcastic and prophane, and never could have been acted on any stage.” He was also the author of an attack on revealed religion, entitled “Epistola Archimedis ad regem Gelonem Albre Graccae reperta, anno aeree Christianas 1685.” This was made the subject of the inaugural oration of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton, professor of divinity in the uniTersity of St. Andrew’s in 1710, and published at Edinburgh in 1714, 4to. The kte Dr. William and Dr. David Pitcairne were related to our author, but not his immediate descendants.

, or Pithceus, a French gentleman of eminence in the republic of letters, was descended from an ancient and noble family in Normandy, and born at Troy es Nov. 1, 1539. His taste for literature discovered itself early, and it was cultivated to the utmost by the care of his father. He entered upon his studies at Troyes, and was afterwards sent to Paris, where he became tirst the scholar, and then the friend, of Turnebus. When he had finished his pursuits in languages and the belles letters, he was removed to Bourges, and placed under Cujacius, in order to study the civil law. His father was learned in the law, and has left no inconsiderable specimen of his judgment, in the advice he gave his son, for acquiring this branch of knowledge, which was, not to spend his time and pains upon voluminous and barren commentators, but to confine his reading chiefly to original writers. He made so wonderful a progress, that at seventeen he was able to discuss without preparation the most difficult questions; and his master was not ashamed to own, that he was indebted to him for some useful suggestions. Cujacius removing to Valence, Pithou followed him thither, and continued to profit by his lectures, to 1560. He then returned to Paris, and frequented the bar of the parliament there, for the sake of joining practical forms and usages to theoretic knowledge.

In 1563, being then twenty-four, he gave the first fruits of his studies to the public, in a work entitled “Adversaria Snbseciva;” which was highly applauded by Turnebus, Lipsius, and other learned men, and laid the foundation of that great and extensive fame which he afterwards acquired. A little time after, he was advanced by Henry III. to some considerable post; in which, as well as at the bar, he acquitted himself with high honour. Pithou was a Protestant, and was almost involved in the terrible massacre of Saint Bartholomew in 1572. His escape indeed was very narrow, for he was at Paris during the whole, and in the same lodgings with several protestants, who were all murdered. Whether from fear or conviction, he soon afterwards openly embraced the Catholic faith. Afterwards he attended the duke of Montmoiency into England; and in 1572 was honoured with the degree of LL. D. at Oxford, where he resided for some time; and upon his return, by reason of his great wisdom, amiable manners, and profound knowledge, became a kind of oracle to his countrymen, who consulted him on all important occasions. Nor was his fame less in other parts of the continent; Ferdinand the Great duke of Tuscany not only consulted him, but even submitted to his determination, in a point contrary to his interests. Henry III. and IV. were greatly obliged to him for combating the league in the most intrepid manner, and for many other services, in which he had recourse to his pen, as well as to other means.

Pithou died upon his birth-day, November 1, 1596, leaving behind him a wife, whom he had married in 1579, and some children. Thuanus has represented him as the most excellent and accomplished man of the age in which he lived; an opinion in which his learned contemporaries seem agreed. He collected a most valuable library, which was rich in manuscripts, as well as printed books; and he took many precautions to hinder its being dispersed after his death, but in vain. He published a great number of works on various subjects of law, history, and classical literature; and he gave several new and correct editions of ancient writers. He was the first who made the world acquainted with the “Fables of Ptuedrus:” they, together with the name of their author, being utterly unknown, till published from a manuscript, which had been discovered by his brother, Francis Pithou. The principal works of Peter Prthou are, 1. “A Treatise on the Liberties of the Gallican Church,” four volumes folio; the foundation of all that has been written on that subject since. The best edition is Paris, 1731. 2. Editions of many importan' monuments relative to Fre: ch history. 3. Notes on many classical authors. 4. A volume of smaller works, or “Opuscula,” printed collectively at Paris in 1609, besides many publications on civil and canon law, some issued separately, and some in conjunction with his brother. It was his intention to hare published a complete body of French historians, but he published only two volumes on the subject, one in octavo, and the other in quarto.