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

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, brother of the preceding, and also a very learned man, was born in 1544, at Troyes. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres, and law, and discovered, as we have just observed, the ms. of the fables of Phaedrus, which he sent to his brother, and which was published in 1596, in 12mo. Francis, with the assistance of his brother, applied himself particularly to revise and explain the “Body of Canon Law,” which was printed according to their corrections, 1687, 2 vols. folio; an edition which is reckoned the best. His other works are, “Codex Canonum,” 1687, folio. An edition of the “Salic Law,” with notes. The “Roman Laws,” compared with those of Moses, 1673, 12mo. “Observationes ad Codicem,” 1689, folio. “Antiqui Rhetores Latini, Rutilius Lupus, Aquila Romanus, Julius Rufinianus, Curius Fortunatianus, MariusVictorinus,” &c. Paris, 1599, 4to. republished by M. Caperonier, Strasburg, 4to. &c. He died February 7, 1621, aged seventy-eight.

, a very learned scholar and editor, was born at Zutphen, March 30, 1637. His grandfather, there is reason to think, was Bartholomew Pitiscus, preacher to the elector palatine, who died in 1613, and was the author of a Latin work on “Trigonometry,” reprinted in 1612, and very much approved by Tycho Brabe. His father, Samuel, appears to have been a refugee for the sake of the protestant religion, and took up his abode at Zutphen, where our author was first educated, but he afterwards studied polite literature at Daventer under John Frederick Qronovius, for two years, and divinity for three, at Groningen. After finishing this course he was admitted into the church, and appointed master of the public school at Zutphen in 1685. About the same time he was intrusted with the direction of the college of St. Jerome at Utrecht, which he retained until 1717, when, being in his eightieth year, he resigned with great credit, but lived ten years longer, and died Feb. 1, 1727. He married two wives, one while schoolmaster at Zutphen, who gave him much uneasiness, having contracted a habit of drunkenness, to gratify which she used to steal and sell his books. The other, whom he married at Utrecht, restored that domestic happiness which suited his retired and studious disposition. He acquired considerable property by his works, and left at his death 10,000 florins to the poor. He was a man of extensive learning, directed chiefly to the illustration of the classical authors, and was long in the highest esteem as a teacher

His works are, 1. “Fundamenta religionis Christianas in usum Gymnasii Zutphaniensis,” 8vo. 2. “Quintus Curtius cum c'ommentario perpetuo, variisque iconismis aeri affabre incisis,” Utrecht, 1635, the first of the classic authors whom he illustrated by the explanation of ancient customs, represented by engravings. 3. “Suetonius,” ibid. 1690, 2 vols. 8vo, and Leovard. 1715, 2 vols. 4to. This last is the best edition of this elegant and useful work, which is well known to classical scholars. 4. “Aurelius Victor,” with the notes of various commentators and engravings, Utrecht, 1696, 8vo, a rare and valuable edition. 5. “Lexicon Latino-Belgicum,” the best edition of which is that printed at Dort in 1725, 4to. 6. “Lexicon Antiquitatum Romanarum,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio, a work of great erudition, and the labour of many years. 7. “Solini Polyhistor, cum Salmasii exercitationibus Plinianis,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio. 8. ' Francisci Pomey Pantheon Mythicum.“9.” Rosini Antiq. Romanarum corpus," Utrecht, 1701, 4to. Of these last three he was only the editor.

, an ingenious mathematician, descended of a noble family of Languedoc, was born in 1695. In his early mathematical studies, he appears to have had no instructor; but going, in his twenty-third year, to Paris, he formed an acquaintance with Reaumur. In 1724 he was received into the academy of sciences, in the Memoirs of which he wrote a great many papers, He wrote a valuable work, entitled “The Theory of working Ships,” 1731, which procured him to be elected a member of the Royal Society of London. In 1740, the states-general of Languedoc gave him the appointment of principal engineer to the province, and also that of inspector- general of the famous canal which forms a navigable junction between the Mediterranean sea and the bay of Biscay. One of his greatest works Was that for supplying Montpelier with water from sources at the distance of three leagues. For this and other services the king honoured him with the order of St. Michael. He died in 1771, at the age of seventy-six.

, an English biographer, was born at Alton, in Hampshire, in 1560 and at eleven, sent to Wykeham’s school near Winchester. He was elected thence probationer fellow of New college in Oxford, at eighteen; but, in less than two years, left the kingdom as a voluntary Romish exile, and went to Douay, where he was kindly received by Dr. Thomas Stapleton, who gave him advice relating to his studies. Pursuant to this, he passed from Douay to Rheims and, after one year spent in the English college there, was sent to the English college at Rome, where he studied seven years, and was then ordained priest. Returning to Rheims about 1589, he held the office of professor of rhetoric and Greek for two years. Towards the latter end of 151*0, being appointed governor to a young nobleman, he travelled with him into Lorraine; and, at Pont-a-Mousson, he took the degree of master of arts, and soon after that of bachelor of divinity. Next, going into Upper Germany, he resided a year and a half at Triers; and afterwards removed to Ingolstadt in Bavaria, where he resided three years, and took the degree of doctor of divinity. After having travelled through Italy as well as Germany, and made himself master of the languages of both countries, he went back to Lorraine; where, being much noticed by Charles cardinal of Lorraine, he was preferred by him to a canonry of Verdun. When he had passed two years there, Antonia, daughter to the duke of Lorraine, who was married to the duke of Cleves, invited him to be her confessor; and, that he might be the more serviceable to her, he learned the French language with so much success, that he often preached in it. In her service he continued twelve years; during which time he studied the histories of England, ecclesiastical and civil, whence he made large collections and observations concerning the most illustrious personages. On the death of the duchess of Cleves he returned a third time to Lorraine, where, by the favour of John bishop of Toul, formerly his scholar, he was promoted to the deanery of Liverdun, a city of Lorraine, which was of considerable value. This, with a canonry and an officialship of the same church, he held to the day of his death, which happened at Liverdun in 1616. He published three treatises: “De Legibus,” Triers, 1592; “De Beatitudine,” Ingolst. 1595; “De Peregrinatione,” Dusseld. 1604.

During the leisure he enjoyed, while confessor to the duchess of Cleves, he employed himself in that work which alone has made him known to posterity, in compiling “The Lives of the Kings, Bishops, Apostolical Men, and Writers of England.” They were comprised in four large volumes; the first containing the lives of the kings; the second, of the bishops; the third, of the apostolical men; and the fourth, of'the writers. The three first are preserved in the archives of the collegiate church of Verdun: the fourth only was published, and that after his decease, at Paris, 1619, and 1623, in 4to, under the title of “J. Pitsei Angli, &c. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis tomus primus;” but the running title, and by which it is oftenest quoted, is, “De Illustribus Angliae. Scriptoribus.” It is divided into four parts; the first of which is preliminary matter, “De laudibus Historiae, de Antiquitate Ecclesise Britannicae, de Academiis tarn antiquis Britonum quam recentioribus Anglorum.” The second part contains the lives and characters of three hundred English writers; the third is an “Appendix of some Writers, in alphabetical order, and divided into four Centuries,”- together with “An Index of English Books, written by unknown Authors.” The last part consists of “Fifteen Alphabetical Indexes,” forming a kind of epitome of the whole work. Pits appears to have acted in a very disingenuous manner, especially in the second part of this work; the greater part of which he has taken without any acknowledgment from Bale’s book “De Scriptoribus majoris Britanniae,” while he takes every opportunity to shew his abhorrence both of Bale and his work. He pretends also to follow, and familiarly quotes, Leland’s “Collectanea de Scriptoribus Anglise;” whereas the truth is, as Wood and others have observed, he never saw them, being but twenty years of age, or little more, when he left the nation: neither was it in his power afterwards, if he had been in England, because they were kept in such private hands, that few protestant antiquaries, and none of those of the church of Rome, could see or peruse them. What therefore he pretends to have from Leland, he takes at second-hand from Bale. His work is also full of partiality: for he entirely leaves out Wickliflfe and his followers, together with the Scots and Irish writers, who are for the most part commemorated by Bale; and in their room gives an account of the Roman catholic writers, such especially as had left the kingdom, after the Reformation in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and sheltered themselves at Rome, Douay, Louvain, &c. This, however, is the best and most valuable part of Pits’s work. Pits was a man of abilities and learning. His style is clear, easy, and elegant; but he wants accuracy, and has fallen into many mistakes in his accounts of the British writers. His work, however, will always be thought of use, if it be only that “Historia quoquo modo scripta delectat.”

, an English poet, was born in 1699 at Blandford, the son of a physician much esteemed. He was, in 1714, received as a scholar into Winchester college, where he was distinguished by exercises of uncommon elegance; and, at his removal to New college in 1719, presented to the electors, as the product of his private and voluntary studies, a complete version of Lucan’s poem, which he did not then know to have been translated by Rowe. This is an instance of early diligence which well deserves to be recorded. The suppression of such a work, recommended by such uncommon circumstances, is to be regretted. It is indeed culpable, to load libraries with superfluous books; but incitements to early excellence are never superfluous, and from this example the danger is not great of many imitations. When he had resided at his college three years, he was presented to the rectory of Pimpern in Dorsetshire, 1722, by his relation, Mr. Pitt of Stratfeildsea in Hampshire; and, resigning his fellowship, continued at Oxford two years longer, till he became M. A. 1724. He probably about this time translated “Vida’s Art of Poetry,” which Tristram’s elegant edition had then made popular. In this translation he distinguished himself, both by the general elegance of his style, and by the skilful adaptation of his numbers to the images expressed; a beauty which Vida has with great ardour enforced and exemplified. He then retired to his living, a place very pleasing by its situation, and therefore likely to excite the imagination of a poet; where he parsed the rest of his life, reverenced for his virtue, and beloved for the softness of his temper, and the easiness of his manners. Before strangers he had something of the scholar’s timidity and diffidence; but, when he became familiar, he was in a very high degree cheerful and entertaining. His general benevolence procured general respect; and he passed a life placid and honourable, neither too great for the kindness of the low, nor too low for the notice of the great. At what time he composed his “Miscellany,” published in 1727, it is not easy nor necessary to know: those poems which have dates appear to have been very early productions. The success of his “Vida” animated him to a higher undertaking; and in his thirtieth year he published a version of the first book of the Jfeneid. This being commended by his friends, he some time afterwards added three or four more; with an advertisement in which he represents himself as translating with great indifference, and with a progress of which himself was hardly conscious. At last, without any further contention with his modesty, or any awe of the name of Dryden, he gave a complete English “Æneid,” which we advise our readers to peruse with that of Dryden. It will be pleasing to have an opportunity of comparing the two best translations that perhaps were ever produced by one nation of the same author. Pitt, engaging as a rival with Dryden, naturally observed his failures and avoided them; and, as he Wrote after Pope’s Iliad, he had an example of an exact, equable, and splendid versification. With these advantages, seconded by great diligence, he might successfully labour particular passages, and escape many errors. If the two versions are compared, perhaps the result will be, that Dryden leads the reader forward by his general vigour and sprightliness, and Pitt often stops him to contemplate the excellence of a single couplet; that Dryden’s faults are forgotten in the hurry of delight, and that Pitt’s beauties are neglected in the languor of a cold and listless perusal; that Pitt pleases the critics, and Dryden the people; that Pitt is quoted, and Dryden read. He did not long enjoy the reputation which this great work deservedly conferred; for he died April 15, 174S, and lies buried under a stone at Blandford, with an inscription, which celebrates his candour, and primitive si nplicity of manners; and says that he lived innocent, and died beloved; an encomium neither slight nor common, though modestly expressed.

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Though he held no place immediately from the crown, Mr. Pitt had for some time enjoyed that of groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, but resigned it in 1745; and continuing steady in his opposition to the measures of the ministry, experienced about the same time that fortune, which more than once attended him, of having his public services repaid by private zeal. The dowager duchess of Marlborough left him by will 10,000l. expressly for defending the laws of his country, and endeavouring to prevent its ruin. It was thought soon after an object of importance to obtain his co-operation with government, and in 1746 he was made joint vice-treasurer of Ireland; and in the same year treasurer, and pay-master-general of the army, and a privy-counsellor. In 1755, thinking it necessary to make a strong opposition to the continental connections then formed by the ministry, he resigned his places, and remained for some time out of office. But in December 1756, he was called to a higher situation, being appointed secretary of state for the southern department. In this high office he was more successful in obtaining the confidence of the public, than that of the king, some of whose wishes he thought himself bound to oppose. In consequence of this he was soon removed, with Mr. Legge, and some others of his friends. The nation, however, was not disposed to be deprived of the services of Mr. Pitt. The most exalted idea of him had been taken up throughout the kingdom: not only of his abilities, which were evinced by his consummate eloquence, but of his exalted, judicious, and disinterested patriotism. This general opinion of him, and in some degree of his colleagues, was so strongly expressed, not merely by personal honours conferred on them, but by addresses to the throne in their favour, that the king thought it prudent to restore them to their employments. On June 29, 1757, Mr. Pitt was again made secretary of state, and Mr. Legge chancellor of the exchequer, with other arrangements according to their wishes. Mr. Pitt was now considered as prime minister, and to the extraordinary ability of his measures, and the vigour of his whole administration, is attributed the great change which quickly appeared in the state of public affairs. It was completely shewn how much the spirit of one man may animate a whole nation. The activity of the minister pervaded every department. His plans, which were ably conceived, were executed with the utmost promptitude; and the depression which had arisen from torpor and ill success, was followed by exertion, triumph, and confidence. The whole fortune of the war was changed; in every quarter of the world we were triumphant; the boldest attempts were made by sea and land, and almost every attempt was fortunate. In America the French lost Quebec; in Africa their principal settlements fell; in the East-Indies their power was abridged, and in Europe their armies defeated; while their navy, their commerce, and their finances, were little less than ruined. Amidst this career of success king George the Second died, Oct. 25, 1760. His present majesty ascended the throne at a time when the policy of the French court had just succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of Spain. The family compact had been secretly concluded; and the English minister, indubitably informed of the hostile intentions of Spain, with his usual vigour of mind, had determined on striking the first blow, before the intended enemy should be fully prepared for action. He proposed in the privy council an immediate declaration of war against Spain, urging, with great energy, that this was the favourable moment, perhaps never to be regained, for humbling the whole house of Bourbon. In this measure he was not supported, and the nation attributed the opposition he encountered to the growing influence of the earl of Bute. Mr. Pitt, of much too high a spirit to remain as the nominal head of a cabinet which he was no longer able to direct, resigned his places on the 5th of October, 1761; when, as some reward for his eminent services, his wife was created baroness of Chatham in her own right, and a pension of three thousand pounds was settled on the lives of himself, his lady, and his eldest son.

No fallen minister ever carried with him more completely the confidence and regret of the nation, over whose councils he had presided: but the king was also popular at this time, and the war being continued by his new ministers with vigour and success, no discontent appeared till after the conclusion of peace. Our triumphs in the West Indies over both France and Spain, had particularly elated the spirits of the people, and it was conceived that we ought either to dictate a peace as conquerors, or continue the war till our adversaries should be more effectually humbled. With these ideas, when the preliminaries for peace were discussed in parliament, Mr. Pitt, though he had been for some time confined by a severe fit of the gout, went down to the House of Commons, and spoke for nearly three hours in the debate. He gave his opinion distinctly upon almost every article in the treaty, and, upon the whole, maintained that it was inadequate to the conquests, and just expectations of the kingdom. Peace was however concluded on the 10th of February, 1763, and Mr. Pitt continued unemployed. He had the magnanimity not to enter into that petulant and undiscriminating plan of opposition, which has so frequently disgraced the ill-judging candidates for power; but maintained his popularity in dignified retirement, and came forward only when great occasions appeared to demand his interference. One of these was the important question of general warrants in 1764; the illegality of which he maintained with all the energy of his genius and eloquence. A search or seizure of papers, without a specific charge alledged, would be, as he justly contended, repugnant to every principle of liberty. The most innocent man could not be secure. “But by the British constitution,” he continued, “every man’s house is his castle. Not that it is surrounded with walls and battlements. It may be a straw-built shed. Every wind of heaven may whistle round it. All the elements of nature may enter it. But the king cannot; the king dare not.”

When the discontents in America began to appear, on the occasion of the stamp act, Mr. Pitt again found a subject for his exertions. The repeal of that act being proposed in March 1766, by the new ministry of the Rockingham-party, Mr. Pitt, though not connected with them, very forcibly supported the measure, which was carried; whether wisely or fortunately, is still a matter of dispute. About this time died sir William Pynsent, of Burton Pynsent, in Somersetshire, a man of considerable property, who, through mere admiration of Mr. Pitt in his public character, disinherited his own relations, and made him heir to the bulk of his estate. It was certainly a remarkable proof of the very uncommon estimation in which this statesman was held, that a circumstance of this nature should have happened to him at two different periods of his life.

The Rockingham ministry proving unable to maintain its ground, a new administration was formed, and Mr. Pitt, in 1766, was made lord privy seal. At the same time he was created a peer, by the titles of viscount Pitt, of Burton Pynsent, in the county of Somerset, and earl of Chatham, in the county of Kent. Whatever might be his motives for accepting this elevation, he certainly sunk by it in popularity, at least as much as he rose in nominal dignity. The great commoner, as he was sometimes styled, had formed a rank to himself, on the sole basis of his talents and exertions, for which the titular honours, which he was now to participate with many others, could not in the public opinion compensate. Still it must be owned that the high and hereditary distinction of the peerage is a just and honourable object of ambition to a British commoner; which, if he attains it, as Mr. Pitt appears to have done, without any improper concession or stipulation, may be considered as the fair reward of past services, and the most permanent monument of public gratitude. Lord Chatham, whatever might be the cause, did not long continue in office; he resigned the place of lord privy seal on the 2d of November, 1768, and it was the last public employment which he ever accepted. He does not indeed appear to have been desirous of returning to office. He was now sixty; and the gout, by which he had been long afflicted, had become too frequent and violent in its attacks, to allow of close or regular application to business. In the intervals of his disorder he continued occasionally to exert himself, on questions of great magnitude, and was particularly strenuous in 1775, and the ensuing years, against the measures pursued by the ministers in the contest with America. Nevertheless, in all things he maintained his native spirit. When France began to interfere in the contest, he fired with indignation at the insult; and when, in 1778, it was thought necessary, after the repeated misfortunes of the war, to acknowledge the independence of America, he summoned up all the strength that remained within him, to pour out his disapprobation of a measure so inglorious. He did so in a speech of considerable energy, and being answered in the course of the debate by the duke of Richmond, seemed agitated with a desire to reply: but when he attempted to rise, the effort proved too violent for his debilitated constitution, and he sunk, in a kind of fit, into the arms of those who were near him. This extraordinary scene of a great statesman, almost dying in the last exertion of his talents, has been perpetuated by the pencil, and will live for ever in the memory of his countrymen. He did not long survive this effort. This debate happened on the 8th of April, 1778, and he died on the 11th of May ensuing.

All parties appeared now to contend to do honour to his memory: a public funeral and a monument in Westminster abbey, at the national expence, were immediately voted by parliament, and his majesty was addressed to settle upon his family “such a lasting provision as he in his wisdom and liberality should think fit, as a mark of the sense the nation entertains of the services done to this kingdom by that able statesman.” A pension of 4,000l. a-year was accordingly appointed by his majesty, out of the civil list revenue, and confirmed in perpetuity by parliament, to the heirs of the earl of Chatham, to whom the title should descend. The monument raised to his memory is highly worthy of the occasion, being perhaps the noblest effort of British sculpture. His figure appears upon it, at full length, in his parliamentary robes, and in the attitude of speaking; the accompaniments are grand and appropriate, and the inscription has a simple dignity, much more impressive than any pomp of words, announcing merely, that the king and parliament have paid this tribute to his merits.

The principal outlines of lord Chatham’s character, sagacity, promptitude, and energy, will be perceived in the foregoing narrative. The peculiar powers of his eloquence have been characterized since his death in language which will convey a forcible idea of it to every reader. “They who have been witnesses to the wonders of his eloquence, who have listened to the music of his voice, or trembled at its majesty; who have seen the persuasive gracefulness of his action, or have felt its force; they who have caught the flame of eloquence from his eye, who have rejoiced in the glories of his countenance, or shrunk from his frowns, will remember the resistless power with which he impressed conviction. But to those who have never seen or heard this accomplished orator, the utmost effort of imagination will be necessary, to form a just idea of that combination of excellence, which gave perfection to his eloquence. His elevated aspect, commanding the awe and mute attention of all who beheld him, while a certain grace in his manner, arising from a consciousness of the dignity of his situation, of the solemn scene in which he acted, as well as of his own exalted character, seemed to acknowledge and repay the respect which he received.—This extraordinary personal dignity, supported on the basis of his well-earned fame, at once acquired to his opinions an assent, which is slowly given to the arguments of other men. His assertions rose into proof, his foresight became prophecy.—No clue was necessary to the labyrinth illuminated by his genius. Truth came forth at his bidding, and realised the wish of the philosopher: she was seen, and beloved.”—We have omitted some parts of this spirited character because not written with equal judgment: but the result of the whole is, that while he sought, with indefatigable diligence, the best and purest sources of political information, he had a mind which threw new lights upon every topic, and directed him with more certainty than any adventitious aid. Another account of his extraordinary powers, more concise, but drawn with wonderful spirit, is attributed to the pen of Mr. Wilkes. “He was born an orator, and from nature possessed every outward requisite to bespeak respect, and even awe. A manly figure, with the eagle eye of the famous Condé, fixed your attention, and almost commanded reverence the moment he appeared; and the keen lightnings of his eye spoke the high spirit of his soul, before his lips had pronounced a syllable. There was a kind of fascination in his look when he eyed any one askance. Nothing could withstand the force of that contagion. The fluent Murray has faultered, and even Fox (afterwards lord Holland) shrunk back appalled, from an adversary, ‘ fraught with fire unquenchable,’ if I may borrow the expression of our great Milton. He had not the correctness of language so striking in the great Roman orator (we may add, and in his son), but he had the verba ardentia, the bold glowing words.”—Lord Chesterfield has given a more general picture of his character, in the following words: “Mr. Pitt owed his rise to the most considerable post and power in this kingdom, singly to his own abilities. In him they supplied the want of birth and fortune, which latter, in others too often supply the want of the former. He was a younger brother, of a very new family, and his fortune was only an annuity of one hundred pounds a-year. The army was his original destination, and a cornetcy of horse his first and only commission in it. Thus unassisted by favour or fortune, he had no powerful protector to introduce him into business, and (if I may use that expression) to do the honours of his parts; but their own strength was fully sufficient. His constitution refused him the usual pleasures, and his genius forbid him the idle dissipations of youth; for so early as at the age of sixteen he was the martyr of an hereditary gout. He therefore employed the leisure which that tedious and painful distemper either procured or allowed him, in acquiring a great fund of premature and useful knowledge. Thus by the unaccountable relation of causes and effects, what seemed the greatest misfortune of his life, was perhaps the principal cause of its splendor. His private life was stained by no vice, nor sullied by any meanness. All his sentiments were liberal and elevated. His ruling passion was an unbounded ambition, which, when supported by great abilities, and crowned with great success, makes what the world calls a great man. He was haughty, imperious, impatient of contradiction, and overbearing; qualities which too often accompany, but always clog great ones. He had manners and address, but one might discover through them too great a consciousness of his own superior talents. He was a most agreeable and lively companion in social life, and had such a versatility of wit, that he would adapt it to all sorts of conversation. He had also a most happy turn to poetry, but he seldom indulged, and seldom avowed it. He came young into parliament, and upon that theatre he soon equalled the oldest and the ablest actors. His eloquence was of every kind, and he excelled in the argumentative, as well as in the declamatory way. But his invectives were terrible, and uttered with such energy of diction, and such dignity of action and countenance, that he intimidated those who were the most willing and best able to encounter him. Their arms fell out of their hands, and they shrunk under the ascendant which his genius gained over theirs.” As a proof of this wonderful power, it is related that sir Robert Walpole scarcely heard the sound of his voice in the House of Commons, when he was alarmed and thunder-struck. He told his friends, that he would be glad at any rate, “to muzzle that terrible cornet of horse.” That minister would have promoted his rise in the army, if he would have given up his seat in the house.

A small volume has recently been published by lord Grenville, containing letters from lord Chatham to his nephew, the late Thomas Pitt, lord Camelford, replete with excellent advice, in an easy, affectionate, and not inelegant style. In early life it has been noticed that he had a turn for poetry, which occupations of greater moment interrupted. Lord Orford, and his able continuator Mr. Park, have mentioned a few of his verses.

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

To reconcile themselves to this disappointment, and perhaps to regain ground with the public, the ministers industriously circulated the report that the bill owed its rejection to secret intrigue and undue influence. It was said that lord Temple, afterwards the marquis of Buckingham, had demanded a private audience of his majesty, and represented the danger in such a light, that directions were sent to all the noblemen connected with the court to vote against it. This, however, had it been true in its full extent, made no difference in the public opinion. In a case of such danger, a departure from the ordinary forms was not thought to bear any unfriendly aspect to the welfare of the state; and some were of opinion that all which lord Temple was supposed to communicate, must have already occurred to his majesty’s reflection. The consequence, however, was, that the ministry resigned their places, and in the new arrangement, Mr. Pitt, whose fitness for office was no longer a doubt, was made first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer.

His appearance, at the early age of twenty-four in this high character, was as much applauded on the part of the nation at large, as it was ridiculed and despised by his opponents, as the arrogant assumption of a stripling who owed to accident or intrigue, what a few weeks or months must certainly deprive him of. For some time, indeed, all this seemed not very improbable. The adherents of the coalition-ministry, in the House of Commons, had suffered no great diminution, and formed yet so considerable a majority, that when Mr. Pitt introduced his own bill into the House for the regulation of India affairs, it was rejected by 222 against 214. In this state matters remained for some months, during which meetings were held of the leading men of both parties, with a view to a general accommodation; but as Mr. Pitt’s previous resignation was demanded as a sine qua non, he determined to adhere in the utmost extremity to the sovereign by whom he had been called into office, and the people by whom he found himself supported. After many unavailing efforts, therefore, he determined on a step which, had his cause been less popular, might have been fatal to his sovereign as well as to himself. This was a dissolution of parliament, which took place in the month of March 1784; and although during the general election the country was thrown, by the struggles of the parties, into a greater degree of political heat and irritation than ever was known, and although some of his higher opponents greatly embarrassed their estates and families by the most wasteful expenditure, in order to secure the return of their friends, above thirty of the latter, all men of consideration, were thrown out, and the minister was enabled to meet the new parliament with a decided majority, including almost the whole of that class that had the credit of patriotism and independence, but certainly excluding a mass of talent such as few ministers have had to encounter.

The first important measure introduced into this parliament was the India Bill rejected by the last, which was passed; and, with some few alterations, constitutes the system by which the affairs of the East India company have ever since been managed. Another important plan, executed by Mr. Pitt, was that for the prevention of smuggling. This, in all branches of the revenue, occupied his attention for some years afterwards, but his present object was the frauds on the revenue in the article of tea, which he obviated by what was called the Commutation Act, which took off the principal duties from tea, and supplied the deficiency by a large addition to the window-tax. This, if we remember right, was the first circumstance which occasioned some murmuring, and it was the first instance in which Mr. Pitt showed that he was not to be diverted from what he conceived would be generally a benefit, by any dread of the loss of popularity. If at this time he seems ambitious of any distinctive ministerial character, it was that of an able and successful minister of finance; and there cannot be a more decided proof of his having attained that honour, than that his plans are still operating, and have enabled the country to sustain for upwards of twenty years a war of unexampled expence, and at the same time to support feebler nations in recovering their independence from a tyranny to which they were thought to be irreversibly doomed.

In 1786, when few could have foreseen its future importance, he introduced a bill for setting apart a million annually for the purchase of stock, which sum was to be augmented by the interest of the stock so purchased. Perseverance in this plan, with occasional improvements, has already, amidst all the pressure of public burdens, extinguished between two and three hundred millions of debt, and produced a very considerable revenue to be applied to the same purpose. These effects his enemies are ready to acknowledge, but with a view to detract from his merit, they tell us that this was the least efficient of three plans given to him by Dr. Richard Price, and that for such an obligation he did not think it worth his while to make the smallest public acknowledgement. Whatever may be in this, the general system of finance now established was soon powerfully aided by various alterations in the mode of collecting taxes, and by a commercial treaty with France, concluded in 1787, so much in favour of our merchants, as to occasion considerable dissatisfaction among those of France.

Among the subsequent measures, in which Mr. Pitt was personally concerned, we may notice his acceding to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings; and his joining in the support of the established church by opposing the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, in both which he agreed with the majority, although in the latter he disappointed the hopes of the various sects of dissenters. His interference also to preserve the power of the Stadtholder in Holland, was a popular measure. But he was less successful in two other instances of interference in continental politics, the one to check the aggrandizement of Russia under the empress Catherine, which the parliament forced him to abandon; and the other a dispute with Spain respecting the fur-trade at Nootka Sound, which was equally unpopular, and at length was adjusted by a convention.

The second great æra of Mr. Pitt’s public life was now approaching, in which his power and popularity arose to the greatest height in the very moment when in all human probability he was about to be deprived of both. In the autumn of 1788, the country was thrown into a state of alarm by a calamity which rendered his majesty incapable of exercising the royal functions. Parliament having been prorogued to Nov. 20, it became necessary it should meet that day, as the sovereign, by whom only it could be further prorogued, was not in a situation to assert his prerogative. In the mean time, the leaders of the different parties who were interested in the event, assembled in the capital; and an express was dispatched to Mr. Fox, then absent on the continent, to accelerate his return. This occurrence gave occasion to a display of the firmness and decision of Mr. Pitt’s character. In this article we cannot enter into many particulars; but we may observe, that the first material question brought up by this event was, in whom the office of regent was vested The prince of Wales being then connected with the party in opposition, Mr. Fox contended that the regency devolved upon him as a matter of course; while, on the other hand, Mr. Pitt supported the doctrine, that it lay in the two remaining branches of the legislature to fill up the office, as they should judge proper; admitting, at the same time, that no other person than the prince could be thought of for the office. By adopting this principle, he carried with him the concurrence as well of those who were attached to the popular part of the constitution, as of the king’s friends, whose great object was to secure his return to power, on the cessation of his malady; and he was enabled to pass a bill, greatly restricting the power of the regent, which his majesty’s timely recovery in the beginning of 1789 rendered unnecessary; but such was the general conviction of its propriety, that on a subsequent more melancholy occasion, the minister of the day, Mr. Perceval, found no great difficulty in reviving it, and it became the rule of the present regency. Mr. Pitt was now left to pursue his plans of internal economy, without those interruptions to which he had lately been subjected. He had received, during the discussions on the regency, very decisive tokens of esteem from many of the great public bodies in the kingdom; and he had the satisfaction of knowing, that the firm and steady conduct which he observed, on a question peculiarly calculated to try the firmness, steadiness, and consistency of a public character, had obtained for him, in a very marked manner, the confidence of their majesties, and greatly increased his popularity throughout the nation.

The third great æra in Mr. Pitt’s life, and which, beyond all preceding parts of his conduct, will determine his character with posterity, was the French revolution, an event the most momentous in its consequences that modern history records. The influence of this vast convulsion could not be viewed, by the politician and the minister of a great empire, but in a double light, as exerted upon France itself, and upon the neighbouring states. In both cases, Mr. Pitt took up the opinion that it afforded just cause for jealousy, and he was the more strengthened in this opinion from observing the effects which the conduct of the French had already produced in this country. It is allowed by his enemies that he did not precipitately rush into war with France, or interfere in the affairs of that country, while the French seemed to be operating a change by means which were rational; and while their only objects seemed to be a representative government and a limited monarchy. It was not until they had destroyed the freedom of their representatives by the terrifying influence of clubs and parties more powerful than their legalized assemblies, and until they had dragged their helpless sovereign to the scaffold, that he saw the danger that would accrue to every country where such measures should be considered as a precedent. In England, it might have been thought that the enormities which preceded and followed the execution of the French king, would have excited universal abhorrence; that a moral, thinking, and industrious people, prosperous beyond all other nations in arts and commerce, and secure beyond all others in the essentials of liberty, would have found no provocation to imitate the most inhuman barbarities of the darkest ages. It soon, however, appeared that although the majority of the nation was disposed to contemplate what had happened in France, with the abhorrence it was naturally fitted to create, a party was arising, selected indeed from the lower and illiterate orders, but guided by leaders of some knowledge, and of great activity and resolution, who seemed determined on a close imitation of all the licentiousness of France, and whose attacks were at once directed against the throne, the state, and the church. For some time their sentiments were considerably disguised. They affected moderation, and derived too much countenance from those who really were inclined to moderate changes, moderate reforms; and, with no little art, they revived the popular delusions of annual parliaments and universal suffrage; but moderation was neither the characteristic nor the object of this party: and finding themselves for some time unnoticed by government, they began to disdain the protection of their insignificance, and boldly avowed that they did not mean to leave the accomplishment of their projected changes to any of the legal authorities. In imitation of the French clubs, they were to produce the effect by self-created societies that should dictate to parliament, and when parliament was completely overawed, supply its place.

Such were the effects which the proceedings in France had already produced in England, among a party, which, if not originally numerous, was fast increasing, when Mr. Pitt thought it necessary to interfere. In taking this step he was accused of precipitation and of severity: the dangers he dreaded were represented as in a great measure imaginary; and the plan he adopted was said to be pregnant with mischief to the freedom of the press. It appeared, however, in consequence of inquiries instituted, that had he exercised a longer forbearance, the greatest of the dangers he apprehended must have followed in regular progress. Forbearance, in the republican language of the day, was “timidity, and the happy consequence of the vigour and spirit of the people.” It was time therefore to set the question at rest by appealing to the nation at large; and Mr. Pitt had no sooner begun the experiment of checking a licentiousness so dangerous and unprovoked, than he was supported by the general mass of the people, who assembled in every county, city, town, and village, to testify their satisfaction with the constitution as then administered, and to offer their lives and fortunes in support of the government under which they had flourished. It has been objected to Mr. Pitt by his opponents that in some instances he followed, rather than produced, public opinion: why this should be an objection with those hold public opinion sacred, we know not. In the present instance, however, it may be allowed as a matter of fact, and it is a fact very honourable to the people of England, that he had, at this crisis, only to anticipate their wishes, and that in consequence of the precautions he took, harsh as they might have been thought at any other time, all the dangers of internal disturbance gradually disappeared, and the wild theories that had been propagated from the press either appeared ridiculous, or became obsolete.

With respect to the origin of the war with France, there was long a controversy turning on the question, whether it might not have been avoided by Great Britain preserving her relations of amity with the republican government of that nation. The party in opposition to Mr. Pitt contended that this was practicable, and the minister therefore was long censured as the cause, and held accountable for all the consequences of that war. The opinion of the minister, however, was, that enough had occurred in France to convince us that no relations of amity could be preserved with a country, which had decreed not only to spread its anarchical principles, but to send its arms to every people that sought its assistance. A negociation, indeed, had been opened between the French minister in this country, and lord Grenville, secretary of state, but was conducted on the part of the former in such a manner as to prove fruitless. The very last propositions offered by the French minister, lord Grenville said, involved new grounds of offence, which would prove a bar to every kind of negociation. The pretended explanations, his lordship added, were insults rather than concessions or apologies; and the motives which had induced his sovereign to prepare for violent extremities, still existed in full force; nor would the preparations be discontinued or omitted, “while the French retained that turbulent and aggressive spirit which threatened danger to every nation in Europe.” By a subsequent communication in the king’s name, the French minister was ordered to quit the realm within eight days. This mandate was considered by the French as equivalent to a declaration of war; and, as soon as the intelligence reached Paris, the convention declared that the king of Great Britain, and the Stadtholder of the United Provinces, were to be treated as enemies of the republic.

What has been termed the system or the principle of Mr. Pitt in commencing and continuing the war with France, cannot perhaps be better expressed than in the above language of lord Grenville. Mr. Pitt considered it as our duty to continue it, “while the French retained that turbulent and aggressive spirit which threatened danger to every nation in Europe,” and which at length actually destroyed the independence of every nation in Europe, and ended in an attempt at universal empire, and slavish subjection to the ruler of France. It was Mr. Pitt’s opinion, and the opinion of all who acted with him, of the great majority of parliament and of the people at large, that no peace could be permanent or secure with France until she had returned to her proper station among the nations of Europe, admitted of the independence of other nations, and contented herself with the territories she possessed at the commencement of the revolution. On this principle the war was instituted, and on this principle it was supported at a risk and an expense beyond all precedent, but with a success so inadequate to produce the wished-for result, that when the opposition represented the continuance of it as obstinacy and infatuation, they seemed to speak a language which events fully justified. On our own element, our success was so great as to raise the character of our navy beyond all precedent; under such men as Howe, St. Vincent, Duncan, and Nelson, the navies of France, Spain, and Holland were almost annihilated, while ours had become, humanly speaking, invincible. Mr. Pitt was therefore blamed for not confining himself to a naval war, and his sending troops to join the powers of Europe in league against France, was represented as a species of Quixotism which would soon prove its own absurdity. All this for some years seemed confirmed by events. The French armies not only out-numbered those sent against them, but acquired a military skill absolutely new in their history. So frequent and decisive were their victories that all resistance seemed in vain, and either by valour or treachery they were enabled to dissolve every confederacy formed against them. Still the English minister saw nothing in this to prove his original opinion to be wrong; France, he conceived, must be ruined at last by successes of which she did not know how to make the proper use. With every extension of territory, she carried a portion of tyranny and a system of plunder and destruction, that must one day excite an effectual resistance in the nations which she had deluded by offers of liberty and friendship. Mr. Pitt and his supporters, therefore, persisted in the opinion that France must at last yield to some confederacy or other; and when the state of Europe was such as to render it unwise to send English troops to join the confederates, he conceived that no better use could be made of the annual supplies than to subsidize the powers that were still willing to take the field. He even determined to continue the struggle when, in 1800, Bonaparte, the most successful of the French generals, had assumed the sovereign power, under the name of consul, and addressed a letter to our king intimating a desire for peace. The answer of our minister was, that it would be useless to negociate while the French seemed to cherish those principles which had involved Europe in a long and destructive war. And although he gave his assent to the experiment made by Mr. Addington in 1801, to conclude a peace with the French government, he soon had reason to revert to his former sentiments, and when recalled into office in 1804, again exerted all the vigour of his character to render the contest successful.

He did not, however, live to witness that glorious and wonderful termination which was at last brought about by a continuance of the same system he all along pursued, and which finally ended in the conquest of France, the annihilation of her armies, and the banishment of her ruler. The last event of importance in Mr. Pitt’s life-time was the fatal battle of Austerlitz, and he was at this time in a state of health ill calculated to meet this stroke. He had, from an early period of life, given indications of inheriting his father’s gouty constitution, with his talents, and it had been thought necessary to make the liberal use of wine a part of his ordinary regimen, a stimulant which, added to the cares and exertions of office during his long and momentous administration, brought on a premature exhaustion of the vital powers. In December 1805, he was recommended to go to Bath, but the change afforded him no permanent relief. On the 11th of January he returned to his seat at Putney, in so debilitated a state, as to require four days for the performance of the journey. The physicians, even yet, saw no danger, and they said there was no disease, but great weakness, in consequence of an attack of the gout. On the following Sunday he appeared better, and entered upon some points of public business with his colleagues in office: the subject was supposed to relate to the dissolution of the new confederacy, by the peace of Presburgh, which greatly agitated him. On the 17th, at a consultation of his physicians, it was agreed, that though it was not advisable he should attend to business for the next two months, yet there was hope he would be able to take a part in the House of Commons in the course of the winter. On the 20th, however, he grew much worse, and his medical friends now saw that he was in the most imminent danger, and that, probably, he had not many hours to live. The bishop of Lincoln, who never left him during his illness, informed him of the opinion now entertained by sir Walter Farquhar, and requested to administer to him the consolations of religion. Mr. Pitt asked sir Walter, who stood near his bed, “How long do you think I have to live?” The physician answered that he could not say, at the same time he expressed a faint hope of his recovery. A half smile on the patient’s countenance shewed that he placed this language to its true account. In answer to the bishop’s request to pray with him, Mr. Pitt replied, “I fear I have, like too many other men, neglected prayer too much, to have any ground for hope that it can be efficacious on a death-bed—but,” making an effort to rise as he spoke, “I throw myself entirely on the mercy of God.” The bishop then read the prayers, and Mr. Pitt appeared to join in them with a calm and humble piety. He desired that the arrangement of his papers and the settlement of his affairs might be left to his brother and the bishop of Lincoln. Adverting to his nieces, the daughters of earl Stanhope by his elder sister, for whom he had manifested the sincerest affection, he said, “I could wish a thousand or fifteen hundred a-year to be given them; if the public should think my long services deserving of it.” He expressed also much anxiety respecting major Stanhope, that youthful hero, who fell a sacrifice to his valour at Corunna, in company with his friend and patron, general sir John Moore, and his brother, who was also at Corunna at the same time, and who has been engaged in all the great battles in the peninsula, and more than once severely wounded in his country’s service. Mr. Pitt died about four o'clock in the morning of the 23d of January 1806, in the 47th year of his age. A public funeral was decreed to his honour by parliament, and 40,000l. to pay those debts which he had incurred in his country’s service. Public monuments have been since erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey, in the Guildhall of the city of London, and by many public bodies in different parts of the kingdom.

Mr. Pitt possessed no particular advantages of person or physiognomy, but as a speaker he was thought to be without a rival; such was the happy choice of his words, the judicious arrangement of his subject, and the fascinating effect of a perennial eloquence, that his wonderful powers were acknowledged even by those who happened to be prepossessed against his arguments. In his financial speeches he manifested a perspicuity, eloquence, and talent, altogether wonderful; which carried the audience along with him in every arithmetical statement, left no calculation obscure or ambiguous, and impressed the House, at its close, with tumultuous admiration. When employed, say his opponents, in a good cause, he was irresistible; and in a bad one he could dazzle the judgment, lead the imagination captive, and seduce the heart, even while the mind remained firm and unconvinced. Yet they allow that although ambition and the love of power were his ruling passions, his mind was elevated above the meanness of avarice. His personal integrity was unimpeached, and so far was he from making use of his opportunities to acquire wealth, that he died involved in debts, which negligence, and the demands of his public station, rather than extravagance, had obliged him to contract; for his tastes were simple, and he does not appear to have had a fondness for splendour or parade. His private character has been drawn by a friend (the right hon. George Rose), and it corresponds perfectly with other accounts that we have had from those much in his confidence, and who were frequently in his company at times when the man and not the minister was displayed in all its native colours: “With a manner somewhat reserved and distant in what might be termed his public deportment, no man was ever better qualified to gain, or more successful in fixing, the attachment of his friends, than Mr. Pitt. They saw all the powerful energies of his character softened into the most perfect complacency and sweetness of disposition in the circles of private life, the pleasures of which no one more cheerfully enjoyed, or more agreeably promoted, when the paramount duties he conceived himself to owe the public, admitted of his mixing in them. That indignant severity with which he met and subdued what he considered unfounded opposition; that keenness of sarcasm with which he expelled and withered, as it might be said, the powers of most of his assailants in debate, were exchanged in the society of his intimate friends for a kindness of heart, a gentleness of demeanour, and a playfulness of good humour, which no one ever witnessed without interest, or participated without delight.”

, one of the seven sages of Greece, of whom some sayings are preserved, but not many particulars of his life, was born at Mitylene in the island of Lesbos, about 649 B. C. By his valour and abilities he obtained the sovereignty of his native city, which he employed only to lead the people to happiness, by giving them the best laws he could devise. Having fulfilled this task, and put his laws into verse, according to the fashion of the times, that they might be more easily remembered, he resigned his authority, and returned to a private life. His fellow-­citizens would have rewarded his benefits by a large donation of land, but he positively refused to accept more than a circular portion, taking the cast of his javelin from the centre every way, as the measure of its circumference. “It is better,” he said, “to convince my country that I am sincerely disinterested, than to possess great riches.” He died about 579 B. C. aged seventy. Some of his sayings were, “The first office of prudence is to foresee threatening misfortunes, and prevent them. Power discovers the man. Never talk of your schemes before they are executed; lest, if you fail to accomplish them, you be exposed to the double mortification of disappointment and ridicule. Whatever you do, do it well. Do not that to your neighbour, which you would take ill from him. Be watchful for opportunities, &c.”

, an English divine, was born in the Isle of Wight, and became a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1652, where, after taking the degree of B. A. he removed to Lincoln college, and had the reputation of a good disputant. Having taken his master’s degree he gave offence to the then ruling party in the university, by a speech he made in the character of Terræ Filius, for which he was expelled, in 1658. On the restoration he was preferred to the rectory of Gatcombe in the Isle of Wight, proceeded in his degrees of B. and D. D. and was made one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. Dr. Morley, bishop of Winchester, gave him afterwards, the living of Holy Rood in Southampton, and the king the rectory of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, which he exchanged for that of St. Botolph Bishopsgate, London. This last he held at his death, along with the rectory of Gatcombe, his chaplainship, and the lectureship of Christchurch, Newgate-street. He died Dec. 28, 1687, and was buried at Gatcombe. Besides a few occasional sermons, he published, 1. “A private conference between a rich alderman and a poor country vicar,” &c. respecting the obligation of oaths, Lond. 1670, 8vo. 2. “A Discourse on Prayer,” &c. 1683, 8vo, and, which is still frequently to be met with. 3. “A discourse concerning the trial of Spirits,” against enthusiastic notions of inspiration, 1684, 8vo.

, whose name was Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, was born in 1405, at Corsignano in Sienna, where his father lived in exile. He was educated at the grammar-school of that place; but his parents being in low circumstances, he was obliged, in his early years, to submit to many servile employments. In 1423, by the assistance of his friends, he was enabled to go to the university of Sienna, where he applied himself to his studies with great success, and in a short time published several pieces in the Latin and Tuscan languages. In 1431 he attended cardinal Dominic Capranica to the council of Basil as his secretary. He was likewise in the same capacity with cardinal Albergoti, who sent him to Scotland to mediate a peace betwixt the English and Scots; and he was in that country when king James I. was murdered. Upon his return from Scotland, he was made secretary to the council of Basil, which he defended against the authority of the popes, both by his speeches and writings, particularly in a dialogue and epistles which he wrote to the rector and university of Cologn. He was likewise made by that council clerk of the ceremonies, abbreviator, and one of the duodecemviri, or twelve men, an office of great importance. He was employed in several embassies; once to Trent, another time to Frankfort, twice to Constance, and as often to Savoy, and thrice to Strasburg, where he had an intrigue with a lady, by whom he had a son: he has given an account of this affair in a letter to his father, in which he endeavours to vindicate himself with much indecent buffoonery. In 1439 he was employed in the service of pope Felix; and being soon after sent ambassador to the emperor Frederic, he was crowned by him with the poetic laurel, and ranked amongst his friends. In 1442 he was sent for from Basil by the emperor, who appointed him secretary to the empire, and raised him to the senatorial order. He could not at first be prevailed on to condemn the council of Basil, nor to go over absolutely to Eugenius’s party, but remained neuter. However, when the emperor Frederic began to favour Eugenius, Æneas likewise changed his opinion gradually. He afterwards represented the emperor in the diet of Nuremberg, when they were consulting about methods to put an end to the schism, and was sent ambassador to Eugenius: at the persuasion of Thomas Sarzanus, the apostolical legate in Germany, he submitted to Eugenius entirely, and made the following speech to his holiness, as related by John Gobelin, in his Commentaries of the life of Pius II. “Most holy father (said he), before I declare the emperor’s commission, give me leave to say one word concerning myself. I do not question but you have heard a great many things which are not to my advantage. They ought not to have been mentioned to you; but I must confess, that my accusers have reported nothing but what is true. I own I have said, and done, and written, at Basil, many things against your interests; it is impossible to deny it: yet all this has been done not with a design to injure you, but to serve the church. I have been in an error, without question; but I have been in just the same circumstances with many great men, as particularly with Julian cardinal of St. Angelo, with Nicholas archbishop of Palermo, with Lewis du Pont (Pontanus) the secretary of the holy see; men who are esteemed the greatest luminaries in the law, and doctors of the truth; to omit mentioning the universities and colleges which are generally against you. Who would not have erred with persons of their character and merit? It is true, that when I discovered the error of those at Basil, I did not at first go over to you, as the greatest part did; but being afraid of falling from one error to another, and by avoiding Charybdis, as the proverb expresses it, to run upon Scylla, I joined myself, after a long deliberation and conflict within myself, to those who thought proper to continue in a state of neutrality. I lived three years in the emperor’s court in this situation of mind, where having an opportunity of hearing constantly the disputes between those of Basil and your legates, I was convinced that the truth was on your side: it was upon this motive that, when the emperor thought fit to send me to your clemency, I accepted the opportunity with the utmost satisfaction, in hopes that I should be so happy as to gain your favour again: I throw myself therefore at your feet; and since I sinned out of ignorance, I entreat you to grant me your pardon. After which I shall open to you the emperor’s intentions.” This was the prelude to the famous retraction which Æneas Sylvius made afterwards. The pope pardoned every thing that was past; and in a short time made him his secretary, without obliging him to quit the post which he had with the emperor.

He was sent a second time by the emperor on an embassy to Eugenius, on the following occasion: the pope having deposed Thierry and James, archbishops and electors of Cologn and Treves, because they had openly declared for Felix and the council of Basil, the electors of the empire were highly offended at this proceeding; and at their desire the emperor sent Æneas Sylvius to prevail on the pope to revoke the sentence of deposition.

Upon the decease of pope Eugenius, Æneas was chosen by the cardinals to preside in the conclave till another pope should be elected. He was made bishop of Trieste by pope Nicholas, and went again into Germany, where he was appointed counsellor to the emperor, and had the direction of all the important affairs of the empire. Four years after he was made archbishop of Sienna; and in 1452 he attended Frederic to Rome, when he went to receive the imperial crown. Æneas, upon his return, was named legate of Bohemia and Austria. About 1456, being sent by the emperor into Italy, to treat with pope Callixtus III. about a war with the Turks, he was made a cardinal. Upon the decease of Callixtus, in 1458 he was elected pope by the name of Pius II. After his promotion to the papal chair he published a bull, retracting all he had written in defence of the council of Basil, with an apology which shows how little he was influenced by principle: “We are men (says he), and we have erred as men; we do not deny, but that many things which we have said or written, may justly be condemned: we have been seduced, like Paul, and have persecuted the church of God through ignorance; we now follow St. Austin’s example, who, having suffered several erroneous sentiments to escape him in his writings, retracted them; we do just the same thing: we ingenuously confess our ignorance, being apprehensive lest what we have written in our youth should occasion some error, which may prejudice the holy see. For if it is suitable to any person’s character to maintain the eminence and glory of the first throne of the church, it is certainly so to ours, whom the merciful God, out of pure goodness, has raised to the dignity of vicegerent of Christ, without any merit on our part. For all these reasons, we exhort you and advise you in the Lord, not to pay any regard to those writings, which injure in any manner the authority of the apostolic see, and assert opinions which the holy Roman church does not receive. If you find any thing contrary to this in our dialogues and letters, or in any other of our works, despise such notions, reject them, follow what we maintain now; believe what I assert now I am in years, rather than what I said when I was young: regard a pope rather than a private man; in short, reject Æneas Sylvius, and receive Pius II.”

Pius behaved in his high office with considerable spirit and activity; but more as a temporal prince, than the head of the church. During his pontificate he received ambassadors from the patriarchs of the east: the chief of the embassy was one Moses, archdeacon of Austria, a man well versed in the Greek and Syriac languages, and of a distinguished character. He appeared before his holiness in the name of the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; he told his holiness, that the enemy who sows tares having prevented them till then from receiving the decree of the council of Florence, concerning the union of the Greek and Latin churches, God had at last inspired them with a resolution of submitting to it; that it had been solemnly agreed to, in an assembly called together for that purpose; and that for the future they would unanimously submit to the pope as vicegerent of Jesus Christ. Pius commended the patriarchs for their obedience, and ordered Moses’s speech to be translated into Latin, and laid up amongst the archives of the Roman church. A few days after the arrival of these ambassadors from the east, there came others also from Peloponnesus, who offered obedience to the pope, and he received them in the name of the church of Rome, and sent them a governor.

Pius, in the latter part of his pontificate, made great preparations against the Turks, for which purpose he summoned the assistance of the several princes in Europe; and having raised a considerable number of troops, he went to Ancona to see them embarked; where he was seized with a fever, and died the 14th of August, 1464, in the fifty-­ninth year of his age, and the seventh of his pontificate. His body was carried to Rome, and interred in the Vatican. The Roman catholic writers are profuse in their praises of this pope, whose character, however, whether private or public, will not bear the strictest scrutiny. His secretary, John Gobelin, published a history of his life, which is supposed to have been written by this pope himself: it was printed at Rome in quarto in 1584 and 1589 and at Francfort in folio in 1614. We have an edition of Æneas Sylvius’s works, printed at Basil, in folio, in 1551. They consist of Memoirs of the Council of Bâle; The History of the Bohemians from their origin till A. D. 1458; Cosmography, in two books; the History of Frederick III. whose vice-chancellor he was; a Treatise on the education of children; a Poem on the Passion of Jesus Christ; a collection of 482 Letters; Historia rerum ubicunque gestarum; the first part only of which was published at Venice in 1477, fol. Euryalus and Lucretia, a romance. A collection of all these, with his life, was also published at Helmstadt in 1700, fol. He was, notwithstanding the applauses of the catholics, a man of great ambition, and great duplicity. He has been praised for his wise and witty sayings, but he was also famous for sayings of a very different description. He indulged himself, respecting the reformers, in a rancour of language which must be offensive to every sober Christian; and his letters show that he indulged great licence in point of morals. Mr. Gilpin, after selecting some striking proofs of this, says, “Such is the testimony which Æneas Sylvius hath given us of himself. It may serve to invalidate what he hath said of others; as it seems entirely to show that his censures are founded upon a mere difference of opinion, without any regard to practice, which is one of the characteristics of bigotry. They who are not acquainted with the history of this writer will be surprised to hear that the man of whom we have this authentic character, was not only a pope, but is acknowledged by the generality of popish writers, as one of the most respectable of all the Roman pontiffs.”

, the conqueror of Peru, celebrated rather for his abilities than for his virtues, his glory being tarnished by the cruelties which he practised towards those whom he had conquered, was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, by a very low woman, and apparently destined by his ungenerous parent not to rise above the condition of his mother, being put to the mean employment of keeping hogs. The genius of young Pizarro disdained this low occupation. He enlisted as a soldier, served some time in Italy, and then embarked for America, which offered at that period a strong allurement to every active adventurer. Distinguished by his utter disdain of every hardship and danger, he was soon regarded, though so illiterate that he was unable to read, as a man formed for command; and being settled in Panama, where the Spanish emigrants had found their sanguine expectations wholly disappointed, he united in 1524 with Diego de Almagro, another military adventurer, and Hernando Lucque, a priest, to prosecute discoveries to the eastward of that settlement. This attempt had frequently been made, but had failed through the inability of the persons concerned in it; it had now fallen into such hands as were calculated to make it successful, and their confederacy was sanctioned by the governor of Panama. The enterprise was begun in a very humble manner. Pizarro set sail with a single vessel, and, from universal ignorance of the climate, at the very worst season of the year, in November, when the periodical winds were precisely against his course. He had no success, nor was his colleague Almagro, who followed, more fortunate. After undergoing extreme hardships, and obtaining only a glimpse of a better country, the utmost they could do was to establish themselves in an island near the coast. Nothing could deter Pizarro from his enterprise; the refusal of further sanction from the governor, the desertion of all his associates, except thirteen, all was in vain. He remained with his small band, till, in spite of all obstacles, they obtained another vessel, with some reinforcements. They set sail again in 1526, and on the twentieth day after their departure, discovered the fertile coast of Peru. They were yet too weak to attempt the invasion of an empire so populous, and Pizarro contented himself with carrying back, by means of an amicable intercourse, such specimens of the wealth and civilization of the country as might invite others to accede to the enterprise. Unable to bring the governor of Panama to adopt his views, he returned to Spain, and explaining to that court the magnitude of the object, obtained every grant of authority he could wish, but no other assistance; and being left to his own resources, could have effected nothing had he not been assisted with money by Cortez, just then returned from Mexico. It was February 1531, before he and his associates were again able to sail from Panama on their great undertaking; and then their whole armament consisted only of three small vessels and 180 soldiers, thirty-six of whom were horsemen. When they landed in Peru, as they had the imprudence to attack the natives, instead of conciliating them, they were at first exposed to famine, and several other calamities. Pizarro, however, had the good fortune to enter Peru when the forces of the empire were divided by an obstinate civil war between Huascar the legitimate monarch, and Atahualpa (commonly called Atabalipa), his half brother. By degrees understanding the state of the country, Pizarro engaged to be the ally of Atahualpa, and under that pretence was permitted to penetrate unmolested to Caxamalca, twelve days’ journey within the country. He was received pacifically and with state, as the ambassador of a great monarch but, perfidiously taking advantage of the unsuspecting good faith of Atahualpa, he made a sudden attack, and took him prisoner. The exaction of an immense ransom, the division of which served to invite new invaders; the disgraceful breach of faith by which the king was kept a prisoner after his ransom was paid; and the detestable murder of him, a short time after, under the infamous mockery of a trial; with the insults superadded by bigotry, to make him die a Christian, without being able to comprehend that faith; all contribute to accumulate disgrace upon the head of the treacherous and unfeeling conqueror, and form such odious additions to the reproachful scenes acted by the Spaniards in America, as nothing can palliate or obliterate. Pizarro, favoured by the distracted state of Peru, which now increased, though Huascar had been put to death by order of his brother, and reinforced by more soldiers from Spain, proceeded in his conquests, and on Jan. 18, 1535, laid the foundation of Lima, called by him and his countrymen Ciudad de los Reyes. In 1537 he found a new enemy in his original associate Almagro, who claiming Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, as belonging to his jurisdiction, got possession of it. This, and other advantages gained by him, at once distressed and roused Pizarro. They came to an engagement in 1538, in which Almagro was defeated and taken prisoner; and, after an interval of confinement, was tried and executed. This was the last of the successes of Pizarro; the son and friends of Almagro conspired against him, and on June 26, 1541, he was assassinated by them in his palace, making a most resolute defence, well worthy of his long-tried courage. He was at this time advanced in years, though his exact age is not known. The glory he justly acquired by military talents, courage, and sagacity, would have placed him in the rank of heroes, had not his character been disgraced by the indelible stains of perfidy and cruelty.

, an eminent philologer of Hamburgh, where he was born in 1642, completed his studies at Helmstadt and Leipsic, and improved his talents by travelling in France and Italy. When he returned, he applied himself to the bar, and afterwards became professor of morals and eloquence, in which situation he continued twenty-four years. He was beloved by his pupils, and when he died, April 6, 1699, regretted by his countrymen in general, who had considered him as an oracle. His works are, 1. “A Dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous Authors,” published in 1708, in 2 vols. folio, by the care of Fabricius; a curious work, but abounding with faults. 2. “De jurisconsulto perito Liber,” 1693, 8vo. 3. “Carmina juvenilia,” Amst. 1667, 12mo. 4. “De arte excerpendi,” Hamburgh, 1689, 8vo, with several others, all testifying, and abundantly proving, his talents and erudition.

, a man of taste in various pursuits, but chiefly known as an engraver, was the son of Mr. Rowland Place, of Dinsdale, in the county of Durham. He was at first intended for the law, and was placed as a clerk to an attorney in London, with whom he resided until 1665, when a house he had taken being shut up on account of the plague, he left London and quitted his profession at the same time. He now turned projector, and expended considerable sums of money in attempting to make porcelaine, which he put in practice at the manor-­house of York. In this it is probable he had not due perseverance; for one Clifton, of Pontefract, took the hint from him, and realized a fortune. Who was his teacher as an artist is not known, and his works are very rare, for he painted, drew, etched, and engraved, merely for his own amusement; and as his productions prove him a man of great abilities, it is to be lamented that he had not equal application, and left many valuable designs unfinished. In the reign of Charles II. it is said he was offered a pension of 500l. to draw the royal navy, but he refused this sum, large as it then was, from a dislike of confinement and dependence. He died in 1728, and his widow, on quitting the manor-house at York, disposed of his paintings; among which was an admired picture of fowls, others of fishes and flowers unfinished, together with his own portrait by himself. He left behind him a daughter, who was married to Wadham Wyndham, esq. This lady was living in 1764.

His etchings, particularly of landscapes and birds, from Griffier, are admirable. The free style in which he treated the foliage of his trees, proves his judgment and good taste; and his portraits in mezzotinto are excellent. Among the latter, Strutt mentions bishop Crew, archbishop Sterne, Dr. Comber, dean of Durham, Henry Gyles, the artist, and general Lambert. In Thoresby’s Topography of Leeds are some churches drawn by Place; the plates for Godartius’s book of Insects are by him; and he also executed many views in Yorkshire.

, a learned protestant minister, and celebrated professor of divinity at Saumur, was descended from a noble and ancient family, and born in 1596. He gained great credit by his writings against the Socinians, but held a singular opinion concerning the imputation of Adam’s sin, which was condemned in a French synod. He died August 7, 1655, at Saumur, aged fifty-nine. His works were reprinted at Franeker, 1699, and 1703, 4to, 2 tom. The first contains a treatise “On Types;” treatises on “The imputation of Adam’s first Sin,” or, “The order of the Divine Decrees, and on Freewill,” with an “Abridgment of Theology:” the second volume contains his “Disputes against the Socinians,” the most important part of his works. He also wrote “An Examination of the arguments for and against the Sacrifice of the Mass,” 8vo.

, in Latin Plateanus, a learned French writer, was born at Angoulême in 1526. He applied with success to the study of jurisprudence, and in 1548 published a Latin paraphrase on the titles of the Imperial institutes, “De Actionibus, Exceptionibus et Interdictis,” in 4to. After this he was called to the bar of the parliament of Paris, and acquired the character of a learned, eloquent, and virtuous counsellor. Francis I. appointed him advocate of his court of aids at Paris, and he discharged the duties of that office with so much talent and integrity, that Henry II. nominated him his first president in the same court. He became, in consequence of hearing Calvin, a convert to the protestant religion in 1554, and made an open profession of it on the death of Francis II. On the breaking out of the civil war he retired to one of his houses in Picardy; but at the peace in 1562 vindicated himself before the king from the several charges which had been preferred against him. He was now appointed by the prince of Condé superintendant of the household, and accompanied his highness to the castle of Vè in the Valois, where he continued till Charles IX. granted the protestants advantageous terms of peace in 1569, that he might the more easily extirpate them. La Place, deceived by this treachery, returned to Paris, and was executing the office of president to the court of aids, when he was put to death in the most treacherous as well as barbarous manner in the general massacre of the protestants on St. Bartholomew’s day, in 1572, at the age of forty-six. His clear judgment and discrimination admirably qualified him for the office of magistrate. His chief works are, “Commentaries on the state of Religion, and of the Commonwealth, from 1556 to 1561;” “A Treatise on the right use of Moral Philosophy in connection with the Christian Doctrine;” and “A Treatise on the excellence of the Christian Man.”

, is said to have been the real name of a German author, who, tinder the fictitious one of Publius Porcius Porcellus, wrote the Latin poem entitled “Pugna porcorum,” consisting of 360 verses, in which every word begins with a P. It was published separately at Antwerp, in 1530, and is in the “Nugae venales,” &c. We have followed Baillet in- calling him Peter Placentinus, but Le Clerc says that his name was John Leo Placentius, a Dominican monk, who died about 1548, and that he composed an history of the bishops of Tongres, Maestricht, and Liege, taken out of fabulous memoirs, and several poems besides the “Pugna Porcorum.” In this last he imitated one Theobaldus,. a Benedictine monk, who flourished in the time of Charles the Bald, to whom he presented a panegyric on baldness, every word of which began with the letter C (calvities, baldness). Placentinus is said to have had another object,

, a protestant minister of great eminence, was born at Pontac in Berne, Jan. 19, 1639; and his father, who was a minister, trained him with the greatest attention and care. From 1660, he exercised the ministry in France; but, after the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he retired to Denmark, where he continued till the death of the queen in 1711; for that princess, apprised of his gr,eat merit, kept him near her. From Denmark he passed to Holland, and fixed himself first at the Hague then removed to Utrecht, where he died April 25, 1718, aged seventy-nine. He was the author of many works upon piety and morality, which are reckoned excellent in their kind; and of some of the polemic kind, against the church of Rome, and particularly against Bayle’s sceptical works. Among these we may enumerate, 1. “Nouveaux Essais de Morale,” 6 vols. 12mo. 2. “Traité de l'Orgueil,” the best edition of which is 1699, 3. “Traité de la Conscience.” 4. “Traité de la Restitution.” 5. “La Communion deVote,” the best edition of which is that of 1699. 6. “Traité des bonnes CEuvres en general.” 7, “Traité du Serment” 8. “Divers Traités sur des Matieres de Conscience.” 9. “La Mort des Justes.” 10. “Traité de l'Aumône.” 11. “Traité des Jeux de Hazard.” 12. “La Morale Chretien abregee,” 1701. 13. “Reflexions Chretiennes sur divers Sujets de Morale,” all in 12mo. 14. “De Insanabili Edclesia Romana, Scepticismo, Dissertatio,” 1686, or 1696, 4to. 15. “De l'Autorite des Sens contre la Transubstantiation,” 12mo. 16. “Traité de la Foi divine,” 4 vols. 4to. 17. “Dissertation sur divers Sujets de Theologie et de Morale,” 12mo, &c. Some of the above have been published in English, particularly the “Treatise on Conscience,” and that on the “Death of the Just.”

, an eminent printer, was born at Mont-Louis, near Tours, in 1514. He was instructed in his art at Caen, under Robert Mace, whence he went to Antwerp, and formed by degrees one of the greatest establishments for printing in Europe, and said indeed to be unique in its kind. The whole was upon the most magnificent scale, and even the building was accounted one of the ornaments of the city of Antwerp, and was so amply furnished with presses, founts of letter of all sorts, a foundery, and other matters necessary for the concern, as to have cost an immense sum of money. One of his biographers informs us that Plantin’s ideas were so magnificent as that he cast some founts in silver, and considered himself as having in.that respect done what no other printer had attempted but this is a mistake, as Robert Stephens had before indulged himself in the luxury of silver types, although not so rich a man as Plantin. In 1576 Thuanus paid a visit to Plantin, who, although not now in such good circumstances, still had seventeen presses at work, and the wages of his workmen amounted to 20O florins per day. But what redounds most to his credit was the number of men of learning whom he retained in his service, and rewarded with great liberality for their assistance in correcting the press. Among these were Victor Giselin; Theodore Pulman; Antony Gesdal; Francis Hardouin Cornelius Kilien and Francis Raphelengius, who became his son-in-law. Cornelius Kilien, one of the most learned and accurate of these, spent fifty years in this printing-house. The correctness, therefore, of Plantin’s editions, with such aid, is not much a matter of surprise, and will appear still less so when it is added that he was so fastidious as not altogether to trust to the assistants now mentioned, nor even to rely on his own skill and knowledge, both of which were great, but used also to hang up the proof sheets, after undergoing every possible degree of correction, in some conspicuous place, promising rewards for the detection of errors. In this, likewise, it will be observed, he followed the example of Robert Stephens. Such care on the part of Plantin, with the beauty of his types, and the judicious choice he made of the authors to be printed, gave him very high reputation among the learned of Europe, who are unbounded in their praises of him, particularly Lipsius, Scaliger, Antonio, Baronius, and Arias Montanus, who expatiates on his merits in the introduction to what may be termed Plantin’s capital work, the Antwerp Polyglot. The king of Spain gave him the title of archi-typographus, and accompanied this title with a salary sufficient to support it and his printing-office, and a kind of patent for the printing of certain works, particularly of the religious kind, with which, Bullart says, he almost exclusively served Europe and the Indies.

Besides his great establishment at Antwerp, Plantin set up another at Leyden, notwithstanding the troubles which prevailed in Holland and a third at Paris. The king of France would have fain persuaded him to return to his native country, but he preferred remaining at Antwerp, where, as just noticed, the king of Spain for some time rendered his situation easy, and even splendid. The printing office at Leyden he bestowed on his son-in-law, Raphelengius and took into partnership at Antwerp John Moret, who had married his second daughter. He gave likewise to Giles Beys, a Parisian, the office he had established at Paris, as a portion with his third daughter. After all this, and the constant expences of his living and establishment, he was enabled to leave a considerable fortune to his daughters, for he had no son. He died in 1589, aged seventy-five, and was interred in the great church at Antwerp, where a monument was erected to his memory. His device was a pair of compasses, with the motto “Lahore et constantia.”

, a Greek monk of Constantinople, who lived at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth century, is the author of a “Life of Æsop,” full of anachronisms, absurdities, and falsehoods and of 149 “Fables;” which, though he published them as Æsop’s, have been suspected to be his own. There is also a collection of Greek epigrams, under the title of “Anthologia,” made by this monk and it is but just to allow him the merit of having preserved many valuable compositions which otherwise would have been lost. His “Anthologia” was published at Florence, 1494, a very rare edition, reprinted in 1600. No particulars are known of Planudes, except that he suffered some persecution on account of his zeal for the Latin church, and, although he wrote a recantation, Bessarion thinks he was not sincere.

, an eminent physician, was born at Basle in 1536, and educated upder his father’s eye, who was likewise an eminent physician, and principal of the college of Basle. From this place he went to Montpellier, where he obtained the degree of doctor in 1556, and on his return to Basle, was admitted ad eundem, and commenced a very successful career of practice. In 15 60 he was appointed professor of medicine, and became the confidential physician of the princes and nobles of the Upper Rhine. He possessed an extensive knowledge of anatomy, botany, natural history, and other branches of science, and contributed much to the celebrity of his native university, in which he was a teacher upwards of fifty years. He died in July 1614, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. He left the following works: “De Corporis humani structura et usu Libri tres,” Basle, 1583, and 1603, folio; “De Febribus Liber,” Francfort, 1597; “Praxeos Medicae Tomi tres,” Basle, 1602; “Observationum Medicinalium Libri tres,” ibid. 1614, &c.; “Consilia Medica,” Francf. 1615, in the collection of Brendelius; “De Gangraena Epistola,” in the first century of the letters of Hildanus. After his death were published “Qusestionum Medicarum paradoxarum et eudoxarum Centuria posthuma,” Basle, 1625, edited by his brother, Thomas Plater and “Qusestiones Physiologicæ de partium in utero conformatione,” Leyden, 1650.

, so called, a learned Italian, and author of a “History of the Popes,” was born in 1421 at Piadena, in Latin Platina, a village between Cremona and Mantua; whence he took the name by which he is generally known. He first embraced a military life, which he followed for a considerable time but afterwards devoted himself to literature, and made a considerable progress in it. He went to Rome under Calixtus III. who was made pope in 1455 and procuring an introduction to cardinal Bessarion, he obtained some small benefices of pope Pius II. who succeeded Calixtus in 1458, and afterwards was appointed to an office which Pius II. created, called the college of apostolical abbreviators. But when Paul II. sue-‘ ceeded Pius in 1464, Platina’ s affairs took a very unfavourable turn. Paul hated him because he was the favourite of fris predecessor Pius, and removed all the abbreviators from their employments, by abolishing their places, notwithstanding some had purchased them with great sums of money. On this Platina ventured to complain to the pope, and most humbly besought him to order their cause to be judged by the auditors of the Rota. The pope was offended at the liberty, and gave him a very haughty repulse “Is it thus,” said he, looking at him sternly, “is it thus, that you summon us before your judges, as if you knew riot that all laws were centered in our breast Such is our decree they shall all go hence, whithersoever they please I am pope, and have a right to ratify or cancel the acts of others at pleasure.” These abbreviators, thus divested of their employments, used their utmost endeavours, for some days, to obtain audience of the pope, but were repulsed with contempt. Upon this, Platina wrote to him in bolder language “If you had a right to dispossess us, without a hearing, of the employments we lawfully purchased; we, on the other side, may surely be permitted to complain of the injustice we suffer, and the ignominy with which we are branded. As you have repulsed us so contumeliousjy, we will go to all the courts of princes, and intreat them to call a council; whose principal business shall be, to oblige you to shew cause, why you have divested us of our lawful possessions.” This letter being considered as an act of rebellion, the writer was imprisoned, and endured great hardships. At the end of four months he had his liberty, with orders not to leave Rome, and continued in quiet for some time; but afterwards, being suspected of a plot, was again imprisoned, and, with many others, put to the rack. The plot being found imaginary, the charge was turned to heresy, which also came to nothing; and Platina was set at liberty some time after. The pope then flattered him with a prospect of preferment, but died before he could perform his promises, if ever he meant to do so. On the accession, however, of Sixtus IV. to the pontificate, he recompensed Platina in some measure by appointing him in 1475, keeper of the Vatican library, which was established by this pope. It was a place of moderate income then, but was highly acceptable to Platina, who enjoyed it with great contentment until 1481, when he was snatched away by the plague. He bequeathed to Pomponius Laetus the house which he built on the Mons Quirinalis, with the laurel grove, out of which the poetical crowns were taken. He was the author of several works, the most considerable of which is, “De Vitis ac Gestis Summorum Pontificum” or, History of the Popes from St. Peter to Sixtus IV. to whom he dedicated it. This work is written with an elegance of style, and discovers powers of research and discrimination which were then unknown in biographical works. He seems always desirous of stating the truth, and does this with as much boldness as could be expected in that age. The best proof of this, perhaps, is that all the editions after 1500 were mutilated by the licensers of the press. The Account he gives of his sufferings under Paul II. has been objected to him as a breach of the impartiality to be observed by a historian but it was at the same time no inconsiderable proof of his courage. This work was first printed at Venice in 1479, folio, and reprinted once or twice before 1500. Platina wrote also, 2. “A History of Mantua,” in Latin, which was first published by Lambecius, with notes, at Vienna, 1675, in 4to. 3. “De Naturis rerum.” 4. “Epistolae ad diversos.” 5. “De honesta voluptate et valetutiine.” 6. “De falso et vero bono.” 7. “Contra amores.” 8. “De vera nobilitate.” 9. “De optimo cive.” 10.“Panegyricus in Bessarionem.” 11. “Oratio ad Paulum II.” 12. “De pace Italiae componenda et bello Turcico indicendo.” 13. “De flosculis lingua? Latin.” Sannazarius wrote an humorous epigram on the treatise “de honesta voluptate,” including directions for the kitchen, de Obsoniis, which Mr. Gresswell has. thus translated:

"Each pontiffs talents, morals, life, and end,

In this hit at the popes, Sannazarius forgot that the case was quite the reverse with these two works, the treatise “De honesta voluptate” being in fact composed before its author’s imprisonment and persecution under Paul II. and the Lives of the Popes not until he became keeper of the Vatican under Sixtus IV. The date of the first edition of the former, 1481, had probably misled Sannazarius. The lives of the popes was continued in subsequent editions by Onuphrius Panvinius and others. We have likewise an English translation and continuation by sir Paul Ricaut, which will be noticed more particularly hereafter.

, an able physician, was born at Chemnitz, in Misnia, in August 1694. He was first intended for merchandize, but the rapid progress which he made in his studies, induced his father to consent that he should direct his attention to medicine, for which he had manifested a strong inclination. He studied, therefore, at Leipsic, for three years, and afterwards at Halle, where he received the degree of doctor in September 1716. He then travelled through various parts of Europe, for four years, and finally settled at Leipsic in 1720. In 1721 he was appointed professor extraordinary of anatomy and surgery. In 1724 he obtained the chair of physiology, which had become vacant by the death of Rivinus; in 1737 he was promoted to the professorship of pathology and in 1747 to that of therapeutics. He was also nominated perpetual dean of the faculty, and consulting physician to the court of Saxony. He did not live long, however, to 6njoy these flattering distinctions; for he was carried off suddenly on the 19th of December 1747, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, by a paroxysm of asthma.

He left only three different works, the first of which, entitled “Institutiones Chirurgise Rationalis, turn medicae, turn manualis,” Leipsic, 1745, was published by himself. It passed through several editions. The second, entitled “Opusculorum Chirurgicorum et Anatomicorum Tomi duo: Dissertationes et Prolusiones,” ibid. 1749, was edited by his son, Frederic Plainer, a professor of law. And the third, entitled “Ars medendi singulis morbis accommodata,” ibid. 1765, which had been bequeathed by the author to his pupil J. B. Boehmer, upon condition that it should not be published, was printed by a bookseller, Fritsch, into whose hands a copy of it fell eighteen years after the author^s death.

, the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, and whose sect outlived every other, was by descent an Athenian, but born in the island of Ægina, then subject to Athens. His origin is traced back, on his father Aristo’s side, to Codrus; and on that of his mother Pericthiohe, through five generations, to Solon. The time of his birth is commonly placed in the first year of the eighty-eighth olympiad, or B.C. 428; but Brucker thinks, it may perhaps be more accurately fixed in the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad, or B. C. 430. He gave early indications of an extensive and original genius, and was instructed in the rudiments of letters by the grammarian Dionysius, and trained in athletic exercises by Aristo of Argos. He applied also with great diligence to the arts of painting and poetry, and produced an epic poem, which he had the wisdom afterwards, upon comparing it with Homer, to commit to the flames. At the age of twenty years, he composed a dramatic piece, which was about to be performed on the theatre, but the day before the intended exhibition, he happened to hear a discourse of Socrates, which induced him to withdraw the piece, and relinquish the muses for the study of philosophy. Accordingly he became a regular pupil of Socrates for eight years, and although he sometimes mixed foreign tenets with those of his master, always preserved a strong attachment to him, and attended him at his trial. During the imprisonment also of that celebrated philosopher, Plato had an opportunity of hearing his sentiments on the immortality of the soul, the substance of which he inserted in his beautiful dialogue entitled “Phajdo,” along with some of his own peculiar opinions. On the death of Socrates, he retired, with other friends of Socrates, to Megara, where they were hospitably entertained by Euclid, who taught Plato the art of reasoning, and probably increased his fondness for disputation.

Desirous of making himself master of all the wisdom and learning which the age could furnish, Plato commenced his travels with visiting that part of Italy, called Magna Græcia, where he was instructed in all the mysteries of the Pythagorean system, the subtleties of which he afterwards too freely blended with the more simple doctrine of Socrates. He next visited Theodorus of Gyrene, and when under this master he found himself sufficiently instructed in the elements of mathematics, he determined to study astronomy, and other sciences, in Egypt, and that he might travel with safety, he assumed the character of a merchant. Wherever he came, he obtained information from the Egyptian priests concerning their astronomical observations and calculations; and it has been asserted, that Plato acquired in Egypt his opinions concerning the origin of the world, and learned the doctrines of transmigration, and the immortality of the soul: but it is more probable that he learned the latter doctrine from Socrates, and the former from Pythagoras. Nor, according to Brucker, is there more reason for thinking that he learned in Egypt, the doctrine of the Hebrews, and enriched his system from the sacred Scriptures, although the contrary has been maintained by several eminent Jewish and Christian writers, and was commonly received by the Christian fathers. As to the supposed agreement between the Mosaic and Platonic doctrines, that historian thinks that either the agreement is imaginary, or it consists in such particulars as might be easily discovered by the light of reason. After learning what distant countries could teach, Plato returned to Italy, to the Pythagorean school at Tarentum, where he endeavoured to improve his own system, by a mixture of the Pythagorean, as then taught by Archytas, TimsEus, and others. And afterwards, when he visited Sicily, he retained such an attachment to the Italic school, that, through the bounty of Dionysius, he purchased, at a vast price, several books, which contained the doctrine of Pythagoras, from Philolaus, one of his followers. In this way Plato accumulated his knowledge. His dialectics he borrowed from Euclid of Megara; the principles of natural philosophy he learned in the Eleatic school from Hermogenes and Cratylus: and combining these with the Pythagorean doctrine of natural causes, he framed from both his system of metaphysics. Mathematics and astronomy he was taught in the Cyrenaic school, and by the Egyptian priests. From Socrates he imbibed the pure principles of moral and political wisdom; but he afterwards obscured their simplicity by Pythagorean speculations.

Returning home richly stored with knowledge of various kinds, he settled in Athens, and formed his celebrated school of philosophy. The place which he made choice of for this purpose was a public grove, called the Academy, from Hecademus, who left it to the citizens for the puiv pose of gymnastic exercises. Adorned with statues, temples, and sepulchres, planted with lofty plane-trees, and intersected by a gentle stream, it afforded a delightful retreat for philosophy and the muses. Within this inclosure he possessed, as a part of his humble patrimony, purchased at the price of three thousand drachmas, a small garden, in which he opened a school, and to shew the value he placed on mathematical studies, and how necessary a preparation be thought them for higher speculations, he placed an inscription over the door, the meaning of which is, “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.” He soon became ranked among the most eminent philosophers, and his travels into distant countries, where learning and wisdom flourished, gave him celebrity among his brethren, none of whom had ventured to institute a school in Athens, except Aristippus, the freedom of whose manners had brought him into discredit. Plato alone inherited the popularity of Socrates, and besides a crowd of young scholars, persons of the first distinction frequented the academy, females not excepted, whose curiosity induced them to put on the male apparel for this purpose. Such reputation could not escape envy and jealousy. Diogenes the Cynic ridiculed Plato’s doctrine of ideas and other abstract speculations; nor was he himself without a tinge of jealousy, for he and Xenophon, who had been fellow pupils of Socrates, studiously avoided mentioning each other. Amidst all this, however, Plato’s fame increased; and such an opinion was formed of his political wisdom, that several states solicited his assistance in new modelling their respective forms of government. But while he gave his advice in the affairs of Elis, and other Grecian states, and furnished a code of laws for Syracuse, he rejected the applications of the Arcadians and Thebans, because they refused to adopt the plan of his republic, which prescribed an equal distribution of property. He was also in high esteem with several princes, particularly Archelaus, king of Maoedon, and Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily. At three different periods he visited the court of this latter prince, and made several bold, but unsuccessful attempts to subdue his haughty and tyrannical spirit. A brief relation of the particulars of these visits to Sicily, may serve to cast some light upon the character of our philosopher

The professed object of Plato’s first visit to Sicily, which happened in the fortieth year of his age, during the reign of the elder Dionysius, the son of Hermocrates, was, to take a survey of the island, and particularly to observe the wonders of Mount Etna. Whilst he was resident at Syracuse, he was employed in the instruction of Dion, the king’s brother-in-law, who possessed excellent abilities, but had not escaped the general depravity of the court. Such, however, was the influence of Plato’s instructions, that he became an ardent lover of wisdom, and hoping that philosophy might produce the same effect upon Dionysius, he procured an interview between Plato and the tyrant. This had like to have proved fatal, for Donysius, perceiving that the philosopher levelled his discourse against the vices and cruelties of his reign, dismissed him with high displeasure from his presence, and conceived a design against his life. And although he did not accomplish this barbarous intention, he procured him to be sold as a slave in the island of Ægina, the inhabitants of which were then at war with the Athenians. Plato, however, could not long remain unnoticed: Anicerris, a Cyrenaic philosopher, who happened to be at that time in the island, discovered him, and purchasing his freedom, sent him home to Athens, and afterwards refused the repayment of the purchase-money, that, as he said, Plato’s friends might not monopolize the honour of serving so illustrious a philosopher.

After a short interval, Dionysius, repenting of his unjust resentment, wrote to Plato, inviting him to return to Syracuse, to which Plato answered, with some contempt, that philosophy would not allow him leisure to think of Dionysius. He was induced, however, to return by another expedient. Plato had made Dion a determined votary of virtue, and he naturally wished to extend this advantage to the younger Dionysius, who also expressed a most earnest desire to become acquainted with Plato< Letters were then dispatched to him, from the tyrant, from Dion and several followers of Pythagoras, importuning him to return to Syracuse, and take upon him the education of the young prince. After considerable hesitation, he consented, and is said to have had some kind of promise on the part of Dionysius that he would adopt the Platonic form of government. In the mean time the enemies of Dion prevailed upon Dionysius to recall from exile Philistus, a man of tyrannical principles and spirit, who, they hoped f would oppose the doctrines and measures of Plato. The philosopher in the mean time was conducted to Syracuse with public honours; the king himself received him into his chariot, and sacrifices were offered in congratulation of his arrival. New regulations were immediately introduced; the licentiousness of the court was restrained; moderation reigned in all public festivals; the king assumed an air of benignity; philosophy was studied by his courtiers; and every good man assured himself of a happy revolution in the state of public manners. It was now that Philistus and his adherents found means to rekindle the jealousy of the tyrant, and through their intrigues, Dion became so obnoxious to Dionysius, that he ordered him to be imprisoned, and afterwards banished him into Italy. With Plato, however, he continued to keep up some appearance of friendship, and under that pretence allotted Plato an apartment in his palace, but at the same time placed a secret guard about him, that no one might visit him without his knowledge. At length, upon the commencement of a war, Dionysius sent Plato back into his own country, with a promise, that he would recal both him and Dion upon the return of peace. Part of this promise he was soon inclined to keep, by recalling Plato but the philosopher received his solicitations with coolness, pleaded in excuse his advanced age, and reminded the tyrant of the violation of his promise respecting Dion nor was it until the request of Dionysius was seconded by the intreaties of the wife and sister of Dion, and by the importunities of Archytas of Tarentum, and other Pythagorean philosophers, to whom the tyrant had pledged himself for the performance of his promises, that he could be prevailed upon to return.

On his third arrival he was received with great respect by Dionysius, who now seemed wholly divested of his former resentments, listened to his doctrines with pleasure, and presented him with eighty talents in gold. The court indeed was not much improved, nor was the disposition of the tyrant really changed, yet Plato supported the credit of philosophy with great dignity, and had considerable influence and authority. But as he soon found that he could not procure the recall of Dion, and that there was little sincerity in the professions of Dionysius, he requested permission to return to Greece. The permission was granted, and a ship provided; but before it could set sail, Dionysius retracted his promise, and detained Plato in Syracuse. This conduct being attended with complaints on the part of Plato, the tyrant was so irritated as to dismiss him from his court, and put him under a guard of soldiers, whom false rumours had incensed against him. His Pythagorean friends at Tarentum, being informed of his dangerous situation, immediately dispatched an embassy to Dionysius, demanding an instant completion of his promise to Archytas. The tyrant, not daring to refuse this demand, with a view to pacify Plato gave him a magnificent entertainment, and sent him away loaded with rich presents.

Plato, now restored to his country and his school, devoted himself to science, and spent the last years of a long life in the instruction of youth. Having enjoyed the advantage of an athletic constitution, and lived all his days temperately, he arrived at the eighty-first, or, according to some writers, the seventy-ninth, year of his age, and died, through the mere decay of nature, in the first year of the hundred and eighth olympiad. He passed his whole life in a state of celibacy, and therefore left no natural heirs, but transferred his effects by will to his friend Adiamantus. The grove and garden, which had been the scene of his philosophical labours, at last afforded him a sepulchre. Statues aad altars were erected to his memory; the day of his birth long continued to be celebrated as a festival by his followers; and his portrait is to this day preserved in gems.

The personal character of Plato has been very differently represented. On the one hand, his encomiasts have not failed to adorn him with every excellence, and to express the most superstitious veneration for his memory. His enemies, on the other, have not scrupled to load him with reproach, and to charge him with practices inconsistent with the purity of the philosophical character. Several anecdotes, however, are preserved, which reflect honour upon his morals and principles. He had in particular an extraordinary command of temper. When he was told that his enemies were busily employed in circulating reports to his disadvantage, he said, “I will live so, that none shall believe them.” One of his friends remarking, that he teemed as desirous to learn himself, as to teach others, asked him, how long he intended to be a scholar “As long,” says he, “as I am not ashamed to grow wiser and better.”

It is from the writings of Plato, chiefly, that we are to form a judgment of his merit as a philosopher, and of the service which he rendered to science. No one can be conversant with these without perceiving, that his diction always retained a strong tincture of that poetical spirit which he discovered in his first productions. This is the principal ground of those lofty encomiums, which both autient and modern critics have passed upon his language, and, particularly, of the high estimation in which it was held by Cicero, who, treating on the subject of language, says, that “if Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would borrow the style of Plato.” The accurate Stagyrite describes it, as “a middle species of diction, between verse and prose.” Some of his dialogues are elevated by such sublime and glowing conceptions, are enriched with such copious and splendid diction, and flow in so harmonious a rythmus, that they may truly be pronouncedhighly poetical. Most of them are justly admired for their liter rary merit the introductions are pertinent and amusing the course of the debate, or conversation, is clearly marked; the characters are accurately supported every speaker has his proper place, language, and manners the scenery of the conference is painted in lively colouring and the whole is, with admirable art, adorned and enlivened by those minute embellishments, which render the colloquial mode of writing so peculiarly pleasing. Even upon abstract subjects, whether moral, metaphysical, or mathematical, the language of Plato is often clear as the running stream, and in simplicity and sweetness vies with the humble violet which perfumes the vale. In these beautiful parts of his works, it has been conjectured, not without probability, that Socrates and Lysias were his models. At other times, however, we find him swelling into the turgid style, a tincture of which he seems to have retained from his juvenile studies, and involving himself in obscurities, which were the offspring of a lofty fancy, or were borrowed from the Italic school. Several ancient critics have noticed these blemishes in the writings of Plato. Dionysius Halicarnassensis particularly censures Plato for the harshness of his metaphors, and his bold innovations in the use of terms, and quotes from his Phædrus examples of the bombast, the puerile, and the frigid style. The same inequality, which is so apparent in the style of Plato, may also be observed in his conceptions. Whilst he adheres to the school of Socrates, and discourses upon moral topics, he is much more pleasing than when he loses himself, with Pythagoras, in abstruse speculations.

The Dialogues of Plato, which treat of various subjects, and were written with different views, are classed by the ancients ufider the two heads of Didactic and Inquisitive. The Didactic, are subdivided into Speculative, including physical and logical and Practical, comprehending ethical and political. The second class, the Inquisitive, is characterised by terms taken from the athletic art, and divided into the Gymnastic, and the Agonistic; the dialogues termed Gymnastic were imagined to be similar to the exercise, and were subdivided into the Maieutic, as resembling the teaching of the rudiments of the art; and the Peirastic, as represented by a skirmish, or trial of proficiency. The Agonistic dialogues, supposed to resemble the combat, were either Endeictic, exhibiting a specimen of skill or Anatreptic, presenting the spectacle of a perfect defeat. Instead of this whimsical classification, an arrangement of the dialogues, taken from the subjects on which they treat, would be much more obvious and useful. They may not improperly be divided into physical, logical, ethical, and political.

The writings of Plato were originally collected by Hermodorus, one of his pupils: they consist of thirty-five dialogues, and thirteen epistles. They were first published by Aldus Manutius, at Venice, in 1513, 2 vols, folio. The subsequent editions of Ficinus and Serranus are the most valuable; but the notes and interpretations of both are to be read with caution, as not representing Plato’s sentiments with fidelity. The Deux Ponts edition of 1781, 12 vols. 8vo, is a copy of the Greek of Serranus, and the Latin of Ficinus. Of the “Dialogues of Plato,” an edition was published by Foster at Oxford, 1745, 8vo, reprinted in 1752 and 1765. In 1771, Etwall published, at the same place, the “Alcibiades,” and “Hipparchus;” to which he prefixed the life of Plato by Olympiodorus, and the introduction of Albinus. The “Euthydemus” and “Gorgias” were also published at Oxford in 1784, by the very learned Dr. Routh, president of Magdelen college. There are many English translations of the Dialogues, but none superior to those by Floyer Sydenham, published in four volumes, from 1767 to 1780. Mr. Thomas Taylor has since published a translation of the whole works of Plato, including Sydenham’s share, with copious notes, &c. 1804, 5 vols. 4to.

On the philosophy of Plato it is not our intention to enter. The most moderate account we have seen would exceed our limits; and as treated by modern writers it forms the history, not only of a sect, but of the various controversies which have arisen out of it in the Christian world, Our readers may be referred, with confidence, to Brucker, whom we have principally followed in the preceding part, and to an elaborate article in the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” In the seventeenth century, Gale, Cudworth, and More, perplexed themselves with the doctrines of Plato, which, however, are now less studied and less respected. In such a wonderful maze of words, says Brucker, does Plato involve his notions, that none of his disciples, not even the sagacious Stagyrite, could unfold them and yet we receive them as sacred mysteries, and, if we do nctf perfectly comprehend them, imagine that our intellects are too feeble to penetrate the conceptions of this divine philosopher, and that our eyes are blinded by that resplendent blaze of truth, upon which his eagle sight could gaze without injury.

The truth appears to have been, that Plato, ambitious of the honour of forming a new sect, and endued by nature with more brilliancy of fancy than strength of judgment, collected the tenets of other philosophers, which were, in many particulars, contradictory, and could by no exertion of ingenuity be brought to coalesce; and that, out of this heterogeneous mass, he framed a confused system, destitute of form or consistency. This will be acknowledged by every one, who, in perusing the philosophical writings of Plato, is capable of divesting himself of that blind respect for antiquity, by which the learned so frequently suffer themselves to be misled. The followers, too, of Plato, far from dispersing the clouds which from the first, hung over his system, appear to have entered into a general combination to increase its obscurity. The successive changes, which took place in the academy after the death of its founder, by introducing a succession of new opinions, continually increased the difficulty of arriving at the true sense of Plato. And when, in a subsequent, period, the Platonic philosophy was professed in Alexandria, it was still further adulterated by an injudicious and absurd attempt to mould into one system the doctrines of Plato, the traditionary tenets of Egypt and the eastern nations, and the sacred creeds of the Jews and Christians: a coalition which proved exceedingly injurious both to philosophy and religion.

, a comic writer of ancient Rome, was born at Sarsina, a small town in Umbria, a province of Italy; his proper name was Marcus Accius he is supposed to have acquired the surname of Plautus, from having broad and ill-formed feet. His parentage seems to have been mean; and some have thought him the son of a slave. Few circumstances of his life are known; Cicero has told us in general that he was some years younger than Naevius or Ennius, and that he died the first year of the elder Cato’s censorship, when Claudius Pulcher and Lucius Portius Licinius were consuls. This was about the year of Rome 569, when Terence was about nine years old, and 184 years B. C. A. Gellius says, that Plautus was distinguished at the same time for his poetry uptm the theatre, that Cato was for his eloquence in the forum and observes elsewhere, from Varro, that he was so well paid for his plays, as to think of doubling his stock by trading in which, however, he was so unfortunate, that he lost all he had got by the Muses, and for his subsistence was reduced, in the time of a general famine, to work at the mill. How long he continued in this distress, is uncertain; but Varro adds, that the poet’s wit was his best support, and that he composed three plays during this daily drudgery.

It is doubtful how many plays he composed. We have only twenty extant, and not all entire. Varro allowed twenty- six to be of his composition, which were all extant in Gellius’s time. Some made the number of his plays to exceed an hundred but this might arise from his revising the plays of other poets, which Gellius supposes he did and Varro' s account ought to be decisive. This learned Roman had written a particular treatise on Plautus’s works, from the second book of which, quoted by Gellius, the preceding particulars are taken. Many other critics are there mentioned by GelHus, who had all written some pieces upon Plautus, which shew the great admiration in which he was held by the Romans and it should seem as if this admiration continued long for there is a passage in Arnobius, whence it seems reasonable to infer that some of his plays were acted on solemn occasions, so late as the reign of Dioclesian. Two circumstances contributed to his fame; the one, his style, which was thought the standard of the purest Latin, for the learned Varro did not scruple to say, that were the Muses to speak Latin, they would certainly speak in the language of Plautus; the other, the exquisite humour of his characters, which set him above all the Roman comic writers. This is the constant opinion of Varro, Cicero, Gellius, Macrobius, and the most eminent modern critics, as Lipsius, the Scaligers, Muretus, Turnebus, &c. Horace only blames the coarseness of his wit, in which opinion a modern reader of taste will perhaps be inclined to join. Bonnell Thornton endeavoured to naturalize them by a translation, which however is too liberal to afford the mere English reader an idea of the humour which delighted a Roman audience.

The first edition of Plautus was edited by George Merula, and published at Venice in 1472, fol. The most valuable of the subsequent editions are, that of Camerarius, Basil, 1551, and 1558, 8vo of Lambinus, Paris, 1577, fol. of Taubman, Francfort and Wittemberg, 1605, 1612, and 1622, 4to the Variorum by Gronovius, Amst. 1684, 8vo; of Ernesti, Leipsic, 1760, 2 vols. 8vo and of Schmeider, at Gottingen, 1804, 2 Vols. 8vo

, a man distinguished in the musical world, was born in 1613. He was a stationer and a seller of musical instruments, music-books, and musicpaper, and was clerk of the Temple church. What his education had been, is not known; but that he had attained to a considerable proficiency in the practice of music and musical composition, is certain. His skill in music was not so great as to entitle him to the appellation of a master; he knew nothing of the theory of the science, but was very well versed in the practice, and understood the rules of composition well enough to write good harmony. He was also the first and the most intelligent printer of music during the seventeenth century; and he and his son Henry, appear, without a special licence, or authorized monopoly, to have had almost the whole business of furnishing the nation with musical instruments, music books, and music paper, to themselves. In 1655 he published the first edition of his “Introduction to the Skill of Music,” a compendium compiled from Morley, Butler, and other more bulky and abstruse books, which had so rapid a sale, that in 1683 ten editions of it had been circulated through the kingdom. The book, indeed, contained no late discoveries or new doctrines, either in the theory or practice of the art; yet the form, price, and style, were so suited to every kind of musical readers, that it seems to have been more generally purchased and read, than any elementary musical tract that ever appeared in this or in any other country.

In the same year this diligent editor also published, in two separate books, small 8vo, “Court Ayres, by Dr. Charles Colman, William Lawes, John Jenkins, Simpson, Child, Cook, Rogers,” &c. These being published at a time when there was properly no court, were probably tunes which had been used in the masques performed at Whitehall during the life of Charles I. In 1671 he published the first edition of his “Psalms and Hymns in solemn Musick, in foure Parts, on the common Tunes to Psalms in Metre used in Parish churches. Also six Hymns for one Voice to the Organ,” folio. The several editions of this work, published in various forms, at a small price, rendered its sale very general, and psalm-singing in parts, a favourite amusement in almost every village in the kingdom. He died about 1693, and Tate, then poet-laureat, wrote an elegy upon him.

His second son, Henry, succeeded his father as a musicseller, at first at his shop in the Temple, but afterwards in the Temple Exchange, Fleet-street; but the music-books advertised by him were few compared with those published by his father. Among them were the “Orpheus Britannicus,” and the ten sonatas and airs of Purcell. He published, in 1701, what he called the second book of the '< Pleasant Musical Companion, being a choice collection of catches for three or four voices" published chiefly for the encouragement of the musical societies, which, he said, would be speedily set upn the chief cities and towns of England. We know not that this v as the case, but certainly the publication of Purcell’s catches in two small volumes of the elder Walsh in queen Anne’s time, was th means of establishing catch-clubs in almost every town in the kingdom. It is conjectured that Henry Playford survived his father but a short time, for we meet with no publication by him after 17 10.

, an eminent physician, was born at Amsterdam in December 1601. He studied at Ghent, Louvain, Leyden, Padua, and Bologna, at which last university he took his degree of doctor. On his return to Holland, he began practice, but was induced to accept the vacant professorship of the Institutes of Medicine, at Louvain, of which he took possession in 1633. At the same time he abjured the Protestant faith, became a Catholic, and took a new degree of doctor, in conformity with the rules of the university. In the following year, however, he quitted this chair, for the professorship of pathology. He was soon afterwards nominated principal of the college of Bretigel. He died at Louvain, in December 1671, aged seventy.

Plempius left the following works “A Treatise on the Muscles,” in Dutch. “Ophthalmographia, sive de Oculi Fabrica, Actione, et Usu,” Amst. 1632; Lovaen. 1648. A translation of the Anatomy of Gabrolius into Dutch, with notes, Amst. 1633. “Fundamenta, seu Institutiones Medicinae,” Lov. 1638, 1644, &c. In the first edition of this work, Plempius doubted the circulation of the blood but in the second, he was a strenuous advocate for that doctrine. “Animadversiones in veram Praxim curandos Tertianse propositam a Doctore Petro Barba” ibid. 1642. “Antimus Coningius Peruviani pulveris defensor, repulsus a Melippo Protymo” ibid. 1655. Coningius is the assumed name of Honoratus Fabri Protymus was that assumed by Plempius, in order to decry the use of cinchona. “Avicennae Canonis Liber primus et secundus ex Arabica Lingua in Latinam translatus,” ibid. 1658. “Tractatus de Affectuum Pilorum et Unguium,” ibid. 1662. “De Togatorum Valetudine tuenda Commentarius,” Brux. 1670. The two following are generally ascribed to this author, though Mangetus and Lipenius (probably misinterpreting the initial) ascribe them to Francis Plempius, viz. “Munitio Fundamentorum Medicinae V. F. Plempii adversus Jacobum Primerosium,” Amst. 1659. “Loimographia, sive, Tractatus de Peste,” ibid. 1664.

, called the elder, to distinguish him from his nephew, was one of the most learned of the ancient Roman writers, and was born in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, about the year of Christ 23. His birth-place was Verona, as appears from his calling Catullus his countryman, who was unquestionably of that city. Tho ancient writer of his life, ascribed to Suetonius, and, after him, St. Jerom, have made him a native of Rome: father Hardouin has also taken some pains to confirm this notion, which however has not prevailed. We can more readily believe Aulus Gellius, who represents him as one of the most ingenious men of his age; and what is related of his application by his nephew the younger Pliny, is almost incredible. Yet his excessive love of study did not spoil the man of business, nor prevent him from filling the most important offices with credit. He was a procurator, or manager of the emperor’s revenue, in the provinces of Spain and Africa; and was advanced to the high dignity of augur. He had also several considerable commands in the army, and was distinguished by his courage in the field, as well as by his eloquence at the bar. His manner of life, as it is described by his nephew, exhibits a degree of industry and perseverance scarcely to be paralleled. In summer he always began his studies as soon as it was night: in winter, generally at one in the morning, but never later than two, and often at midnight. No man ever spent less time in bed; and sometimes he would, without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then pursue his studies. Before day-break, it was his custom to wait upon Vespasian, who likewise chose that season to transact business: and when he had finished the affairs which the emperor committed to his charge, he returned home again to his studies. After a slender repast at noon, he would frequently, in the summer, if he was disengaged from business, recline in the sun: during which time some author was read to him, from which he made extracts and observations. This was his constant method, whatever book he read; for it was a maxim of his, that “no book was so bad, but something might be learned from it.” When this was over, he generally went into the cold-bath, after which he took a slight refreshment of food and rest and then, as if it had been a new day, resumed his studies till supper-time, when a book was again read to him, upon which he would make some remarks as they went on. His nephew mentions a singular instance to shew how parsimonious he was of his time, and how covetous of knowledge. His reader having pronounced a word wrong, some person at the table made him repeat it: upon which, Pliny asked that person if he understood it? and when he acknowledged that he did, “Why then,” said he, “would you make him go back again we have lost, by this interruption, above ten lines.” In summer, he always rose from supper by clay-light and in winter, as soon as it was dark. Such was his way of life amidst the noise and hurry of the town but in the country his whole time was devoted to study without intermission, excepting only when he bathed, that is, was actually in the bath for during the operation of rubbing and wiping, he was employed either in hearing some book read' to him, or in dictating himself. In his journeys, he lost no time from his studies, his mind at those seasons being disengaged from all other thoughts, and a secretary or amanuensis constantly attended him in his chariot; and that he might suffer the less interruption to his studies, instead of walking, he always used a carriage in Rome. By this extraordinary application he found leisure to write a great many volumes.

The circumstances of his death, like his manner of livr ing, were very singular, and are also described at large by the elegant pen of his nephew. He was at that time, with a fleet under his command, at Mis en urn, in the gulf of Naples; his sister and her son, the younger Pliny, being with him. On the 24th of August, in the year 79, about one in the afternoon, his sister desired him to observe a cloud of a very unusual size and shape. He was in his study; but immediately arose, and went out upon an eminence to view it more distinctly. It was not at that distance discernible from what mountain this cloud issued, but it was found afterwards to ascend from mount Vesuvius. Its figure resembled that of a pine-tree; for it shot up to a great height in the form of a trunk, which extended itself at the top into a sort of branches; and it appeared sometimes bright, and sometimes dark and spotted, as it was either more or less impregnated with earth and cinders. This was a noble phenomenon for the philosophic Pliny, who immediately ordered a light vessel to be got ready; but as he was coming out of the house, with his tablets for his observations, the mariners belonging to the gallies stationed at Retina, earnestly intreated him to come to their assistance, since that port being situated at the foot of mount Vesuvius, there was no way for them to escape, but by sea. He therefore ordered the gallies to put to sea, and went himself on board, with intention of assisting not only Retina, but several other towns, situated upon that beautiful coast. He steered directly to the point of danger, whence ethers fled with the utmost terror; and with so much calmness and presence of mind, as to be able to make and dictate his observations upon the motion and figure of that dreadful scene. He went so nigh the mountain, that tha cinders, which grew thicker and hotter the nearer he approached, fell into the ships, together with pumice-stonet and black pieces of burning rock: they were likewise in danger, not only of being aground by the sudden retreat of the sea, but also from the vast fragments which rolled down from the mountain, and obstructed all the shore. Here he stopped to consider, whether he should return; to which the pilot advising him, “Fortune,” said he, “befriends the brave; carry me to Pomponianus.” Pomponianus was then at Stabioe, a town separated by a gulf, which the sea, after several windings, forms upon that shore. He found him in the greatest consternation, but exhorted him to keep up his spirits; and, the more to dissipate his fears, he ordered, with an air of unconcern, the baths to be got ready; when, after having bathed, he sat down to supper with apparent cheerfulness. Jn the mean while, the eruption from Vesuvius flamed out in several places with much violence, which the darkness of the night contributed to render still more visible and dreadful. Pliny, to soothe the apprehensions of his friend, assured him it was only the burning of the villages, which the country people had abandoned to the flames: after this he retired, and had some sleep. The court which led to his apartment being in the mean time almost filled with stones and ashes, if he had continued there any longer, it would have been impossible for him to have made his way out: it was therefore thought proper to awaken him. He got up, and went to Pomponianus and the rest of the company, who were not unconcerned enough to think of going to bed. They consulted together, whether it would be most prudent to trust to the houses, which now shook from side to side with frequent and violent rockings; or to fly to the open fields, where the calcined stones and cinders, though light indeed, yet fell in large showers, and threatened destruction. In this distress they resolved for the fields, as the less dangerous situation of the two; and went out, having pillows tied upon their heads with napkins, which was all their defence against the storms of stones that fell around them. It was now day every where else, but there a deeper darkness prevailed than in the most obscure night; which, however, was in some degree dissipated by torches, and other lights of various kinds. They thought proper to go down farther upon the shore, to observe if they might safely put out to sea; but they found the waves still run extremely high and boisterous. There Pliny, taking a draught or two of water, threw himself down upon a cloth which was spread for him; when immediately the flames and a strong smell of sulphur, wkich was the forerunner of them, dispersed the rest of the company, and obliged him to arise. He raised himself, with the assistance of two of his servants, for he was corpulent, and instantly fell down dead: suffocated, as his nephew conjectures, by some gross and noxious vapour; for he had always weak lungs, and was frequently subject to a difficulty of breathing. As soon as it was light again, which was not till the third day after, his body was found entire, and without any marks of violence upon it; exactly in the same posture that he fell, and looking more like a man asleep than dead.

The sister and nephew, whom the uncle left at Misenum, continued there that night, but had their rest extremely broken and disturbed. There had been for many days before some shocks of an earthquake, which was the less surprising, as they were always extremely frequent in Campania: but they were so particularly violent that night, that they seemed to threaten a total destruction. When the morning came, the light was exceedingly faint and languid, and the buildings continued to totter; so that Pliny and his mother resolved to quit the town, and the people followed them in the utmost consternation. When at a convenient distance from the houses, they stood still, in the midst of a most dangerous and dreadful scene. The chariots, they had ordered to be drawn out, were so agitated backwards and forwards; though upon the most level ground, that they could not keep them stedfast, even by supporting them with large stones. The sea seemed to roll back upon itself, and to be driven from its banks by the convulsive motion of the earth; it was certain at least, the shore was considerably enlarged, and several sea animals were left upon it. On the other side, a black and dreadful cloud, bursting with an igneous serpentine vapour, darted out a' long train of fire, resembling flashes of lightning, but much larger. Soon afterwards, the cloud seemed to descend, and cover the whole ocean; as indeed, it entirely hid the island of Capreoe, and the promontory of Misenum. Pliny’s mother earnestly conjured him to make his escape, which; being young, for he was only eighteen years of age, he might easily do; as for herself, she said, her age and unwieldy person rendered all attempts of that sort impossible: but he refused to leave her, and, taking her by the hand, led her on. The ashes began to fall upon them, though in no great quantity: but a thick smoke, like a torrent, came rolling after them. Pliny proposed, while they had any light, to turn out of the high road, lest his mother should be pressed to death in the dark, by the crowd that followed them: and they had scarce stepped out of the path, when utter darkness entirely overspread them. Nothing then was to he heard. says Pliny, but the shrieks of women, the screams of children, and the cries of men: some calling for their children, others for their parents, others for their husbands, and only distinguishing each other by their voices; one lamenting his own fate, another that of his family, some wishing to die from the very fear of dying, some lifting up their hands to the gods, but the greater part imagining that the last and eternal night was come, which was to destroy both the gods and the world together. At length a glimmering light appeared, not the return of day, but only the forerunner of an approaching burst of flames, which, however, fell at a distance from them; then again they were immersed in thick darkness, and a heavy shower of ashes rained upon them, which they were obliged every now and then to shake off, to prevent being buried in the heap. At length this dreadful darkness was dissipated by degrees, like a cloud or smoke: the real day returned, and even the sun appeared, though very faintly, and as when an eclipse is coming on; and every object seemed changed, being covered over with white ashes, as with a deep snow. Pliny owns very frankly, that his support, during this terrible phenomenon, was chiefly founded in that miserable, though strong consolation, that all mankind were involved in the same calamity, and that the world itself was perishing. They returned to Misenum, but without yet getting rid of their fears; for the earthquake still continued, while, as was extremely natural in such a situation, several enthusiastic people ran up and down, heightening their own and their friends calamities by terrible predictions.

This event happened A.D. 79, in the first year of the emperor Titus; and was probably the first eruption of mount Vesuvius, at least of any consequence, as it is certain we have no particular accounts of any preceding eruption. Dio, indeed, and other ancient authors, speak of this mountain as burning before; but still they describe it as covered with trees and vines, so that the eruptions must have been inconsiderable.

As to the writings of Pliny, his nephew informs us that the first book he published was, a treatise, “Concerning the art of using the javelin on horseback,” written when he commanded a troop of horse. He also was the author of “The Life of Pomponius Secundus,” who was his friend; and “The history of the Wars in Germany;” ia which he gave an account of all the battles the Romans had had with the Germans. His nephew says, that a dream, which occurred when he served in the army in Germany, first suggested to him the design of this work: it was, that Drusus Nero, who extended his conquests very far into that country, and there lost his life, appeared to him, and conjured him not to suffer his memory to be buried in oblivion. He wrote likewise “A treatise upon Eloquence; and a piece of criticism” concerning dubious Latinity.“This last work, which was published in Nero’s reign, when the tyranny of the times made it dangerous to engage in studies of a freer kind, is often cited by Prisrcian, He completed a history which Aufidius Bassus left unfinished, by adding to it thirty books, which contained the history of his own times. Lastly, he left thirty-seven books upon the subject of natural history: a work, sayi his nephew, of great compass and learning, and almost as full of variety as nature herself. It is indeed a most valuable treasury of ancient knowledge. For its defects, which in the estimation of modern students of natural history must unavoidably be numerous, he thus apologizes, in the dedication to Vespasian:” The path which I have taken has hitherto been, in a great measure, untrodden; and holds forth to the traveller few enticements. None of our own writers have so much as attempted these subjects; and even among the Greeks no one has treated of them in their full extent. The generality of authors in their pursuits attend chiefly to amusement; and those who have the character of writing with great depth and refinement are involved in impenetrable obscurity. Such is the extent of my undertaking, that it comprehends every topic which the Greeks include under the name of Encyclopedia; of which, however, some are as yet utterly unknown, and others have been rendered uncertain by excessive subtlety. Other parts of my subject have been so often handled, that readers are become cloyed with them. Arduous indeed is the task to give what is old an appearance of novelty; to add weight and authority to what is new; to cast a lustre upon subjects which time has obscured; to render acceptable what is become trite and disgusting; to obtain credit to doubtful relations; and, in a word, to represent every thing according to nature, and with all its natural properties. A design like this, even though incompletely executed, will be allowed to be grand and noble.“He adds afterwards,” Many defects and errors have, I doubt not, escaped me; for, besides that I partake of the common infirmities of human nature, I have written this work in the midst of engagements, at broken periods which I have stolen from sleep."

It would be unjust to the memory of this great man, not to admit this apology in its full extent; and it would be still more unjust, to judge of the merit of his work, by comparing it with modern productions in natural history, written after the additional observations of seventeen hundred years. Some allowance ought also to be made for the carelessness and ignorance of transcribers, who have so mutilated and corrupted this work, that, in many places, the author’s meaning lies almost beyond the reach of conjecture.

With respect to philosophical opinions, Pliny did not rigidly adhere to any sect, but occasionally borrowed such tenets from each, as suited his present inclination or purpose. He reprobates the Epicurean tenet of an infinity of worlds; favours the Pythagorean notion of the harmony of the spheres; speaks of the universe as God, after the manner of the stoics; and sometimes seems to pass over into the field of the sceptics. For the most part, however, he leans towards the doctrine of Epicurus.

To the works of this author may be added a vast quantity of manuscripts, which he left to his nephew, and for which he had been offered by Largius Licinius 400,000 sesterces, that is, about 3200l. of our money. “You will wonder,” says his nephew, “how a man, so engaged as he was, could find time to compose such a number of books; and some of them too upon abstruse subjects. Your surprise will rise still higher, when you hear, that for some time he engaged in the profession of an advocate, that he died in his 56th year, that from the time of his quitting the bar to his death he was employed in the highest posts, and in the service of his prince: but he had a quick apprehension, joined to an unwearied application.” Ep. iii. 5. Hence he became not only a master in polite literature, in grammar, eloquence, and history, but possessed a knowledge of the various arts and sciences, geography, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, botany, sculpture, painting, architecture, &c. for of all these things has he treated in the very important work that he has left us. The first edition of Pliny’s “Naturalis Historia” canlfc from the press of Spira at Venice in 1469, and is reckoned one of the most beautiful, rare, and valuable publications of the fifteenth century. Mr. Dibdin describes the copy in lord Spencer’s library as the finest extant. Five other editions were published from 1470 to 1476, such was the demand for this store-house of natural history. Of the modern editions, the preference is usually given to that by the celebrated father Hardouin, of which there are two, the first “in usum Delphini,” Paris, 5 vols. 4to; the second, 1723, 3 vols. folio, which is a more copious, splendid, and critical performance. Since that, we have an excellent edition by Franzius, Leipsic, 1778 9J, 10 vols, 8vo. Another by Brotier, Paris, 1779, 6 vols. 8vo. And a third, Bipont, 1783, 6 vols, 8vo. There are translations of it, or of parts, in all languages. That endless translator Philemon Holland exerted his own and his readers’ patience on a version into English, published in 1601, folio.

, nephew of the preceding, was born A. D. 62, at Novocomum, a town upon the lake Larius, near which he had several beautiful villas. Caecilius was the name of his father, and Plinius Secundus that of his mother’s brother, who adopted him. He discovered from his infancy, good talents and an elegant taste, which he did not fail to cultivate, and informs us himself that he wrote a Greek tragedy at fourteen years of age. He lost his father when he was young, and had the famous Virginius for his tutor or guardian, of whom he gives a high character. He frequented the schools of the rhetoricians, and heard Quintilian; for whom he ever after entertained so high an esteem, that he bestowed a considerable portion upon his daughter at her marriage. He was in his eighteenth year when his uncle died and it was then that he began to plead in the forum, the usual road to promotion. About a year after, he assumed the military character, and went into Syria with the commission of tribune: but as this did not suit his taste, he returned after a campaign or two. He tells us, that in his passage homewards he was detained by contrary winds at the island Icaria, and that he employed himself in making verses: he enlarges, in the same place, upon his poetical efforts; but in this respect, like Cicero, he valued himself upon a taleftt which he did not eminently possess.

Upon his return from Syria, he settled at Rome, in the reign of Domitian. During this most perilous time, he continued to plead in the forum, where he was distinguished, not more by his uncommon abilities and eloquence, than by his great resolution and courage, which enabled him to speak boldly, when hardly any one else could venture to speak at all. On these accounts he was often singled out by the senate, to defend the plundered provinces against their oppressive governors, and to manage other causes of a like important and dangerous nature. One of these causes was in favour of the province of Baetica, in their prosecution of Baebius Massa; in which he acquired so general an applause, that the emperor Nerva, then a private man, and in banishment at Tarentum, wrote him a letter, in which he congratulated, not only Pliny, but the age which had produced an example so much in the spirit of the ancients. Pliny relates this affair, in a letter to Tacitus; and he was so pleased with it himself, that he could not help informing his correspondent that he should not be sorry to find it recorded in his history. He obtained the offices of questor and tribune, and escaped the proscriptions of the tyrannical reign of Domitian. There is, however, reason to believe that he owed his safety to the death of the emperor, as his name was afterwards found in that savage’s tablets among the number of those who were destined to destruction.

He had married on settling at Rome, but losing his wife in the beginning of Nerva’s reign, he soon after took his beloved Calphurnia; of whom we read so much in his Epistles. He had not however any children by either of his wives: and hence we find him thanking Trajan for the jus trium liberorum, which he afterwards obtained of that emperor for his friend Suetonius Tranquillus. He was promoted to the consulate by Trajan in the year 100, when he was thirty-eight years of age: and in this office pronounced that famous panegyric, which has ever since been admired, as well for the copiousness of the topics, as the elegance of address. He was then elected augur, and afterwards made proconsul of Bithynia; whence he wrote to Trajan that curious letter concerning the primitive Christians, which, with Trajan’s rescript, is happily extant among his “Epistles.” “Pliny’s letter,” as Melmoth observes, in a note upon the passage, “is esteemed as almost the only genuine monument of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the times immediately succeeding the apostles, it being written at most not above forty years after the death of St. Paul. It was preserved by the Christians themselves, as a clear and unsuspicious evidence of the purity of their doctrines; and is frequently appealed to by the early writers of the church, against the calumnies of their adversaries.” It is not known what became of Pliny, after his return from Bithynia; nor have we any information as to the time of his death; but it is conjectured that he died either a little before, or soon after, his patron the emperor Trajan, that is, about A. D. 116.

Pliny was unquestionably a man of talents, and various accomplishments, and a man of virtue; but in dislike of the Christians he seems to have indulged equally his master Trajan, whose liberal sentiments respecting informers in his short letter cannot be sufficiently admired. Pliny wrote and published a great number of books: but nothing has escaped the wreck of time, except the books of Epistles, and the “Panegyric upon Trajan,” which has ever been considered as a master-piece. His Letters seem to have been intended for the public; and in them he may be considered as writing his own memoirs. Every epistle is a kind of historical sketch, in which we have a view of him in some striking attitude, either of active or contemplative life. In them are preserved anecdotes of many eminent persons, whose works are come down to us, as Suetonius, Silius Italicus, Martial, Tacitus, and Quintilian; and of curious facts, which throw great light upon the history of those times. They are written with great politeness and spirit; and, if they abound too much in turn and metaphor, we must impute it to that degeneracy of taste, which was then accompanying the degenerate manners of Rome. Pliny, however, seems to have preserved himself in this latter respect from the general contagion: whatever the manners of the Romans were, his were pure and incorrupt. His writings breathe a spirit of great goodness and humanity: his only imperfection is, he was too desirous that the public and posterity should know how humane and good he was; and while he represents himself, as he does, calling for Livy, reading him at his leisure, and even making extracts from him, when the eruption of Vesuvius was shaking the ground beneath him, antl striking terror through the hearts of mortals by appearances unheard of before, it is not possible to avoid being of the opinion of those, who think that he had, with all his virtues, something of affectation.

The “Epistles” have been translated into English by lord Orrery but this gave way to the more elegant translation of Melmoth some of whose opinions appear to have been borrowed by our predecessors in this and the preceding life. The first edition of the original “Epistolse” is that of Carbo, printed probably by Valdarfer at Venice, in 1471, folio. Of the modern editions, the Variorum, at Leyden, 1669, 8vo, is praised by Dr. Harwood as one of the scarcest and most valuable of the octavo variorum classics. There are also correct and critical editions by Thomasius, Leipsic, 1675, 8vo; by Hearne, Oxford, 1703, 8vo; by Longolius, Amst. 1734, 4to; by Gesner, Leipsic, 1770, 8vo; a beautiful edition published by Mr. Payne in 1790, edited by Mr. Homer and a very recent one by Gierigius, Leipsic, 1806, 2 vols. 4to. Most of these are accompanied by the “Panegyricus,” which was first printed separately, in 1476, quarto, without place or printer’s name. The best edition since is that of Schwarz, at Nuremberg, 1746, 4to.

, eminent for being the first who formed a plan for a natural history of England, the son of Robert Plot, esq. captain of the militia, in the hundred of Milton, in Kent, was born in 1640, at Sutton Baron, in the parish of Borden, in that county, and educated at the free -school of Wye, in the same county. In March 1658, he went to Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, where Josiah Pullen was his tutor took a bachelor of arts degree in 1661, a master’s in 1664, and both the degrees in law in 1671. He removed afterwards to University-college, where he was at the expence of placing the statue of king Alfred over the hall-door. His general knowledge and acuteness, and particularly his attachment to natural history, procured his being chosen, in 1677, a fellow of the royal society and in 1682, elected one of the secretaries of that learned body. He published their “Philosophical Transactions,” from No. 143, to No. 166, inclusive. In 1683, Elias Ashmole, esq. appointed him the first keeper of his museum and about the same time he was nominated by the vicechancellor the first reader in chemistry in that university. In 1687, he was made secretary to the earl-marshal, or court of chivalry, which was then renewed, after it had lain dormant from the year 1641. In 1690, he resigned his professorship of chemistry, and also his place of keeper of the museum; which he then augmented by a very large collection of natural curiosities, being such as he had figured and described in his Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire, and there distinguished by the names of “Scrinium Plotianum Oxoniense,” and “Scrinium Plotianum Staffordiense.” In 1688 he received the title of Historiographer to James II. which he could not long retain, as this was just before the abdication of that sovereign. In 1694-5, Henry Howard, earl-marshal, nominated him Mowbray herald extraordinary; and two days after, he was constituted registrar of the court of honour. He died of the stone, April 30, 1696, at his house in Borden, and was buried in the church there, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He left two sons by his wife Rebecca, widow of Henry Burman, to whom he was married in August 1690.

Natural history was his delight; and he gave very agreeable specimens of it, in his “Natural Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.” The former was published at Oxford, in 1677, folio, and reprinted 1705, with additions and corrections, by John Burman, M. A. fellow of University-college, his step-son, and afterwards vicar of Newington, in Kent; the latter was printed also at Oxford, 1686, in the same size. These were intended as essays towards “A Natural History of England” for, in order to discover antiquities and other curiosities, and to promote learning and trade, he formed a design of travelling through England and Wales. By such researches, he was persuaded that many additions might be made to Camden’s Britannia, and other works, concerning the history and antiquities of England. He drew up a plan of his scheme in a letter to bishop Fell, which may be seen at the end of the second volume of Leland’s Itinerary, of the edition of 1744. In these Histories, whatever is visible in the heavens, earth, and waters; whatever is dug out of the ground, whatever is natural or unnatural; and whatever is observable in art and science, were the objects of his speculation and inquiry; and various and dissimilar as his matter is, it is in general well connected; and his transitions are easy. His books indeed deserve to be called the “natural and artificial histories” of these counties. In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits, he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, upon mature consideration, he must have rejected. He did not, perhaps, know enough of experimental philosophy to exert a proper degree of scepticism in the information given to him. Besides these works, he was the author of several other productions. In 1685, he published “De Origine Fontium, Tentamen Philosophicum,” 8vo and the nine following papers of his are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “An Account of Elden Hole, in Derbyshire,” No. 2. 2. “The Formation of Salt and Sand from Brine,” No. 145. 3. “Discourse concerning the Effects of the great Frost on Trees and other Plants, in 1683,” No. 165. 4. “A Discourse of perpetual Lamps,” No. 166. 5. “The History of the Weather at Oxford, in 1684 or the Observations of a full Year, made by Order of the Philosophical Society at Oxford,” No. 169. 6. “A large and curious Account of the Amianthos or Asbestine Linen,” No. 1708. 7. “Discourse concerning the most seasonable Time of felling Timber, written at the request of Samuel Pepys,esq. secretary of the admiralty,” No. 192. 8. “Of an Irishman of an extraordinary size, viz. Edward Mallone, nineteen years old, seven feet six inches high,” No. 240. 9. “A Catalogue of Electrical Bodies,” No. 245. In 1680, he published “The Clog, or Staffordshire Almanack,” engraven on a copper-plate, and inserted afterwards in his “History of Staffordshire.”

Since his decease, there have been published two letters of his one “giving an Account of some Antiquities in the County of Kent,” in 1714, 8vo, and preserved in the “Bibliotheca Topographica,” No. VI. another to the earl of Arlington, “concerning Thetford,” printed at the end of “The History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” published by Hearne, 1722, 8vo.

He left several manuscripts behind him among which were large materials for “The Natural History of Kent, of Middlesex, and of the City of London,” which he designed to have written in the same manner as he had written the Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire. His friend Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, much wished him to undertake an edition of Pliny’s “Natural History,” and a select volume of Mss. from the Ashmoiean Museum, which he says would be agreeable enough to him, but too expensive, as requiring his residence in Oxford, where he could not maintain his family so cheap as at Button Baron.

, a celebrated Platonic philosopher, was born at Lycopolis, in Egypt, in the year 205, but concerning his family or education, nothing is known. About the age of twenty, he first studied philosophy at the different schools of Alexandria, but attached himself particularly to Ammonius, in whom he found a disposition to superstition and fanaticism like his own. On the death of this preceptor, haying in his school frequently heard the Oriental philosophy commended, and expecting to find in it that kind of doctrine concerning divine natures which he was most desirous of studying, he determined to travel into Persia and India, to learn wisdom of the Magi and Gymnosophists and as the emperor Gordian was at this time undertaking an expedition against the Parthians, Plotinus seized the occasion, and in the year 243 joined the emperor’s army; but the emperor being killed, Plotinus fled to Antioch, and thence came to Rome, where Philip was now emperor.

For some time Plotinus remained silent, in consequence of the oath of secrecy which he had taken in the school of Ammonius; but after his fellow disciples, Herennius and Origines, had disclosed the mysteries of their master, he thought himself no longer bound by his promise 3 and became a public preceptor in philosophy, upon eclectic principles. During a period of ten years, he delivered all in the way of conversation, but at last he found it necessary to commit the substance of his lectures to writing and this being suffered to pass into the hands of his pupils without being transcribed, we cannot be surprized at the great obscurity and confusion which are still found in his writings, after all the pains that Porphyry took to correct them.His works are distributed under six classes, called Enneads. Proclus wrote commentaries upon them, and Dexippus defended them against the Peripatetics.

Although Plotinus’s plan was new, it was obscure, and he had but few disciples. He was not the less assiduous, however, in teaching, and studied very hard, preparing himself by watching and fasting. He was so respected for wisdom and integrity, that many private quarrels were referred to his arbitration, and parents on their death-beds were very desirous of consigning their children to his care. During his residence of twenty-six years at Rome, he became a favourite with Galienus, and would have persuaded that emperor to re-build a city in Campania, and people it with philosophers, to be governed by the laws of Plato but this was not effected. Although skilled in the medical art, he had such a contempt for the body, that he would never take any medicines when indisposed; nor for the same reason would he suffer his birth-day to be celebrated, or any portrait to be taken of his person. His pupil Amelius, however, procured one by stealth, painted while he was lecturing. Such abstinence, and neglect of health, brought him into a state of disease and infirmity, which rendered the latter part of his life exceedingly painful. When he found his end approaching, he said to Eustochius, “The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine being which animates the universe” herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded. Plotinus died in the year 270, aged sixty-six years. Porphyry represents him as having been possessed of miraculous powers, but there is more reason to conclude from his life and writings, that he belonged to the class of fanatics. His natural temper, his education, his system, all inclined him to fanaticism. Suffering himself to be led astray by a volatile imagination, from the plain path of good sense, he poured forth crude and confused conceptions, in obscure and incoherent language. Sometimes he soared in extatic flights into the regions of mysticism. Porphyry relates, that he ascended through all the Platonic steps of divine contemplation, to the actual vision of the deity himself, and was admitted to such intercourse with him, as no other philosopher ever enjoyed. They who are well acquainted with human nature, will easily perceive in these flights, unequivocal proofs of a feeble or disordered mind, and will not wonder that the system of Plotinus was mystical, and his writings obscure. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have become, in a great degree, the preceptor of the world, and should, by means of his disciples, have every where disseminated a species of false philosophy, which was compounded of superstition, enthusiasm, and imposture. The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring, were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine.

, a celebrated lawyer, the son of Humphrey Plowden, of Plowden, in Shropshire, of an ancient and genteel family, was born in that county, in 1517, and fjrst studied philosophy and medicine for three years at Cambridge but removed after a time to Oxford, where he continued his former studies for four years more, and in 1552, according to Wood, was admitted to the practice of physic and surgery. Tanner says, that when he left Cambridge, he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and resuming the study of physic, went then to Oxford. It appears, however, that he finally determined on the law as a profession, and entered the Middle Temple, where he soon became reader. His first reading was in autumn, 4 and 5 of Philip and Mary; and his second was in Lent, 3 Eliz. In queen Mary’s time he was called to the degree of serjeant; but, being zealously attached to the Romish persuasion, lost all further hopes of preferment, on the accession of Elizabeth. He continued to be much consulted in private as a counsellor. He died Feb. 6, 1584-5, and was buried in the Middle Ternple church. By a ms note on a copy of his Reports once in the possession of Dr. Ducarel, it appears that he was treasurer of the Middle Temple in 1572, the year in which the hall was built. It is added that “he was a man of great gravity, knowledge, and integrity; in his youth excessively studious, so that (we have it by tradition) in three years space he went not once out of the Temple.”

The work by which Mr. Plowden is best known by the profession, is his “Commentaries or Reports, containing divers cases upon matters of law, argued and determined in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Eliz.” These were originally written in French, and the editions of 1571, 1578, 1599, 1613, and 1684, were published in that language. It was not until 1761, that an English translation appeared, improved by many original notes and references to the ancient and modern Common Law books. To this edition were added his “Queries, or Moot-Book for young Students,” and “The Argument,” in the case of William Morgan et al. v. Sir Rice Manxell. Mr. Daines Harrington calls Plowden the most accurate of all reporters; and Mr. Hargrave says that his “Commentaries” deservedly bear as high a character as any book of reports ever published in our law.

, a French writer, born at Rheims, in 1688, was early distinguished by his progress in polite letters, and by his amiable character, qualities which procured him to be appointed classical professor in the university of Rheims. Some time after, he was removed to the professorship of rhetoric, and admitted into holy orders. Clermont, bishop of Laon, being made acquainted with his merit, offered him the place of director of the college of Clermont, and he was advancing the reputation of this seminary, when the peculiar opinions he held respecting some subjects which then interested the public, obliged him to leave his situation. On this, Gasville, the intendant of Rouen, appointed him tutor to his son, upon the recommendation of the celebrated Rollin. After this, he went to Paris, where he first gave lectures upon history and geography, and then acquired a considerable reputation by some works which he published I. His “Spectacle de la Nature” is generally known, having been translated into perhaps all the European languages, and was no where more popular than in England for many years. This work is written with perspicuity and elegance, and is equally instructive and agreeable; its only fault is, that the author uses too many words for his matter, which, however, is perhaps unavoidable in the dialogue form of writing. 2. 61 Histoire du Ciel,“in 2 vols. 12mo, is another work of the abbe” Pluche, a kind of mythological history of the heavens, consisting of two parts, almost independent of one another. The first, which contains some learned inquiries into the origin of the poetic heavens, and an attempt to prove that the pagan deities had not been real men, was animadverted upon by M. Silouette, in “Observations on the Abbe Pluche' s History,” &c. an account of which may be seen in the “History of the Works of the Learned” for April 1743, with notes by Warburton. 3. He wrote a tract also “De artificio linguarum,” 1735, 12mo, which he translated himself, under the title of “La Mechanique des Langues,” in which he proposes a short and easy method of learning languages, by the use of translations instead of themes or exercises. 4. “Concorde de la Geographic des differens ages,” 1764, 12mo, a posthumous work, well conceived, but executed superficially. 5. “Harmonic des Pseaumes et de PEvangile,” 1764, 12mo, a translation of the Psalms, remarkable for its fidelity and elegance, with many learned notes of reference and illustration from other parts of Scripture. Pluche had obtained the abbey of Varenne St Maur, to which he retired in 1749, and gave himself up entirely to devotion and study, which was a happy relief to him, as he lost all the pleasures of literary society, by an incurable deafness. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 20, 1761. He was a believer in all the mysteries of his church, even to an extreme; and when some free-thinkers used to express their astonishment that a man of abbé Pluche’s force of understanding could think so like the vulgar, he used to say, “I glory in this it is more reasonable to believe the word of God, than to follow the vain and uncertain lights of reason.”

, a celebrated English botanist, was born, as he himself has recorded, in 1642, but where he was educated, or in what university he received his degrees, has. not been ascertained. It has been conjectured, from a few circumstances, that it was at Cambridge. His name seems of French extraction, plus que net, and has been Latinized plus quam nitidus. He dates the prefaces to his works from Old Palace-yard, Westminster, where he seems to have had a small garden. It does not appear that he attained to any considerable eminence in his profession of phjsic, and it is suspected he was only an apothecary, but he was absorbed in the study of plants, and devoted all his leisure to the composition of his “Phytographia.” He spared no pains to procure specimens of rare and new plants, had correspondents in all parts of the world, and access to the gardens of Hampton-court, then Very flourishing, and all others that were curious. PIukenet was one of those to whom Ray was indebted for assistance in the arrangement of the second volume of his history, and that eminent man every where bears the strongest testimony to his merit. Yet he was in want of patronage, and felt that want severely. With Sloane and Petiver, two of the first botanists of his own age, he seems to have been at variance, and censures their writings with too much asperity. “Plukenet,” says sir J. E. Smith, whose opinion in such matters we are always happy to follow, “was, apparently, a man of more solid learning than either of those distinguished writers, and having been less prosperous than either, he was perhaps less disposed to palliate their errors. As far as we have examined, his criticisms, however severe, are not unjust.” No obstacles damped the ardour of Plukenet in his favourite pursuit. He was himself at the charge of his engravings, and printed the whole work at his own expence, with the exception of a small subscription of about fifty-five guineas, which he obtained near the conclusion of it. Towards the close of his life he is said to have been assisted by the queen, and to have obtained the superintendance of the garden at Hampton-court. He was also honoured with the title of royal professor of botany. The time of his decease is not precisely ascertained, but it is probable that he did not long survive his last publication, which appeared in 1705. His works were, 1. “Phytographia, sive stirpium illustrium et minus cognitorum Icones,” 1691—1696, published in four parts, and containing 328 plates, in 4to. 2. “Almagestum Botanicum, sive Phytographiae Piukenetianae Onornasticon,” &c. 1696, 4to the catalogue is alphabetical, and contains near 6000 species, of which, he tells us, 500 were new. No man, after Caspar Bauhine, had till then examined the ancient authors with so much attention as he did, that he might settle his synonyms with accuracy. He follows no system. 3. “Almagesti Botanici Mantissa,” 1700, 4to, with twenty-five new plates. Besides many new plants, this volume contains very numerous additions to the synonyms of the Almagestum. 4. Five years after the Mantissa he published the “Amaltheum Botanicum,” with three plates, 4to. It abounds with new subjects, sent from China and the East Indies, with some from Florida. These works of Plukenet contain upwards of 2740 figures, most of them engraved from dried specimens, and many from small sprigs, destitute of flowers, or any parts of fructification, and consequently not to be ascertained: but several of these, as better specimens came to hand, are figured again in the subsequent plates. As he employed a variety of artists, they are unequally executed; those by Vander Gucht have usually the preference. It is much to be regretted that he had it not in his power to give his figures on a larger scale yet, with all their imperfections, these publications form a large treasure of botanical knowledge. The herbarium of Plukenet consisted of 8000 plants, an astonishing number to be collected by a private and not opulent individual: it came, after his death, into the hands of sir Hans Sloane, and is now in the British museum. His works were republished, with new titlepages, in 1720, and entirely reprinted, with some additions, in 1769; and in 1779 an Index Linnaeanus to his plates were published by Dr. Giseke, of Hamburgh, which contains a few notes, from a ms. left by Plukenet. The original ms. of Plukenet’s works is now in the library of sir J. E. Smith, president of the Linnaean society. Plumier, to be mentioned in the next article, complimented this learned botanist by giving his name to a plant, a native of both Indies.

, called Father Plumier, being a religious, of the order of Minims, was born at Marseilles, April 20, 1646, and was a botanist not less famous than his contemporary Plukenet. He entered into his order at sixteen, and studied mathematics and other sciences at Toulouse, under father Maignan, of the same society. He did not only learn the profound sciences, but became an expert mechanic. In the art of turning he became such a proficient as to write a book upon it and learned also to make lenses, mirrors, microscopes, and other mathematical instruments, all which knowledge he gained from Maignan. He was soon after sent by his superiors to Rome, where, by his application to mathematics, optics, and other studies, he nearly destroyed his constitution. As a relaxation from these severer sciences, he applied to botany, under the instruction of father Serjeant, at Romey of Francis de Onuphriis, an Italian physician, and of Sylvius Boccone, a Sicilian. Being recalled by his order into Provence, he obtained leave to search the neighbouring coasts, and the Alps, for plants; and soon became acquainted with Tournefort, then on his botanical tour, and with Garidel, professor of botany at Aix. When he had thus qualified himself, he was chosen as the associate of Surian, to explore the French settlements in the West Indies, as Sloane had lately examined Jamaica. He acquitted himself so well that he was twice afterwards sent at the expence of the king, whose botanist he was appointed, with an increased salary each time. Plumier passed two years in those islands, and on the neighbouring continent, but principally in Domingo; and made designs of many hundred plants, of the natural size, besides numerous figures of birds, fishes, and insects. On his return from his second voyage he had his first work published at the Louvre, at the king’s expence, entitled, 1. “Descriptions des Plantes de PAmerique,” fol. 1695, pp. 94, 108 plates. These figures consist of little more than outlines, but being as large as nature, and well drawn by himself, produce a fine effect. On his return fro/n his third voyage he settled at Paris, and in 1703 published, 2. his “Nova Plantarum Americanarum Genera,” 4to. In the year ensuing he was prevailed upon by M. Fagon to undertake a voyage to Peru, to discover and delineate the Peruvian bark. His great zeal for the science, even at that age, induced him to consent; but while he was waiting for the ship near Cadiz, he was seized with a pleurisy, and died in 1704. Sir J. E. Smith says, that as Rousseau’s Swiss herbalist died of a pleurisy, whilst employed in gathering a sovereign Alpine remedy for that disorder so it is not improbable that Plumier was extolling the Polytrichum (see his preface, p. 2.) as “un antipleuritique des plus assurez,” when he himself fell a victim to the very same distemper; leaving his half-printed book to be his monument. This was, 3. “Traité des Fougeres de l'Amerique,” on the Ferns of America, 1705, folio, 172 plates. He published, as above-mentioned, 4. “L'Art de Tourner,” the Art of Turning, Lyons, 1701, and republished in L740. 5. There are also two dissertations by him, in the Journal des Savant, 1694, and that of Trevoux, to prove, what is now well known, that the cochineal is an insect.

The above works contained but a small part of the productions of Plumier’s pencil. Vast treasures of his drawings, in outline, have remained in the French libraries, for the most part unpublished. The late earl of Bute obtained copies of a great number of these, which after his lordship’s death passed into the hands of sir Joseph Banks. Boerhaave had previously procured copies of above 500, done by the accurate Aubriet, under Vaillant’s inspection, which were, afterwards, in great part at least, published by John Burman at Amsterdam, between 1755 and 1760. These plates are executed with tolerable, but by no means infallible, accuracy, being far inferior in neatness and correctness to what Plumier himself published. The wellmeaning editor has overloaded the book with descriptions pf his own, necessarily made from the figures, and therefore entirely superfluous. They are indeed not unfrequently founded in misapprehension nor has he been very happy in the adaptation of his materials to Linnaean names and principles.

Our author left no herbarium of his own, his collection of dried plants having been lost at sea; but he had, on various occasions, communicated dried specimens toTournefort; and these still remain, with his hand-writing annexed, in the collections at Paris. Lister, who visited Plumier in his cell at the convent of Minims in that city, speaks of his obliging and communicative manners, and of his “designs and paintings of plants, birds, fishes, and insects of the West Indies, all done by himself very accurately.”

, a great philosopher and historian of antiquity, who lived from the reign of Claudius to that of Adrian, was born at Chaeronea, a small city of Bceotia, in Greece, which had also been the birth-place of Pindar, but was far from partaking of the proverbial dulness of his country. Plutarch’s family was ancient in Chaeronea: his grandfather Lamprias was a man eminent for his learning, and a philosopher; and is often mentioned by Plutarch in his writings, as is also his father. Plutarch was initiated early in study, to which he was naturally inclined; and was placed under Ammonius an Egyptian, who, having taught philosophy with reputation at Alexandria, thence travelled into Greece, and settled at Athens. Under this master he made great advances in knowledge, but being more intent on things than words, he neglected the languages. The Roman language at that time was not only the language of 'Rome, but of Greece also; and much more used there than the French is now in England. Yet he was so far from regarding it then, that, as we learn from himself, he did not become conversant in it till the decline of life; and, though he is supposed to have resided in Rome near forty years, at different times, he never seems to have acquired a competent skill in it.

After he had received his first instructions from Ammonius, he considered with himself, that a larger communication with the wise and learned was yet necessary, and therefore resolved to travel. Egypt was, at that time, as formerly it had been, famous for learning and probably the mysteriousness of their doctrine might tempt him, as it had tempted Pythagoras and others, to converse with the priesthood of that country. This appears to have been particularly his business, by his treatise “Of Isis and Osiris,” in which he shews himself versed in the ancient theology and philosophy of the wise men. From Egypt he returned into Greece; and, visiting in his way all the academies and schools of the philosophers, gathered from them many of those observations with which he has abundantly enriched posterity. He does not seem to have been attached to any particular sect, but chose from each of them whatever he thought excellent and worthy to be regarded. He could not bear the paradoxes of the Stoics, but yet was more averse to the impiety of the Epicureans in many things he followed Aristotle but his favourites were Socrates and Plato, whose memory he reverenced so highly, that he annually celebrated their birth-days with much solemnity. Besides this, he applied himself witri extreme diligence to collect, not only all books that were excellent in their kind, but also all the sayings and observations of wise men, which he had heard in conversation, or had received from others by tradition and likewise to consult the records and public instruments preserved in cities which he had visited in his travels. He took a particular journey to Sparta, to search the archives of that famous commonwealth, to understand thoroughly the model of their ancient government, the history of their legislators, their kings, and their ephori; and digested all their memorable deeds and sayings with so much care, that he has not omitted even those of their women. He took the same methods with regard to many other commonwealths; and thus was enabled to leave in his works such observations upon men and manners, as have rendered him, in the opinion of many, the most valuable author of antiquity.

The circumstances of Plutarch’s life are not known, and therefore cannot be related with any exactness. He was married, and his wife’s name was Timoxena, as Rualdus conjectures with probability. He had several children, and among them two sons, one called Plutarch after himself, the other Lamprias, in memory of his grandfather. Lamprias was he, of all his children, who seems to have inherited his father’s philosophy; and to him we owe the table, or catalogue of Plutarch’s writings, and perhaps also his “Apophthegms.” He had a nephew, Sextus Chseroneus, who taught the emperor Marcus Aurelius the Greek language, and was much honoured by him. Some think that the critic Longinus was of his family; and Apuleius, in the first book of his Metamorphoses, affirms himself to be descended from him.

On what occasion, and at what time of his life, he went to Rome, how long he lived there, and when he finally returned to his own country, are all uncertain. It is probable, that the fame of him went thither before him, not only because he had published several of his works, but because immediately upon his arrival, as there is reason to believe, he had a great resort of the Roman nobility to hear him: for he tells us himself, that he was so taken up in giving lectures of philosophy to the great men of Rome, that he had not time to make himself master of the Latin tongue, which is one of the first things that would naturally have engaged his attention. It appears, that he was several times at Rome; and perhaps one motive to his inhabiting there was, the intimacy he had contracted in some of these journeys with Sossius Senecio, a great and worthy man, who had been four times consul, and to whom Plutarch has dedicated many of his lives. But the great inducement which carried him first to Rome was, undoubtedly, that which had carried him into so many other parts of the world; 'namely, to make observations upon men and manners, and to collect materials for writing “The Lives of the Roman Worthies,” in the same manner as he had already written those of Greece: and, accordingly, he not only conversed with all the living, but searched the records of the Capitol, and of all the libraries. Not but, as we learn from Suidas, he was entrusted also with the management of public affairs in the empire, during his residence in the metropolis: “Plutarch,” says he, “lived in the time of Trajan, who bestowed on him the consular ornaments, and also caused an edict to be passed, that the magistrates or officers of Illyria should do nothing in that province without his knowledge and approbation.”

When, and how, he was made known to Trajan, is likewise uncertain: but it is generally supposed, that Trajan, a private man when Plutarch first came to Rome, was, among other nobility, one of his auditors. It is also supposed, that this wise emperor made use of him in his councils; and much of the happiness of his reign has been imputed to Plutarch. The desire of visiting his native country, so natural to all men, and especially when growing old, prevailed with him at length to leave Italy; and, at his return, he was unanimously chosen archon, or chief magistrate, of Chaeronea, and not long after admitted into the number of the Delphic Apollo’s priests. We have no particular account of his death, either as to the manner or the year; but conjecture has fixed it about the year 120. It is evident that he lived, and continued his studies, to an extreme old age.:,i

His works have been divided, and they admit of a tolerably equal division, into “Lives” and “Morals:” the former of which, in his own estimation, were to be preferred, as more noble than the latter. As a biographer he has great merit, and to him we stand indebted for much of the knowledge we possess, concerning several of the most eminent personages of antiquity. His style perhaps may be justly censured for harshness and obscurity, and he has also been criticized for some mistakes in Roman antiquities, and for a. little partiality to the Greeks. On the other hand, he has been justly praised, for sense, learning, integrity, and a certain air of goodness, which appears in all he wrote. Some have affirmed his works to be a kind of library, and collection of all that was wisely said and done among the ancient Greeks and Romans: and if so, the saying of Theodorus Gaza was not extravagant. This learned man, and great preceptor of the Greek tongue at the revival of literature, being asked by a friend “If learning must suffer a general shipwreck, and he have only his choice of one author to be preserved, who that author should be?” answered, “Plutarch.” But although it is unquestionable that in extent and variety of learning Plutarch had few equals, he does not appear to have excelled as much in depth and solidity of judgment. Where he expresses his own conceptions and opinions, he often supports them by feeble and slender arguments: where he reports, and attempts to elucidate, the opinions of others, he frequently falls into mistakes, or is chargeable with misrepresentations. In proof of this assertion, Brucker mentions what he has advanced concerning Plato’s notion of the soul of the world, and concerning the Epicurean philosophy. Brucker adds, that Plutarch is often inaccurate in method, and sometimes betrays a degree of credulity unworthy of a philosopher.

There have been many editions of Plutarch, but he came later to the press than most other classical authors. There was no edition of any part of the original Greek, before Aldus printed the “Morals,” which was not until 1509. The “Lives” appeared first at Florence, by Junta, in 1517. The first edition of the “Opera Omnia,” was Stephen’s, at Paris, in 1572, Greek and Latin, 13 vols. Dr. Harwood calls it one of the most correct books H. Stephens ever published; but other critics are by no means of this opinion. The next was that of Cruserius, at Francfort, 1599, 2 vols. folio, which has the advantage of Xylander’s excellent Latin version, who himself published two editions, Francfort, 1620, and Paris, 1624, 2 vols. folio; both valuable. Reiske’s, of Leipsic, 1774, &c. 12 vols. 8vo, is a most elaborate edition, which, however, he did not live to finish. But the best of all is that of Wytteubach, published lately at Oxford in quarto and octavo, and too well known to scholars to require any description.

Plutarch’s Works have been translated into most European languages. There is an indifferent one in English by various hands of the “Morals,” printed about the beginning of the last century, in five volumes, octavo; which was accompanied, about the same time, by the “Lives,” translated by Dryden and others: a very superior translation of the latter was published by Dr. Langhorne and his brother, which has been since corrected, and very much improved, by Mr. Wrangham. A good translation of the “Morals” is still a desideratum.

, a gentleman of Dauphiny, is recorded as the first who opened a school for riding the manege in France, which, till then, could be learned only in Italy. He flourished in the reign of Henry IV. who made him his chief master of the horse, and his chamberlain; besides which, he sent him as an ambassador into Holland. He died at Paris in 1620, having prepared a work, which was published five years after, entitled “L'Art de monter a Cheval,” folio, with plates. The figures are portraits, by Crispin de Pas.

, a learned English divine, and the first Oriental scholar of his time, was the son of Edward Pocock, B. D. some time fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, and vicar of Chively in Berkshire. He was born at Oxford Nov. 8, 1604, iii the parish of St. Peter in the East. He was sent early to the free-school of Thame, where he made such progress in classical learning, under Mr. Richard Butcher, an excellent teacher, that at the age of fourteen he was thought fit for the university, and accordingly was entered of Magdalen-hall. After two years residence here, he was a candidate for, and after a very strict examination, was elected to, a scholarship of Corpus Christi college, to which he removed in December 1620. Here, besides the usual academical courses, he diligently perused the best Greek and Roman authors, and, 'among some papers written by him at this time, were many observations and extracts from Quintilian, Cicero, Plutarch, Plato, &c. which discover no common knowledge of what he read. In November 1622, he was admitted bachelor of arts, and about this time was led, by what means we are not told, to apply to the study of the Eastern languages, which at that time were taught privately at Oxford by Matthew Pasor. (See Pasor). In March 1626, he was created M. A. and having learned as much as Pasor then professed to teach, he found another able tutor for Eastern literature in the Rev. William Bedwell, vicar of Tottenham, near London, whom his biographer praises as one of the first who promoted the study of the Arabic language in Europe. Under this master Mr. Pocock advanced considerably in what was now become his favourite study and had 1 otherwise so much distinguished himself that the college admitted him probationer-fellow in July 1628.

As the statutes required that he should take orders within a certain time, he applied to the study of divinity and while employed in perusing the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical writers, he found leisure to exhibit a specimen of his progress in the oriental languages by preparing for the press those parts of the Syriac version of the New Testament which had never yet been published. Ignatius, the patriarch of Antioch, had in the sixteenth century sent Moses Meridinseus, a priest of Mesopotamia, into the West, to get the Syriac version of the New Testament printed, for the use of his churches. It was accordingly printed by the care and diligence of Albertus Widmanstad, at Vienna in 1555. But the Syriac New Testament, which was followed in this edition, wanted the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the whole book of the Revelations, because, as Lewis de Dieu conjectures, those parts of holy Scripture, though extant among them, were not yet received into the Canon by those Oriental Churches. This defect no one had thought of supplying until De Dieu, on the encouragement, and with the assistance of Daniel Heinsius, set about the Revelation, being furnished with a copy of it, which had been given, with many other manuscripts, to the university of Leyden by Joseph Scaliger. That version of the Apocalypse was printed at Leyden, in 1627, but still the four Epistles were wanting, and those Mr. Pocock undertook, being desirous that the whole New Testament might at length be published in that language, which was the vulgar tongue of our Saviour nimself and his apostles. A very fair manuscript for this purpose he had met with in the Bodleian Library, containing those Epistles, together with some other parts of the New Testament. Out of this manuscript, following the example of De Dieu, he transcribed those epistles in the Syriac character: the same he likewise set down in Hebrew letters, adding the points, not according to the ordinary, but the Syriac rules, as they had been delivered by those learned Maronites, Amira and Sionita. He also made a new translation of these epistles out of Syriac into Latin, comparing it with that of Etzelius, and shewing on various occasions the reason of his dissent from him. He also added the original Greek, concluding the whole with a number of learned and useful notes. When finished, although with the utmost care and exactness, yet so great was his modesty and distrust of himself, that he could not be persuaded to think it fit for publication, till after it had lain by him about a year, when he was induced to consent to its publication by Gerard John Vossius, who was then at Oxford, and to whom it had been shown by Rouse, the public librarian, as the production of a young man scarcely twenty-four years old. Vossius not only persuaded him to allow it to be printed, but promised to take it with him to Leyden for that purpose. It was accordingly published there in 1630, 4to, after some few corrections and alterations in the Latin version, in which Mr. Pocock readily acquiesced, from the pen of Lewis de Dieu, to whom Vossius committed the care of the work.

In Dec. 1629 Mr. Pocock was ordained priest by Corbet, bishop of Oxford, by whom he had some time before been admitted into deacon’s orders, and was now appointed chaplain to the English merchants at Aleppo, where he arrived in Oct. 1630, and continued five or six years. Here he distinguished himself by an exemplary discharge of the duties of his function, and when the plague broke out in 1634, was not to be diverted from what he thought his duty, when the merchants fled to the mountains; but continued to administer such comfort as was possible to the inhabitants of the city; and the mercy on which he relied for his own preservation, was remarkably extended to his countrymen, not one dying either of those who left, or those who remained in the city. While here he paid considerable attention to the natural history of the place, as far as concerned the illustration of the Scriptures, and besides making some farther progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopic languages, took the opportunity which his situation afforded of acquiring a familiar knowledge of the Arabic. For this purpose he agreed with an Arabian doctor to give him lessons, and engaged also a servant of the same country to live with him for the sake of conversing io the language. He also studied such grammars and lexicons as he could find read the Alcoran with great care, and translated much from books in the Arabic, particularly a collection which he procured of 6000 proverbs, containing the wisdom of the Arabians, and referring to the most remarkable passages of their history. These opportunities and advantages iri time reconciled him to a situation which at first greatly depressed his spirits the transition indeed from Oxford and its scholars to Aleppo and its barbarians, could not but affect a man of his disposition.

Another object he had very much at heart while here, was the purchase of Arabic Mss. in which he had considerable success. This appears at first to have been done at his private expence and for his private use but in a letter from Laud, then bishop of London, dated Oct. 30, 1631, he received a commission from that munificent prelate, which must have been highly gratifying to him, especially as he had no previous acquaintance with his lordship. The bishop’s commission extended generally to the purchase of ancient Greek coins, and such Mss. either in the Greek or Eastern languages, as he thought would form a valuable addition to the university library. Whether any the Mss. afterwards given by Laud to the Bodleian were procured at this time seems doubtful. In a letter from Laud, then archbishop, dated May 1634, we find him thanking Pocock for some Gr-eek coins, but no mention of manuscripts. In this letter, however, is the first intimation of the archbishop’s design with respect to the foundation of an Arabic professorship at Oxford, and a hope that Pocock, before his return, would so far make himself master of that language as to be able to teach it. And having carried his design into execution about two years afterwards, he invited Mr. Pocock to fill the new chair, with these encouraging words, that “he could do him no greater honour, than to name him to the university for his first professor.” His departure from Aleppo seems to have been much regretted by his Mahometan friends, to whom he had endeared himself by his amiable manners; and it appears also that he had established such a correspondence as might still enable him to procure valuable manuscripts.

On his return he was admitted, July 8, 1636, to the degree of bachelor of divinity. On the 8th of August foU lowing Dr. Baillie, president of St. John’s, and vice-chancellor, informed the convocation that archbishop Laud, then chancellor of the university, in addition to his benefaction of Arabic books to the Bodleian, had founded a professorship, and had settled 40l. a-year, during his life, on a person who should read a lecture on that language fle then mentioned Mr. Pocock of Corpus Christi as the person nominated by the archbishop for the approbation of the convocation, a man, as they very well knew, “eminent for his probity, his learning, and skill in languages.” Being accordingly unanimously elected, he entered on his office two days after, Aug. 10, with an inaugural speech, part of which was afterwards printed, “ad finem notarum in Carmen Tograi,” edit. Oxon. 1661. After this introduction, the book, which he first undertook to read on, was the “Proverbs of Ali,” the fourth emperor of the Saracens, and cousin-german and son-in-law of Mahomet; a man of such account with that impostor, not only for his valour, but knowledge too, that he used to declare, that if all the learning of the Arabians were destroyed, it might be found again in Ali, as a living library. Upon this book, observing the directions of the archbishop in the statutes he had provided, he spent an hour every Wednesday in vacation-time, and in Lent, explaining the sense of the author, and the things relating to the grammar and propriety of the language, and also shewing its agreement with the Hebrew and Syriac, as often as there was occasion. The lecture being ended, he usually remained for some time in the public school, to resolve the questions of his hearers, and satisfy them in their doubts; and always that afternoon gave admittance in his chamber from one o'clock till four, to all who would come to him for farther conference and direction.

He does not appear, however, to have given more than one course of those lectures before he took a second journey to the East, along with Mr. John Greaves, and this by the archbishop’s encouragement, who was still bent on procuring manuscripts, and would not lose the advantage of such agents. The archbishop also allowed him the profits of his professorship to defray his expences, besides which Mr. Pocock enjoyed his fellowship of Corpus, and had a small estate by the death of his father. The whole annual produce of these he is supposed to have expended in this expedition. During his absence Mr. Thomas Greaves, with the archbishop’s consent, supplied the Arabic lecture. On, Mr. Pocock’s arrival at Constantinople, the English ambassador, sir Peter Wyche, entertained him in his house as his chaplain, and assisted him, by his interest, in the great object of his journey. In pursuit of this he made several valuable acquaintances among some learned Jews, particularly Jacob Romano, author of an addition to Buxtorf’s “Bibliotheca Rabbinica,” a man of great learning and candour but his ablest assistant was the learned and unfortunate Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople (see Lucar), to whom we owe that valuable ms. the “Codex Alexandrinus” and Nath. Canopius, who to avoid the fate of his master Lucar, came to England, and lived for some time under the patronage of archbishop Laud, who gave him preferment in Christ church, from which he was ejected in 1648. He derived some assistance also from his fellow-labourer in the collection of books and Mss. Christian Ravius, but especially from John Greaves, whose zeal in this research we have already noticed.

At length about the beginning of 1640, Mr. Pocock' s friends began to solicit his return; the archbishop in a letter dated March 4 of that year says, “I am now going to settle my Arabic lecture for ever upon the university, and I would have your name to 'the deed, which is the best honour I can do for the service.” Accordingly he embarked in August, but did not return home entirely by sea, but through part of France and Italy. At Paris he was introduced to many of the learned men of the time, particularly to Gabriel Sionita, the celebrated Maronite, and to Grotius, to whom he communicated a design he had of translating his treatise “De Veritate” into Arabic, for the benefit of the Mahometans, many of whom he believed were prepared for more light and knowledge than had yet been afforded them. Pocock at the same time candidly told Grotius, who very much approved the design, that there were some things towards the end of his book, which he could not approve, viz. certain opinions, which, though they are commonly in Europe charged on the followers of Mahomet, have yet no foundation in any of their authentic writings, and are such as they are ready on all occasions to disclaim. With this freedom Grotius was so far from being displeased, that he heartily thanked Mr. Pocock for it, and gave him authority, in the version he intended, to expunge and alter whatsoever he should think fit.

His journey home was attended with many melancholy circumstances. While at Paris, and on the road, he heard of the commotions in England, and on his arrival, he found his liberal patron, Laud, a prisoner in the Tower. Here he immediately visited the archbishop, and their interview was affecting on both sides. The archbishop thanked him for the care he had taken in executing his commissions, and for his interesting correspondence while abroad, adding that it was no small aggravation of his present misfortunes that he no longer had it in his power tp reward such important services to the cause of literature. Mr. Pocock then went to Oxford, to dissipate his grief, and in hopes of enjoying some tranquillity in a place which had not yet become the scene of confusion and there he found that the archbishop had settled the Arabic professorship in perpetuity by a grant of lands. He now resumed his lecture, and his private studies. In 1641 he became acquainted with the celebrated John Selden, who was at this time preparing for the press, with no very liberal design, some part of Eutychius’s annals, in Latin and Arabic, which he published the year following, under the title of “Origines Alexandrine,” and Mr. Pocock assisted him in collating and extracting from the Arabic books in Oxford. Selden’s friendship was afterwards of great importance to him, as he had considerable influence with the republican party. In 1642 Oxford became the seat of war, and was that of learning only in a secondary degree. Mr. Pocock was however removed from a constant residence for some time, by the society of Corpus Christi, who bestowed on him the vacant living of Childrey in Berkshire, about twelve miles from Oxford, which of course he could easily visit during term time, when he was to read his lecture. As a parish priest, his biographer informs us, that “he set himself with his utinost diligence to a conscientious performance of all the duties of his cure, preaching twice every Sunday; and his Sermons were so contrived by him, as to be most useful to the persons who were to hear him. For though such as he preached in the university were very elaborate, and full of critical and other learning, the discourses he delivered in his parish were plain and easy, having nothing in them which he conceived to be above the capacities even of the meanest of his auditors. And as he carefully avoided all ostentation of learning, so he would not indulge himself in the practice of those arts, which at that time were very common, and much admired by ordinary people such as distortions of the countenance, and strange gestures, a violent and unnatural way of speaking, and affected words and phrases, which being out of the ordinary way were therefore supposed to express somewhat very mysterious, and in an high degree spiritual. His conversation too was one continued sermon, powerfully recommending to all, who were acquainted with him, the several duties of Christianity.”

But all this found no protection against the violence of the times. Immediately after the execution of archbishop Laud, the profits of his professorship were seized by the sequestrators, as part of that prelate’s estate, although Mr. Pocock, in a letter to these sequestrators, endeavoured to shew the utility of this foundation to the interests of learning, and his own right to the settlement of the founder, which was made with all the forms of law. This for some time had no effect, but at last men were found even in those days who were ashamed of such a proceeding, and had the courage to expose its cruelty and absurdity and in 1647 the salary of the lecture was restored by the interposition of Selden, who had considerable interest with the usurpers. Dr. Gerard Langbaine also, the provost of Queen’s college, drew up a long instrument in Latin, stating the legal course taken by the archbishop in the foundation of the Arabic lecture, and the grant the university had made to Mr. Pocock of its profits. This he and some others proposed in congregation, and the seal of the university was affixed to it with unanimous consent. About the same time, Mr. Pocock obtained a protection from the hand and seal of general Fairfax, against the outrage of the soldiery, who would else have plundered his house without mercy.

In 1648, on the recommendation of Dr. Sheldon and Dr. Hammond, he was nominated Hebrew professor, with the canonry of Christ church annexed, by the king, then a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, and was soon after voted into the same lecture by the Committee of Parliament, but a different canonry being assigned him than that which had been annexed to the professorship, he entered a protest against it, that it might not become a precedent, and prejudice his successors. In the interim he found leisure and composure to publish at Oxford, in the latter end of 1649, his very learned work entitled “Specimen Historic Arabum.” This contains a short discourse in Arabic, with his Latin translation, and large and very useful notes. The discourse itself is taken out of the general History of Gregory Abulfaragius, being his introduction to his ninth dynasty (for into ten dynasties that author divided his work), where being about to treat of the empire of the Saracens or Arabians, he gives a compendious account of that people before Mahomet as also of that impostor himself, and the new religion introduced by him, and of the several sects into which it was divided. And Mr. Pocock’s Notes on this Discourse are a collection of a great variety of things relating to those matters out of more than an hundred Arabic manuscripts, a catalogue of which he adds in the end of his book.

In November 1650, about a year after publishing the preceding work, he was ejected from his canonry of Christ church for refusing to take the engagement, and soon after a vote passed for depriving him of the Hebrew and Arabic lectures but upon a petition from the heads of houses at Oxford, the masters, scholars, &c. two only of the whole number of subscribers being loyalists, this vote was reversed, and he was suffered to enjoy both places, and took lodgings, when at Oxford, in Baliol college. In 1655 a more ridiculous instance of persecution was intended, and would have been inflicted, if there had not yet been some sense and spirit left even among those who had contributed to bring on such calamities. It appears that some of his parishioners had presented an information against him to the commissioners appointed by parliament “for ejecting ignorant, scandalous, insufficient, and negligent ministers.” But the connection of the name of Pocock with such epithets was too gross to be endured, and, we are told, filled several men of great fame and eminence at that time at Oxford with indignation, in consequence of which they resolve'd to go to the place where the commissioners were to meet, and expostulate with them about it. In the number of those who went, were Dr. Seth Ward, Dr. John Wilkins, Dr. John Wailis, and Dr. John Owen, who all laboured with much earnestness to convince those men of the strange absurdity of what they were undertaking particularly Dr. Owen, who endeavoured with some warmth to make them sensible of the infinite contempt and reproach, which would certainly fall upon them, when it should be said, that they had turned out a man for imiifficiency, whom all the leamed, not of England only, but of all Europe, so justly admired for his vast knowledge and extraordinary accomplishments. And being himself one of the commissioners appointed by the act, he added, that he was now come to deliver himself, as well as he could, from a share in such disgrace, by protesting against a proceeding so strangely foolish and unjust. The commissioners being very much mortified at the remonstrances of so many eminent men, especially of Dr. Owen, in whom they had a particular confidence, thought it best to extricate themselves from their dilemma, by discharging Mr. Pocock from any farther attendance. And indeed he had been sufficiently tired with it; this persecution, which lasted for many months, being the most grievous to him of all he had undergone. It made him, as he declared to the world some time after, in the preface to the “Annales Eutychianae,” utterly incapable of study, it being impossible for him, when he attempted it, duly to remember what he had to do, or to apply himself to it with any attention.

In the same year (1655) Mr. Pocock published his “Porta Mosis,” being six prefatory discourses of Moses Maimonides, which in the original were Arabic, expressed in Hebrew characters, together with his own Latin translation of them, and a very large appendix of miscellaneous notes. This was the first production of the Hebrew press at Oxford from types procured, at the charge of the university, and by the influence of Dr. Langbaine. In the year following, Mr. Pocock appears to have entertained some thoughts of publishing the Rabbi Tanchum’s expositions on the Old Testament. He was at this time the only person in Europe who possessed any of the Mss. of this learned rabbi; but probably from want of due encour.agement, he did not prosecute this design. The Mss. are now in the Bodleian. In 1657 the celebrated English Polyglot appeared, in which Mr. Pocock, as was natural to expect, had a considerable hand. Indeed the moment he heard of the design he entered into a correspondence with Dr. Walton, and, although his own engagements were very urgent, agreed to collate the Arabic pentateuch, and also drew up a preface concerning the Arabic versions of that pajt of the Bible, and the reason of the various readings in them. This preface, with the various readings, are published in the appendix to the Polyglot. He was perhaps yet more serviceable by contributing the use of some very valuable Mss. from his own collection, viz. the gospels in Persian, his Syriac ms. of the. whole Old Testament, and two other Syriac Mss. of the Psalms, and an Ethiopic ms. of the same.

In 1658, Mr. Pocock’s translation of the annals of Eutychius, from Arabic into Latin, was published at Oxford, in 2 vols. 4to. This was undertaken by Mr. Pocock at the request of Selden, who bore the whole expences of the printing, although he died before it appeared. He had long before this, in 1642, published an extract which he thought inimical to episcopacy, but which was afterwards proved to be a mere fable; and now Mr. Pocock, in his translation of the whole, farther proves how little reliance was to be placed on many of Eutychius’s assertions. Selden, in a codicil to his will, bequeathed the property of the “Annales Eutychii” to Dr. Langbaine and Mr. Pocock.

The restoration having been at last accomplished, Mr. Pocock was, in June 1660, replaced in, his canonry of Christ church, as originally annexed to the Hebrew professorship by Charles I. and on Sept. 20 took his degree of D. D. In the same year he was enabled by the liberality of Mr. Boyle, to print his Arabic translation of Grotius on the Truth of the Christian religion, which, we have already mentioned, he undertook with the full approbation of the author. His next publication, in 1661, was an Arabic poem entitled “Lamiato'l Ajam, or Carmen Abu Ismaelis Tograi,” with his Latin translation of it, and large notes upon it, with a preface by the learned Samuel Clarke, architypographus to the university, who had the care of the press, and contributed a treatise of his own on the Arabic prosody. This poem is held to be of the greatest elegance, answerable to the fame of its author, who, as Dr. Pocock gives his character, was eminent for learning and virtue, and esteemed the Phoenix of the age in which he lived, for poetry and eloquence. The doctor’s design in this work was, not only to give a specimen of Arabian poetry, but also to make the attainment of the Arabic tongue more easy to those who study it; and his notes, containing a grammatical explanation of all the words of this author, were unquestionably serviceable for promoting the knowledge of that language. These notes bei-ng the sum of many lectures, which, he read on -this poem, the speech, which he delivered, when entering on his office, is prefixed to it, and contains a succinct, but very accurate account of the Arabic tongue.

In 1663, Dr. Pocock published at Oxford, as we noticed in our account of that author, the whole of Gregory Abulfaragius’s “Historia Dynastiarum;” but this work was not much encouraged by the public, which his biographer accounts for in a manner not very creditable to the reign of Charles II. compared to the state of solid learning during tbat of the protectorate. The love of Arabic learning, he informs us, was now growing cold, and Pocock, in his correspondence with Mr. Thomas Greaves, seems very sensible of, and much hurt by this declension of literary taste. This also, his biographer thinks may in some measure account for our author’s rising no higher in church-preferment at the restoration, when such numbers of vacant dignities were filled. Perhaps, adds Mr. Twells, “he is almost the only instance of a clergyman, then at the highest pitch of eminence for learning, and every other merit proper to his profession, who lived throughout the reign of Charles II. without the least regard from the court, except the favour sometimes done him of being called upon to translate Arabic letters from the princes of the Levant, or the credential letters of ambassadors coming from those parts; for which yet we do not find he had any recompenc besides good words and compliments. But he was modest, as he was deserving, and probably, after his presenting Abulfaragius to the king, he never put himself in the way of royal regards any more.”

This discouragement, however, did not abate his zeal in the cause of biblical learning, to which he appears to have devoted the remainder of his life, publishing in 1677 his Commentary on the prophecy of Micah and Malachi, in 1685 on that of Hosea, and in 1691 that of Joel. In 1674 he had published, at the expense of the university, his Arabic translation of church catechism and the English liturgy, i. e. the morning and evening prayers, the order of administering baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the 39 articles. It was supposed that he meant to have commented upon some other of the lesser prophets, but this was prevented by his death on Sept. 10, 1691, after a gradual decay of some months, which, however, had not affected the vigour of his mind. His useful life had been prolonged to his eighty-seventh year, during the greater part of which he was, confessedly, the first Oriental scholar in Europe, and not less admired for the excellence of his private character, of which Mr. Twells has given an elaborate account, and which is confirmed by the report of all his contemporaries, but particularly by a long letter from the celebrated Locke, dated July 1703, to Mr. Smith of Dartmouth, who was then collecting materials for a life of Dr. Pocock.

In person he was of a middle stature, his hair and eyes black, his complexion fair, and his look lively and cheerful. In conversation he was free, open, and ingenuous; easily accessible and communicative to all who applied to him for advice in his peculiar province. His temper was unassuming, humble, and sincere, and his intellectual powers uniformly employed on the most useful subjects. His memory was great, and afforded him suitable advantages in the study of the learned languages. He wrote his own language with clearness and perspicuity, which form his principal recommendation as an English writer, but in his Latin a considerable degree of elegance may be perceived. His whole conduct as a divine, as a man of piety, and a minister of the church of England, was highly exemplary.

He was interred in one of the north ailes joining to the choir of the cathedral of Christ church, Oxford; and a monument is erected to him on the north wall of the north isle of that church, with the following inscription. “Edwardus Pocock, S. T. D. (cujus si nomen audias, nil hie de fama desideres) natus est Oxoniae Nov. 8, ann. Dom. 1604, socius in Collegium Corp. Christi cooptatus 1628, in Linguae Arabicse Lecturam publice habendam primus est institutus 1636, deincle etiam in Hebraicam Professori Regio successit 1648. Desideratissimo Marito Sept. 10, 1691, in ccelum reverso, Maria Burdet, ex qua novenam suscepit sobolem, tumuium hunc mcerens posuit.” His Theological works were republished at London in 1740, in 2 vo,l$. fol. by Mr. Leonard Twells, M. A. to which is prefixed a Life of the Author. Of this we have availed ourselves in the present sketch, but not without omitting many very curious particulars relating both to Dr. Pocock and to the history of his times, which render Mr. Twells’ s work one of the most interesting biographical documents. Dr. Pocock’s life was first attempted by the rev. Humphrey Smith, a Devonshire clergyman, who was assisted by the doctor’s eldest son, the rev. Edward Pocock, rector of Minall in Wiltshire, and prebendary of Sarum. What they could collect was, after a long interval, committed to the care of the rev. Leonard Tvvells, M. A. rector of the united parishes of St. Matthew’s Friday-street, and St. Peter Cheap, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, with the consent of the rev. John Pocock, the doctor’s grandson. The contents of these two volumes are the “Porta Mosis,” and his English commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi. The Arabic types were supplied by the society for the promoting Christian knowledge, in consequence of an application made to them by the rev. Arthur Bedford, chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital, Hoxton. But what renders this edition peculiarly valuable is, that it was corrected for the press by the rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thomas Hunt, one of Dr. Pocock’s learned successors in the Arabic chair.

Dr. Pocock had married in 1646, while he was resident upon his living in Berkshire and had nine children. We have only an account of his eldest son Edward Pocock, who, under his father’s direction, published, in 1671, 4to, with a Latin translation, an Arabic work, entitled “Philosophus Autodidactus sive, Epistola Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail de Hai Ebn Yokdhan. In qua ostenditur, quomod ex inferiorum contemplationead superiorum notitiam ratio humana ascendere possit.” In 1711, Simon Ockley published an English translation of this book, under the title of “The Improvement of Human Reason, exhibited in the Life of Hai Ebn Yokdhan,” &c. 8vo and dedicated it to Mr. Pocock, then rector of Minal in Wiltshire. Mr. Pocock had also prepared an Arabic history, with a Latin version, and put, to it the press at Oxford but not being worked off when his father died, he withdrew it, upon a disgust at not succeeding his father in the Hebrew professorship. The copy, as much of it as was printed, and the manuscript history, were, in 1740, in the hands of Mr. Pocock’s son, then rector of Minal.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

Among the ms treasures in the British Museum, are several volumes (4811 48.27) the gift of bishop Pococke viz. “Minutes and Registers of the Philosophical Society of Dublin, from 1683 to 1687, with a copy of the papers read before them;” and “Registers of the Philosophical Society of Dublin, from Aug. 14, 1707, with copies of some of these papers read before them” also “Several Extracts taken out of the Records in Birmingham’s Tower,” “An Account of the Franciscan Abbeys, Houses, and Friaries, in Ireland,” &c. &c.

Mr. Cumberland, whose paintings are to be viewed with some caution, gives the following as characteristic sketches of bishop Pococke: “That celebrated oriental traveller and author was a man of mild manners and primitive simplicity; having given the world a full detail of his researches in Egypt, he seemed to hold himself excused from saying any thing more about them, and observed in general an obdurate taciturnity. In his carriage and deportment he appeared to have contracted something of the Arab character, yet there was no austerity in his silence, and though his air was solemn, his temper was serene. When we were on our road to Ireland, I saw from the windows of the inn at Daventry a cavalcade of horsemen approaching on a gentle trot, headed by an elderly chief in clerical attire, who was followed by five servants at distances geometrically measured and most precisely maintained, and who, upon entering the inn, proved to be this distinguished prelate, conducting his horde with the phlegmatic patience of a Scheiki”

, one of the. revivers of literature, was the son of Guccio Bracciolini, and was born in 1380, at Terranuova, a small town situated in the territory of the republic of Florence, not far from Arezzo. He inherited from his father who had been a notary, but had lost his property, no advantages of rank or fortune, yet in a literary point of view, some circumstances of his birth were singularly propitious. At the close of the fourteenth century, the dawn of literature was appearing, and the city of Florence was distinguished by the zeal with which its principal inhabitants cultivated and patronized the liberal arts. It was consequently the favourite resort of the ablest scholars of the time; some of whom were induced by the offer of considerable salaries, to undertake the task of public instruction. In this celebrated school, Poggio applied himself to the study of the Latin tongue, under the direction of John of Ravenna; and of Greek, under Manuel Chrysoloras. When he had acquired a competent knowledge of these languages, he quitted Florence, and went to Rome, where his literary reputation introduced him to the notice of pope Boniface IX. who took him into his service, and promoted him to the office of writer of the apostolic letters, probably about 1402. At this time Italy was convulsed by war and faction, and in that celebrated ecclesiastical feud, which is commonly distinguished by the name of the “schism of the West,” no fewer than six of Poggio’s patrons, the popes, were implicated in its progress and consequences. In 1414 we find Poggio attending the infamous pope John to Constance, in quality of secretary; but as this pontiff fled from the council, his household was dispersed, and Poggio remained some time at Constance. Having a good deal of leisure, he employed his vacant hours in studying the Hebrew language, under the direction of a Jew who had been converted to the Christian faith. The first act of the council of Constance was the trial of pope John, who was convicted of the most atrocious vices incident to the vilest corruption of human nature, for which they degraded him from his dignity, and deprived him of his liberty. It was also by this council that John Huss, the celebrated Bohemian reformer, was examined and condemned, and that Jerome of Prague, in 1416, was tried. Poggio, who was present at Jerome’s trial, gave that very eloquent account of the martyr’s behaviour which we have already noticed (See Jerome Of Prague), and which proves, in the opinion of Poggio’s biographer, that he possessed a heart “which daily intercourse with bjgoted believers and licentious hypocrites could not deaden to the impulses of humanity.”

The vacancy in the pontifical throne still affording Poggio a considerable degree of leisure, he undertook about this time an expedition of no small importance to the interests of literature, in quest of such ancient manuscripts of classic authors as were scattered rh various monasteries and other repositories in the neighbourhood of Constance, where they were in danger of perishing through neglect and in this he was successful beyond any individual of his time. Among other precious relics thus recovered, was a complete copy of Quintilian pare of the Argonautics of Valerius Flaccus; Asconius Pedianus’s Comment on eight of Cicero’s orations several of the orations of Cicero Silius Italicus; Lactantius “de ira Dei” Vegetius “de re militari” Nonnius Marcellus Ammianus Marcellinus Lucretius Columella Tertullian twelve of the comedies of Plautus and various other works, or parts of the works of the ancient classics, which are enumerated by his Biographer.

After the ecclesiastical feud had been in some measure composed, Martin V. became the new pontiff, but Poggio did not at first hold any office under him, as he visited England in consequence of an invitation which he had received from Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. He is said to have observed with chagrin the uncultivated state of the public mind in Britain, when compared with the enthusiastic love of elegant literature, which polished and adorned his native country. During his residence here he received an invitation to take the office of secretary to Martin V. which was the more readily accepted by him, as he is said to have been disappointed in the expectations he had formed from the bishop of Winchester. The time of his arrival at Rome is not exactly ascertained but it appears that his first care afcer his re-establishment in the sacred chancery, was to renew with his friends the personal and epistolary communication which his long absence from Italy had interrupted. He now also resumed his private studies, and in 1429 published his “Dialogue on Avarice,” in which he satirized, with great severity, the friars who were a branch of the order of the Franciscans, and who, on account of the extraordinary strictness with which they professed to exercise their conventual discipline, were distinguished by the title of Fratres Observantly. He inveighs also against the monastic life with great freedom, but with a levity which renders it very questionable whether any kind of religious life was much to his taste. When Eugenius IV. was raised to the pontificate, his authority commenced with unhappy omens, being engaged in quarrels both in Italy and Germany and Poggio, foreseeing the disastrous event, wrote freely upon the subject to the cardinal Julian, the pope’s legate, that he might gain him over to his master’s interest. In this letter were some smart strokes of satiric wit, which the disappointed and irritated mind of Julian could not well bear. Poggio’s morals were not free from blame; and the cardinal in his answer reminds him of having children, which, he observes, “is inconsistent with the obligations of an ecclesiastic and by a mistress, which is discreditable to the character of a layman.” To these reproaches Poggio replied in a letter replete with the keenest sarcasm. He pleaded guilty to the charge which had been exhibited against him, and candidly confessed that he had deviated from the paths of virtue, but excused himself by the common-place argument that many ecclesiastics had done the same. In 1433, when the pope was obliged to fly from Rome, Poggio was taken prisoner, and obliged to ransom himself by a large sum of money. He then repaired to Florence, where he attached himself to the celebrated Cosmo de Medici, and in consequence became involved in a quarrel with Francis Philelphus (See Philelphus), which was conducted with mutual rancour. Poggio now purchased a villa at VaJdarno, which he decorated with ancient sculpture and monuments of art; and such was the esteem in which he was held by the republic of Florence, that he and his children were exempted from the payment of taxes. These children, all illegitimate, amounted to fourteen but in 1435, when he had attained his fifty-fifth year, he dismissed them and their mother without provision, and married a girl of eighteen years old. On this occasion he wrote a formal treatise on the propriety of an old man marrying a young girl the treatise is lost, and would be of little consequence if recovered, since the question was not whether an old man should marry a young girl, but whether an old man should discard his illegitimate offspring to indulge his sensuality under the form of marriage. As however, men in years who marry so disproportionately are generally very ardent lovers, he celebrates his young bride for her great beauty, modesty, sense, &c.

Whatever might be the case with his moral, Poggio’s literary reputation began about this time to be extensively diffused, and his writings became an object of frequent inquiry among the learned, some of whom solicited him to publish a collection of his epistles, from a perusal of which they had often derived gratification. This request could not but be highly agreeable to his feelings, and he readily took the requisite steps to comply with it. This was followed by a funeral oration in honour of his friend Niccolo Niccoli. In 1440 he published his “Dialogue on Nobility,” a work which, his biographer says, greatly increased his reputation, by the luminousiiess of its method, the elegance of its diction, and the learned references with which it was interspersed. This was followed by his dialogue “On the unhappiness of Princes,” in which he dwells with so much energy on the vices of exalted rank, as to afford room for suspicion, that resentment and indignation had at least as much influence in its composition as the suggestions of philosophy. However the effusions of moroseriess that occur in this dialogue are interspersed with precepts of sound morality, and the historic details with which it abounds are both entertaining and instructive.

Although Poggio held the office of apostolic secretary under seven pontiffs, he had never reached any of the superior departments of the Roman chancery. But when Nicholas V. ascended the pontifical throne, his prospects were brightened and he indulged the hope of spending the remainder of his days in a state of independence, if not of affluence. With a viewof improving his interest with the new pontiff, he addressed to him a congratulatory oration, which was recompensed by very liberal presents. This was succeeded by a dedicatory epistle, introducing to his patronage a dialogue “On the Vicissitudes of Fortune,” the most interesting of Poggio’s works, and inculcating maxims of sublime philosophy, enforced by a detail of splendid and striking events. Confiding in the pontiff, he also published the dialogue “On Hypocrisy,” already mentioned. At the request, and under the patronage of Nicolas, he also contributed to the illustration of Grecian literature, by a Latin translation of the works of Diodorus Siculus, and the “Cyropaedia” of Xenophon. During the plague, which raged in various parts of Italy, in 1450, Poggio visited the place of his nativity; and availing himself of this interval of relaxation from the duties of his office, he published his “Liber Facetiarum,” or collection of jocose tales, containing anecdotes of several eminent persons who flourished during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This work acquired a considerable degree of popularity, and was read, not only in the native country of its author, but also in France, Spain, Germany, and Britain, very little indeed to the credit of the readers, as it abounds with gross and abominable indecencies. In 1451 he dedicated to the cardinal Prospero Colonna, his “Historia disceptativa convivialis.” In 1453 Poggio was elevated to the chancellorship of Florence; and at the same time he was chosen one of the “Priori degli arti,” or presidents of the trading companies; both which offices he held till his death, which happened October 30, 1459. Notwithstanding the multiplicity of his business, and the advances of age, he prosecuted his studies with his accustomed ardour, and published a dialogue “De miseria hurnanae conditionis,” and a version of Lucian’s “Ass,” with a view of establishing a point of literary history, which seems to nave been till that time unknown namely, that Apuleius was indebted to Lucian for the stamina of his “Asinus aureus.” The last literary work in which he engaged, was his “History of Florence,” divided into eight books, and comprehending the events in which the Florentines were concerned from 1350 to the peace of Naples in 1455. This history was translated into Italian by Jacopo, the son of Poggio but the original was published by Recanati, and has been republished in the collections of Graevius and Muratori. Poggio concluded his career in the possession of universal respect, and in the tranquil enjoyment of social and domestic comforts. His remains were interred with solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce at Florence and his fellow-citizens testified thek respect for his talents and virtues, by erecting a statue to his memory on the front of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore. As the citizeu of a free state, which he deemed a high honour, he improved every opportunity that occurred for increasing and displaying the glory of the Tuscan republic. Although he was honoured by the favour of the great, he never sacrificed his independence at the shrine of power, but uniformly maintained the ingenuous sentiments of freedom. Such was the state of morals in his time, that the licentiousness which disgraced the early period of his life, and the indecent levity which occurs in some of his writings, did not deprive him of the countenance of the greatest ecclesiastical dignitaries, or cause him to forfeit the favour of the pious Eugenius, or of the moral and accomplished Nicolas V. To those with whom he maintained a personal intercourse, he recommended himself by the urbanity of his manners, the strength of his judgment, and the sportiveness of his wit. “As a scholar, Poggio is entitled to distinguished praise. By assiduous study, he became a considerable proficient in the Greek language, and intimately conversant with the works of the Roman classic authors. In selecting, as his exemplar in Latin composition, the style of Cicero, he manifested the discernment of true taste and his endeavours to imitate this exquisite model, were far from being unsuccessful. His diction is flowing, and his periods are well balanced. But by the occasional admission of barbarous words and unauthorized phraseology, he reminds his readers that at the time when he wrote, the iron age of literature was but lately terminated. His striking fault is diffuseness a diffuseness which seems to arise, not so much from the copiousness of his thoughts, as from the difficulty which he experienced in clearly expressing his ideas. It must, however, be observed, that he did not, like many modern authors who are celebrated for their Latinity, slavishly confine himself to the compilation of centos from the works of the ancients. In the prosecution of his literary labours, he drew from his own stores and those frequent allusions to the customs and transactions of his own times, which render his writings so interesting, must, at a period when the Latin language was just rescued from the grossest barbarism, have rendered their composition peculiarly difficult.” When compared with the works of his immediate predecessors, the writings of Poggio are truly astonishing. Rising to a degree of elegance, to be sought for in vain in the rugged Latinity of Petrarca and Coluccio Salutati, he prepared the way for the correctness of Politian, and of the other eminent scholars whose gratitude has reflected such splendid lustre on the character of Lorenzo de Medici." The works of Poggio were published together at Basil, in 1538, which is reckoned the most complete edition.

, a very excellent French engraver, was born at Abbeville in 1622, and bred under Pierre Duret. He completed his knowledge of his art by a residence of seven years at Rome and on his return to Paris, distinguished himself by many capital works from pictures of sacred and profane history, and portraits of various sizes. Louis XIV. made him his engraver in ordinary, in 1664, expressly on account of his merit, and the works he had published in Italy, as well as in France. He drew as skilfully as he engraved. Precision of outline, boldness, firmness, and clearness, are the characteristics of his plates; and it is recorded to his honour, that he never degraded his abilities by engraving any subject of an immoral kind. He died in 1693. His brother Nicolas, who was also an able engraver, survived him only three years and both left sons, who applied their talents to painting and engraving.

, famous only for his love of mysticism and enthusiasm, and for his writings conformable to those sentiments, was born at Metz, April 15, 1646, and educated at Basle in Switzerland, in the college of Erasmus. His father, who was a sword-cutler, placed him as pupil to a sculptor, and from him he learned design at least, and retained so much of the art as to draw the portrait of his favourite, madame Bourignon. This pursuit, however, he forsook for the learned languages, philosophy, and theology. He became a minister at Heidelberg in 1668, and at Anweil obtained a similar situation in 1674. Here it was that he met with the works of the mystical writers, with which, particularly with those of madame Bourignon, he became to the utmost infatuated. Madame Guyon was another of his favourites, and he determined to live according to their maxims. Towards the end of life he retired to Reinsberg in Holland, where he died, May 21, 1719, at the age of seventy-three. His works are all of the mystical kind: 1. “Cogitationes rationales de Deo,” Amst. 1677, 4to twice reprinted. 2. “ L'ceconomie Divine,” 1687, in 7 vols. 8vo, in which all the notions of Bourignon are repeated. 3. “La Paix des bonnes Ames,” Amst. 1687, 12mo. 4. “Les Principes solides de la Religion Chretienne,” 1705, 12mo. 5. “Theologie du Coeur,” Cologne, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo. 6. He published also a complete edition of the works of madame Bourignon, in twenty-one volumes, octavo, with a life of that pious enthusiast. 7. An attempt to attack Descartes, in a treatise “de Eruditione triplici,” in 2 vols. 4to, reprinted at Amsterdam in 1707. This being directed against Descartes, has been compared to the attack of the viper upon the file. It contains, however, some good observations.

, an eminent physician, was born at Nancy, in 1527. He studied medicine at Paris under Sylvius, together with his elder brother, Anthony Lepois, who was afterwards first physician to Charles III. duke of Lorraine, and author of a valuable work on ancient coins. Nicholas succeeded him as the duke’s physician in 1578. The result of his practice, and of his very extensive reading, was at first drawn up only for the use of his sons, Christian and Charles, whom he destined for the medical profession; but being prevailed on to publish it, it was printed at Francfort, in 1580, in folio, under the title of “De cognoscendis et curandis prsecipue interi}is humani corporis morbis, Libri tres, ex clarissimorum medicorum, turn veterum, turn recentiorum, monumentis non ita pridem collecti.” Boerhaave had so high an opinion of this author, that he edited this work, adding a preface to it, at Leyden, 1736, in two volumes, quarto; a_nd it was again reprinted at Leipsic in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo. The time of his death has not been recorded.

, son of the preceding, was born at Nancy in 1563, and educated at the college of Navarre, at Paris, where he distinguished himself by his rapid advancement in the knowledge of the languages, belles lettres, and philosophy. He received the degree of M. A, in the university of Paris in 1581, and immediately commenced his career in the schools of medicine, which he pursued at Paris, Padua, and other schools of Italy. When he returned to Paris in 1588 he took his bachelor’s degree in medicine, and became a licentiate but having already expended his little income on the previous parts of his medical progress, he was obliged to leave Paris without having taken the degree of doctor. He then returned to his native city, where duke Charles III. of Lorraine appointed him his consulting physician, and Duke Henry II. instituted a faculty of medicine at Pont-aMousson, and nominated him dean and first professor. Being now enabled to take his doctor’s degree, he went to Paris for that purpose and, on his return, commenced the duties of his professorship in November 1598, which he performed for many years with the highest reputation, and enjoyed very extensive practice until his death, which was occasioned by the plague, at Nancy, whither he had gone to administer relief to those afflicted by that disorder, in 1633. His principal publication is entitled “Selectiorum Observationum et Consiliorum de proeteritis hactenus morbis, effectibusque praeter naturam ab aqua, seu scrosa colluvie et deiuvie ortis, Liber singularis,” Pont-a-Mousson, 1618, in quarto'. This work passed through several subsequent editions, one of which, (that of Ley den 1733), was published, with a preface, by the celebrated Boerhaave. A selection from, or an abridgment of it, was also printed in 1639, with the title of “Piso enucleatus,” in 12mo. His other works were, “Physicum Cometae Speculum,” Ponte ad Montionem, 1619, in 8vo and “Discours de la Nature, Causes, et Remedes, tant curatifs que prevservatifs, des maladies populaires, accompagnees de Dysenteric et autres Flux de Ventre,” ibid. 1623, in 12mo. He translated from the. Spanish into Latin, “Ludovici Mercati Institutiones ad usum et examen eorum qui artem luxatoriam exercent,” Francfort, 1625, in folio. He likewise published the following eulogy of his first patron “Caroli III., Serenissimi, Potentissimique Ducis Lotharingiae, &c., Macarismos, seu felicitatis et virtutum egregio Principe dignarum coronse,” 1690.

, a native of Paris, and learned priest of the Oratory, was esteemed well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. He made a considerable stay in Italy, where he acquired the respect of the literati, and was sometime superior of his congregation at Vendome. He died in an advanced age at Lyons, May 5, 1710. His works are, a Summary of the Councils, printed at Lyons 1706, in two volumes, folio, under the title “Delectus actorum Ecclesiae universalis, seu nova Summa^Conciliorum,” &c. The second volume is nearly half filled with notes on the councils, and valuable remarks on the method, mechanics, and music of Descartes, who was his friend. He'.left also some manuscripts. It is said, that he was in possession of several pieces by Clemangis and Theophylact, which have never been printed.

, a celebrated French physician, was born at Dijon, July 5, 1720. After studying medicine, he succeeded M. Dubois in 1746 as protessor of physic in the college de France. He was one of the first who gave a course of chemical lectures in Paris. In 1757 he was appointed first physic‘an to the French army, and the year following went to Russia to attend the empress Elizabeth in her illness. He remained two years in Russia, and assisted at the famous experiment relative to the congelation of quicksilver, of which he afterwards gave an account (inserted in their memoirs), to the Academy of sciences at Paris, who had elected him a member. Soon after he returned to France he was promoted to the rank of counsellor of state; and in 1764 was appointed inspectorgeneral of physic; surgery, and pharmacy, in the ports and colonies of France. His ingenious method of procuring fresh from sea-water, by distillation, procured him, in 1765, a pension of 12,000 livres a-year from the French government. In nil, he resigned his chair at the college of France; but, in conformity ’to an unanimous vote of the professors, continued to preside at their public meetings as long as his health would permit. M. Laiande says, that he did honour to this office “by a grand and striking figure: by the dignity of his speech the nobleness of his manner and the deservedly high estimation in which he was held by the public.” He was, during the reign of terror, imprisoned, with his whole family, by Robespierre but was liberated on the death of that monster. He died in September 1797 or 179S. He is said to have left behind him a very valuable collection of natural history, medals, and other curiosities. He wrote several treatises belonging to his profession, viz. on the fever of St. Domingo, the diseases of seamen, an abridgment of anatomy, &C.

, an eminent cardinal, and archbishop of Canterbury, was descended from the bloodroyal of England, being a younger son of sir Richard Pole, K.G. and cousin-german to Henry VII. by Margaret, daughter of George duke of Clarence, younger brother to king Edward IV. He was born at Stoverton, or Stourton castle, in Staffordshire, in 1500, and educated at first in the Carthusian monastery at Sheen, near Richmond, in Surrey, whence, at the early age of twelve, he was removed to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and there assisted in his studies by Linacre and William Latimer. In June 1515, he took the degree of B. A. and soon after entered into deacon’s orders. Without doubting his proficiency in his studies, it may be supposed that this rapid progress in academical honours was owing to his family interest and pretensions. Among the popish states abroad it was not uncommon to admit boys of noble families to a rank in the universities or the church, long before the statutable or canonical periods. One object for such hasty preferment was, that they might be entitled to hold lucrative benefices, and the rank of their family thus supported and accordingly, in March 1517, we find that Pole was made prebendary of Roscombe, in the church of Salisbury, to which were added, before he had reached his nineteenth year, the deaneries of Winbourne Minster, and Exeter, For all these he was doubtless indebted to his relation Henry VIII. who intended him for the highest dignities of the church.

Having now acquired perhaps as much learning as his country at that time afforded, he was desirous of visiting the most celebrated universities abroad, to complete his education, and being provided by the king with a pension, in addition to the profits of his preferments, he fixed his residence for some time at Padua, where he hired a house and kept an establishment suitable to his rank. The professors at Padua were at this time men of high reputation, and were not a little pleased with the opportunity of forming the mind of one who was the kinsman ana favourite of a great king, and might hereafter have it in his power amply to reward their labours and some of them even now partook nobly of his bounty, being maintained by him in his house. Here commenced his acquaintance with Bembo, Sadolet, and Longolius, which lasted the remainder of their lives, and here also his acquaintance took its rise with Erasmus, who had received from his friend Lupset a very favourable representation of Pole. He therefore entered into an epistolary correspondence with him, which he began b\ T recommending to his favour the afterwards well-known John A Lasco. (See Alasco, vol. I. p. 292.) Besides the aid which Pole received in his studies from Longolius and Lupset, who is said to have been entertained by him in his own family, he paid much attention to the lectures of Leonicus, an eminent Greek scholar, who taught Pole to relish the writings of Aristotle and Plato in the original. While Pole continued at Padua, Longinus died in 1522, and such was the regard Pole had for him that he wrote his life, which Dr. Neve thinks was not only the first but the best specimen he gave the public of his abilities. It was the production, however, of a young man who could not have known Longolius above two years, and he has therefore fallen into some mistakes. (See Longueil.)

Pole had acquired a considerable degree of reputation in Italy, which made his mother, now countess of Salisbury, and other friends, desirous of his return, that the same display of his talents might sanction the honours intended for him and it was his design to set out for England in 1525; but being desirous of seeing the jubilee, which was celebrated this year at Rome, he resolved to visit that city first. On his journey to Rome he was, we are told, every where received with great respect but at Rome he contented himself with viewing 1 what was most curious, without appearing at the papal court. On his arrival in England, he was welcomed with great respect by the royal family, and by the public at large, which he seems to have merited by his elegant and accomplished manners, as well as the proficiency he had made in learning. That learning was still his favourite pursuit appears from his requesting from the king a grant of the house dean Colet had built in the Carthusian monastery, where he had first been educated, and where he now devoted himself to study for about two years.

The affair of king Henry’s divorce drevr Pole from his retirement, and led to the singular vicissitudes of his life. This was a measure which he greatly disapproved, but he is said to have had some reasons for his disapprobation, different from what conscience, or his religious principles, might fairly have suggested. Notwithstanding his being an ecclesiastic, we are told that he had entertained hopes of espousing the princess Mary, and that this project was even favoured by queen Catherine, who had committed the care of the princess’s education to the countess of Salisbury, Pole’s mother. Whatever may be in this suspicion, which prevailed for many years, it appears that he wished to be out of the way while the matter was in agitation, and therefore obtained leave from the king to go to the university of Paris, under pretence of continuing his theological studies. Accordingly he spent a year at Paris, from Oct. 1529 to Oct. 1530, during which time the king having determined to consult the universities of Europe respecting the divorce, sent to Pole to solicit his cause at Paris. Pole, however, excused himself on account of his want of experience, and when Henry sent over Bellay, as joint commissioner, left the whole business to this coadjutor, and returning to England, went again to his. favourite retirement at Sheen, Here he drew up his reasons for disapproving of the divorce, which were shown to the king, who probably put them into Cranmer’s hands. Cranmer praised the wit and argument employed, and chiefly objected to committing the cause to the decision of the pope, which Pole had recommended. Pole’s consent to the measure, however, appears to have been a favourite object with the king; and therefore in 1531, the archbishopric of York was offered him on condition that he would not oppose the divorce but he refused this dignity on such terms, after a sharp contention, as he says in his epistle to king Edward, between his ambition and his conscience. He is said also to have given his opinion on this subject so very freely to the king, that he dismissed him in great anger from his presence, and never sent for him more.

Pole now resolved to leave the kingdom, from a dread of Henry’s revengeful temper, who, however, at first behaved rather better than might have been expected; for he not only permitted Pole to go abroad, but continued the pension which had been before granted, and which had always been regularly paid. Pole then passed a year at the university of Avignon in France, the air of which place disagreeing with him, he went in 1532 to Padua. Here he divided his time between that city and Venice, applying diligently to theological studies, and was respected, as he was before, by the learned of Italy. After he had been a considerable time abroad, his capricious relative, Henry VIII. solicited his return, but Pole, after many excuses, plainly told his majesty that he neither approved his divorce, nor his separation from the church of Rome. The king then sent him Dr. Sampson’s book in defence of the proceedings in England, on which Pole embodied his full opinion on these proceedings, in his treatise entitled “De unitate ecclesiastica.” Burnet and other protestant historians very naturally censure this work as devoid of sound argument, and Phillips and other popish writers have as highly praised it; but all must agree that in coarseness of invective it does not comport with the urbanity of style and manner hitherto attributed to Pole. Pole in fact seems to have written it as much in contempt of Hery, as with a view to convince him; and therefore, when Henry renewed his solicitations for his return, that he might talk all these matters over in an interview, he not only refused, but added to that refusal such a repetition of irritating language that no hope of reconciliation could be entertained. Henry therefore withdrew his pension, and stripped him of his ecclesiastical preferments.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

In 1539, when Pole returned to Rome, the pope thought it necessary to counteract the plots of Henry’s emissaries by appointing him a guard for the security of his person. He likewise conferred on him the dignity of legate of Viterbo, an office in which, while he maintained his character as an example of piety and a patron of learning, he is said to have shown great moderation and lenity towards the protestants. He was here at the head of a literary society, some of the members of which were suspected of a secret attachment to the doctrines of the reformation and Immanuel Tremellius, who was a known protestant, was converted from Judaism to Christianity in Pole’s palace at Viterbo, where he was baptised, the cardinal and Flaminius being his godfathers.

Pole continued at Viterbo till 1542, when the general council for the reformation of the church, which had been long promised and long delayed, was called at Trent, and is known in ecclesiastical history as the famous “Council of Trent.” It did not, however, proceed to business until 1545, when Pole went thither, with the necessary escort of a troop of horse. For the proceedings of this extraordinary assembly, we must refer the reader to father Paul’s history. The principal circumstance worthy of notice respecting the cardinal was his writing a treatise on the nature and end of general councils, just before he left Rome, in which he proves himself the determined advocate for the boundless prerogative of the pope. He Continued at Trent until a rheumatic disorder, which fell into one of his arms, obliged him to go to Padua for medical advice; and afterwards, the council being prorogued, he went to Rome at the request of the pope, who wished to avail himself of his pen in drawing up memorials and vindications of the proceedings of the see of Rome; and Pole, a man of superior talents to most of the Italian prelates, knew how to render these very persuasive, at a time when freedom of discussion was not allowed.

On the death of Henry VIII. in 1547, he endeavoured to renew his designs, in order, as his partial historian says, “to repair the breaches which Henry had made in the faith and discipline of the church.” On this occasion he solicited the pope’s assistance, and wrote to the privycouncil of England, partly soothing and partly threatening them with what the pope could t do; but all this had no effect, and the members of the privy-council refused to receive either the letter or him who brought it. The cardinal also drew up a treatise, and inscribed it to Edward VI. which contained an elaborate vindication of his conduct towards the late king, but it does not appear that it ever came into Edward’s hands. Pole therefore remained still attainted, and was one of the few excepted in the acts of grace which passed at the accession of the young king.

In 1549, our cardinal had the prospect of advancement to all of power and dignity which the church of Rome had to bestow, the chair of St. Peter itself. On the death of pope Paul III. he was proposed in the conclave as his successor by cardinal Farnese, and the majority of votes appeared to be in his favour, when an opposition was excited by the French party, with cardinal Caraffa at their head, who hoped, if Pole were set aside, to be chosen himself. It was necessary, however, to show some strong grounds for opposing cardinal Pole and these, bad they been proved, were certainly strong enough, heresy and incontinency he had been lenient to the protestants at Viterbo, and he was the reputed father of a young girl, at this time a nun. But against both these charges Pole vindicated himself in the most satisfactory manner, and his party determined to elect him. Why they did not succeed is variously related. It is said that they were so impatient to bring the matter to a conclusion as to go late at night to Pole’s house to pay their adorations to him, according to custom, and that Pole refused to accede to such a rash and unseasonable proceeding, and requested they would defer it until morning. They then retired, but immediately after two of the cardinals came again to him, and assured him that they required nothing of him but what was usual upon which he gave his consent, but afterwards repented, and endeavoured to retract. The cardinals, in the mean time, of their own accord had deferred proceedings until next morning, when a very different spirit appeared in the conclave, and the election fell upon cardinal de Monte, who reigned as pope by the name of Julius, 111. a man of whom it is sufficient to say that he gave his cardinal’s hat to a boy who had the care of his monkey. When Pole appeared, with the other cardinals, to perform his adoration to the new pope, the latter raised him up and embraced him, telling him, that it was to his disinterestedness he owed the papacy. How far our cardinal was really disinterested, is a matter of dispute. Some suppose that he still had in view a marriage with the princess Mary, and the hopes of a crown; and it is certain that he had hitherto never taken priest’s orders, that he might be at liberty to return to the secular world, which his being only a cardinal would not have opposed.

The cardinal was at a convent of the Benedictines at Maguzano, in the territory of Venice, whither he had retired when the tranquillity of Rome was disturbed by the French war, when the important news arrived of the accession of the princess Mary to the throne of England, by the death of her brother Edward VI. It was immediately determined by the court of Rome that he should be sent as Jegate to England, in order to promote that object to which his family had been sacrificed, the reduction of the kingdom to the obedience of the holy see. Pole, however, who did not know that his attainder was taken off, determined first to send his secretary to England to make the necessary inquiries, and to present letters to the queen, who soon dissipated his fears by an ample assurance of her attachment to the catholic cause. He then set out in Oct. 1553, but in his way through Germany, was detained by the emperor, who was then negociating a marriage between his son Philip and the queen of England, to which he imagined the cardinal would be an obstacle. This delay was the more mortifying as the emperor at the same time refused to admit him into his presence, although he had been commissioned by the pope to endeavour to mediate r a peace between the emperor and the French king. But the greatest of all his mortifications came from queen Mary herself, who under various pretences, which the cardinal saw in their proper light, contrived to keep him abroad until her marriage with Philip was concluded.

All obstacles being now removed, he proceeded homewards, and arrived at Dover, Nov. 20, 1554, where he was received by some persons of rank, and reaching London, was welcomed by their majesties in the most honourable manner. No time was now lost in endeavouring to promote the great objects of his mission. On the 27th of November, the cardinal legate went to the House of Peers, where the king and queen were present, and made a long Speech, in which he invited the parliament to a reconciliation with the apostolic see from whence, he said, he was sent by the common pastor of Christendom, to bring back them who had long strayed from the inclosure of the church; and two days after the Speaker reported to the House of Commons the substance of this speech. What followed may be read with a blush. The two Houses of Parliament agreed in a petition to be reconciled to the see of Rome, which was presented to the king and queen, and stated, on the part of the parliament, that “whereas they had been guilty of a most horrible defection and schism from the Apostolic see, they did now sincerely repent of it; and in sign of their repentance, were ready to repeal all the laws made in prejudice of that see; therefore, since the king and queen had been no way defiled by their schism, they prayed them to intercede with the legate to grant them absolution, and to receive them again into the bosom of the church.” This petition being presented by both Houses on their knees to the king and queen, their majesties made their intercession with the legate, who, in a long speech, thanked the parliament for repealing the act against him, and making him a member of the nation, from which he was by that act cut off; in recompense of which, he was npw to reconcile them to the body of the church. After enjoining them, by way of penance, to repeal the laws which they had made against the Romish religion, he granted them, in the pope’s name, a full absolution, which they received on their knees; and he also absolved the whole realm from all ecclesiastical censure. Bin however gratifying to the court or parliament all this mummery might be, the citizens of London and the people at large felt no interest in the favours which the pope’s representative bestowed. In London, during one of his processions, no respect was paid to him, or to the cross carried before him and so remiss were the people in other parts in their congratulations on the above joyful occasion, that the queen was obliged to write circular letters to the sheriffs, compelling them to rejoice.

After the dissolution of parliament, the first thing taken into consideration was, in what manner to proceed against the heretics. Pole, as we have before noticed, had been charged by some with favouring the protestants; but he now expressed a great detestation of them, adding probably something of personal resentment to his constitutional bigotry, and would not now converse with any who had been of that party, except sir William Cecil. Since his arrival as legate, his temper appeared to have undergone an unpleasant alteration: he was reserved to all except Priuli and Ormaneto, two Italians whom he brought with him, and in whom he confided. Still for some time he recommended moderate measures with respect to heretics, while Gardiner laboured to hasten the bloody persecution which followed'; but, either out-argued by Gardiner, or influenced by the court, we find that -he granted commissions for the prosecution of heretics, as one of the first acts of his legantine authority. If in this he was persuaded contrary to his opinion and feelings, he must have been the most miserable of all men; for the consequences, it is well known, were such as no man of feeling could contemplate without horror.

In March 1555, pope Julius III. died, and in less than a month, his successor Marcel Jus II. on which vacancy, the queen employed her interest in favour of cardinal Pole, but without effect; nor was he more successful when he went to Flanders this year, to negociate a peace between France and the emperor. To add to his disappointments, the new pope, Paul IV. had a predilection for Gardiner, and favoured the views of the latter upon the see of Canterbury, vacant by the deposition of Cranmer; nor although the queen nominated Pole to be archbishop, would the pope confirm it, till after the death of Gardiner. The day after Cranmer was burnt, March 22, 1556, Pole, who now for the first time took priest’s orders, was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. Having still a turn for retirement, and being always conscientious in what he thought his duties, he would now have fixed his abode at Canterbury, and kept that constant residence which became a good pastor, but the queen would never suffer him to leave the court, insisting that it was more for the interest of the catholic faith that he should reside near her person. Many able divines were consulted on this point, who assured the cardinal that he could not with a safe conscience abandon her majesty, “when there was so much business to be done, to crush the heretics, and give new life to the catholic cause.”

In November of the same year, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and soon after that of Cambridge, and in 1557 he visited both by his commissaries. It was on these occasions that the shameful ceremony was ordered, of disturbing the ashes of Peter Martyr’s wife, at Oxford, and of Bucer and Fagius, at Cambridge. Other severities were exercised; all English Bibles, comments on them, &c. were ordered to be burnt, and such strict search made for heretics, that many fled, and, according to Wood, the university lost some good scholars. The only instance of the cardinal’s liberality to Oxford, was his giving to All-Souls’ college, the living of Stanton Harcourt.

It was cardinal Pole’s misfortune that he was never long successful in that line of conduct which he thought would have most recommended him; and now, when he was doing every thing to gratify the Roman see, by the persecution of the protestants, &c. the pope, Paul IV. discovered a more violent animosity against him than before. The cause, or one of the causes, was of a political nature. Paul was now engaged in a war with Philip, king of Spain and husband to Mary, and he knew that the cardinal was devoted to the interests of Spain. He therefore wanted a legate at the court of England like himself, vigorous and resolute who, by taking the lead in council, and gaining the queen’s confidence, might prevent her from engaging in her husband’s quarrels. But while Pole remained in that station, he was apprehensive that by his instigation she might enter into alliances destructive to his politics. Upon various pretensions, therefore, Paul IV. revived the old accusation against the cardinal, of being a suspected heretic, and summoned him to Rome to answer the charge. He deprived him also of the office of legate, which he conferred upon Peyto, a Franciscan friar, whom he had made a cardinal for the purpose, designing also the see of Salisbury for him. This appointment took place in Sept. 1557, and the new legate was on his way to England, when the bulls came into the hands of queen Mary, who having been informed of their contents by her ambassador, laid them up without opening them, or acquainting Pole with them. She also directed her ambassador at Rome to tell his holiness, “that this was not the method to keep the kingdom steadfast in the catholic faith, but rather to make it more heretical than ever, for that cardinal Pole was the very anchor of the catholic party.” She did yet more, and with somewhat of her father’s spirit, charged Peyto at his peril to set foot upon English ground. Pole, however, who by some means became acquainted with the fact, displayed that superstitious veneration for the apostolic see which was the bane of his character, and immediately, laid clown the ensigns of his legantine power and dispatched his friend Ormaneto to the pope with an apology so submissive, that, we are told, it melted the obdurate heart of Paul. The cardinal appears to have been restored to his power as legate soon after, but did not live to enjoy it a full year, being seized with an ague which carried him ff Nov. 18, 1558, the day after the death of queen Mary. With them expired the power of the papal see over the political or religious constitution of this kingdom, and all its fatal effects on religion, liberty, and learning.

Cardinal Pole was, in person, of a middle stature, and thin habit; his complexion fair, with an open countenance and cheerful aspect. His constitution was healthful, although not strong. He was learned and eloquent, and naturally of a benevolent and mild disposition, but his bigoted attachment to the see of Rome occasioned his being concerned in transactions which probably would not have originated with him yet we have no reason to think that he dissuaded the court of queen Mary from its abominable cruelties and it is certain that many of them were carried on in his name. Mr. Phillips, who wrote an elaborate biographical vindication of cardinal Pole, but who would not openly vindicate the cruelties of Mary’s reign, has unfortunately asserted, that not one person was put to death in the diocese of Canterbury, after the cardinal was promoted to that see but Mr. Ridley has clearly proved that no less than twenty-four were burnt in one year in that diocese, while Pole was archbishop. Gilpin, however, seems to be of opinion that he “would certainly have prevented those reproaches on his religion which this reign occasioned, had his resolution been equal to his judgment.” Of both we have a remarkable example, alluded to already, but more fully quoted by the same author in his life of Latimer, which seems to be conclusive as to the cardinal’s real character. When, in a council of bishops, it was agitated how to proceed with heretics, the cardinal said, “For my part, I think we should be content with the public restoration of religion; and instead of irritating our adversaries by a rigorous execution of the revived statutes, I could wish that every bishop in his diocese would try the more winning expedients of gentleness and persuasion.” He then urged the example of the emperor Charles V. who, by a severe persecution of the Lutherans, involved himself in many difficulties, and purchased nothing but dishonour. Notwithstanding the liberality and humanity of these sentiments, when Gardiner, Bonner, and others equally violent, were heard in favour of severe measures, Pole had not the courage to dissent; and the result was a commission issued by himself, impowering the bishops to try and examine heretics, agreeably to the laws which were now revived.

Pole’s private life appears to have been regular and unblameable. His behaviour in his last moments, says Dr. Neve, “shewed that his religion, though ill-directed, was sincere and genuine.” He appears to have been charitable and generous, and a kind master to his domestics. He was naturally fond of study nd retirement, and certainly better adapted to these than the more active and public scenes of life, in which, however, we have seen that he was very frequently employed. There is no part of his character, says the author just quoted, more amiable than when we view him in his retirement, and in the social intercourses with private friends here he appeared to great advantage, and displayed all the endearing good qualities of the polite scholar, the cheerful companion, and the sincere friend. It appears by Beccatelli that he was a man of wit, and many of his repartees would have done credit to the wits of a more refined age.

He left his friend Priuli, a Venetian man of quality, his executor and heir; but the latter, whose attachment to the cardinal was as disinterested as it was constant, after discharging the specific legacies, divided the whole of the property in the way that he thought would have been most agreeable to the cardinal, and reserved to himself only his friend’s Breviary and Diary.

Pole published some other small pieces, besides those we have mentioned in the preceding account, and some translations from the fathers. He was several years employed in collecting various readings, emendations, &c. of Cicero’s works, with a view to a new edition, but these are supposed to be lost. Dodd also mentions a collection of dispatches, letters, and dispensations, &c. during the time of his reforming the Church of England in queen Mary’s reign, 4 vols. fol. which are preserved among the Mss. in the college of Doway and Tanner notices a few other Mss. in our public libraries. In 1744 1752 a very valuable collection of letters which passed between Pole and his learned friends, with preliminary discourses to each volume, was published by cardinal Quirini, in 4 vols. 4to, This was followed, after Quirini’s death, by a fifth volume, from his collections. The title, “Cardinalis Poll et aiiorum ad ipsum Epistolae.” Of the life of Cardinal Pole much was discovered, and many mistakes rectified, in consequence of the controversy excited by Mr. Phillips’s life (See Phillips, Thomas) and which was carried on with great spirit

, or Poelemburg, a celebrated Dutch painter, was born at Utrecht in 1586, where he became the disciple of Abraham Bloemart, but went to complete his studies at Rome. His first determination was to imitate the manner of Elsheimer but when he contemplated the works of Raphael, he was so affected, that he was led irresistibly to copy after that much higher model. This union of objects produced a mixed but original style; more free and graceful than the Flemish, though with far less grandeur and excellence of design than the Italian. He could not rise to the execution of large figures; his best pieces, therefore, are of the cabinet size; but he surpassed all his contemporaries in the delicacy of his touch, the sweetness of his colouring, and the choice of agreeable objects aud situations. His skies are clear, light, and transparent his back-grounds often ornamented with the vestiges of magnificent Roman edifices and his female figures, which are usually without drapery, are highly beautiful. He returned rather reluctantly to Utrecht, where, however, his merit was acknowledged by the great Rubens. Charles I. invited him to London, where he was much employed, and richly paid; but, though he was much solicited to remain here, his love for his native country prevailed, and he returned to Utrecht, where he died in 1660, affluent and highly esteemed. The genuine works of Polemberg are extremely scarce; but figures by him maybe found in the works of other artists, particularly those of Steenwyck, and Kierings; and his disciple John Vander Lis so successfully imitated his style, that the works of the pupil are frequently taken for those of the master.

, an Italian marquis, and a learned mathematician, was born at Padua in 1683. He was appointed professor of astronomy and mathematics in the university of his native city, and filled that post with high reputation. In three instances he gained prizes from the Royal Academy of Sciences, and in 1739 he was elected an associate of that body. He was also a member of the academy of Berlin, a fellow of the London Royal Society, and a member of the Institutes of Padua and Bologna, and contributed many valuable mathematical and astronomical papers to the Memoirs of these Societies. As he was celebrated for his skill and deep knowledge of hydraulic architecture, he was nominated by the Venetian government, superintendant of the rivers and waters throughout the republic; other states also applied to him for advice, in business belonging to the same science. He was sent for by pope Benedict XIV. to survey the state of St. Peter’s church at Rome, and drew up a memoir on what he conceived necessary to be done. He died at Padua in 1761, at the age of 7S. He appears to have acquired very distinguished reputation in his day, and was the correspondent of many learned contemporaries, particularly sir Isaac Newton, Leibnitz, the Bernoulli’s, Wolff, Cassini, Gravesande, Muschenbroeck, Fontenelle, and others. Nor was he more esteemed as a mathematician than as an antiquary, and the learned world is indebted to him for a valuable supplement to the collections of Graerius and Gronovius, Venice, 1737, 5 vols. fol. but these volumes are rather scarce. Among his other most valued publications are, “Exercitationes Vitruvianae, seu Commentarius Criticus de Vitruvii architectura,” Venice, 1739, 4to and “Dissertazione sopra al Tempio di Diana di Efeso,” Rome, 1742. Fabroni gives a long list of his mathematical and astronomical essays, and of the Mss. he left behind him.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

, was born at Florence in 1679, and was early distinguished in the schools of philosophy and theology, for the extent of his memory and the sagacity of his mind. He became very early a teacher in the sciences above-mentioned, and in rhetoric at Genoa; but in 1733, was invited to Pisa to give lectures on the Greek language, whence he was promoted to the professorship of eloquence, which had been some time vacant, after the death of Benedict Averano. He died of an apoplexy, July 23, 1752. He distinguished himself as a commentator and as an author, by publishing, 1. An edition of Homer with Eustathius’s commentary, to which he added, a Latin translation, and abundant notes, in 3 vols. folio, 1730, 1732, 1735. The fourth volume was in the press when he died, but has not since appeared. 2. “Martyrologium Romanum castigatum, ac commentariis illustrattim,” folio, Florence, 1751. 3. “Orationes 12 ad Academiam Pisanam, 1746,” 4. “Panegyricus Imp. Francisco I. consecratus,” Florence, 4to. 5. “De patrra in cohdendis testamentrs potestate,” Florence, 1712, 12mo, in four books.

, a most ingenious and learned Italian, was born July 14, 1454, at Monte Pulciano in Tuscany and from the name of this town, in Latin Mons Politianus, he derived the surname of Politian. His father was a doctor of the civil law. His name, according to M. Baillet, was Benedictus de Cinis, or, de Ambroginis, for he considers the former as a corruption of the latter. Politian, who gave early proofs of an extraordinary genius; had the advantage of Christophero Landino’s instructions in the Latin language. His preceptors in the Greek were Andronicus of Thessalonica and John Argyropylus. His abilities, at a very early period of his life, attracted the notice of Lorenzo and Julius de Medici. An Italian poem, the production of his juvenile pen, in which he celebrated an equestrian spectacle, or Giostra, wherein the latter bore away the prize, greatly contributed to establish his reputation. He was thence honoured with the peculiar patronage of the Medicean family; and, among other persons remarkable for genius and learning, whom the munificence of Lorenzo attracted to Florence, Politian was seen to shinq as a star of the first magnitude. Lorenzo confided to him the education of his own children and in this honourable employment he passed a great part of his life, favoured with the peculiar friendship of his patron, and the society and correspondence of men of letters. Among the more intimate associates of Poiitian, was Picus of Mi ran ­dula, and between these eminent scholars there was a strict attachment, and a friendly communication of studies. The Platonic philosopher, Marsilius Ficinus, completed this literary triumvirate.

Poiitian had been indebted for his education to Lorenzo, who had early procured for him the citizenship of Florence placed him in easy and affluent circumstances; probably conferred on him the secular priory of the college of S. Giovanni, which he held and on his entrance into clerical orders, appointed him a canon of the cathedral of Florence. It was at this period that the arts and sciences began gradually to revive and flourish; philosophy “to be freed,” to use the expression of antiquaries, “from the dust of barbarism,” and criticism to assume a manly and rational appearance. The more immediate causes which brought about these desirable events, were, the arrival of the illustrious Grecian exiles in Italy the discovery of antient manuscripts; establishment of public libraries, and seminaries of education; and especially the invention of printing. No branch of science was cultivated with greater ardour than classical literature: under the peculiar patronage of Lorenzo, and of some of the chief of other states in Italy, who imitated his liberality, eminent scholars engaged with incredible ardour and diligence, in collating manuscripts, and ascertaining the genuine text 'of Greek and Latin authors: explaining their obscurities, illustrating them with commentaries, translating them into various languages, and imitating their beauties.

The-“Miscellanea” of Poiitian were first published at Florence, in 1489, and were every where received with the greatest applause, and compared by the learned to the “Noctes Atticas” of Aulus Gellius. His Latin version of Heroclian is universally allowed to be a masterly performance, and perhaps no other translation of any Greek author has been so much and so generally admired. Some critics have declared, that if the Greek of Heroclian could have been suppressed, this work might have passed among the learned for the classical and finished' production of some original pen of antiquity. Yet amidst such general approbation, there were not wanting others who accused him of having published as his own, a version previously made by Gregorius of Tiphernum M. de la Monnoye maintains that Omnibuono, a native of Lunigo, nearVicenza, commonly denominated Omnibonus Vicentinus, was the author of this prior version and endeavours to prove from a fragment of it, that Politian had seen and availed himself of it. These detractions, however, have not been generally admitted. Politian inscribed this version to Pope Innocent VIII. in a dedication which is prefixe*d to most of the ancient editions of the work, and which procured him a present from his holiness of two hundred gold crowns. Politian returned thanks i a courtly and somewhat adulatory epistle, in which he/ extols the pope’s bounty, and promises to redouble his efforts to produce something more worthy of so exalted a patron.

The“Greek Epigrams” of Politian were written, for the most part, when he was very young, but from the address to the reader prefixed to them, in the volume of his works, they appear to have been published after his death, from the original manuscript, by Zenobius Acciajolus, who did not consider them as adding much to the fame of the author, 'and some of them might have been suppressed, without injury to literature, and certainly with advantage to the moral reputation of the author. He is supposed to have written a translation of Homer, but no part of it is nowknown to exist. Of his other Latin poems, the “Manto,” “Rusticus,” and probably the “Ambra,” were occasional, and intended for public recitation and appear to have been published at the instance of some of his pupils. Perhaps his most laboured production is the “Nutricia,” which seems to be the poem sent by him to Matthias king of Hungary, as a specimen of his talents.

The labours of Politian on the pandects of Justinian: his collations and corrections of classic authors, and the less voluminous pieces that are contained in his works, are lasting monuments of his erudition and industry; but such was his confidence in his powers, that he affected to consider all his past works, merely as preludes to others of greater magnitude. These, however, he did not live to execute.

Serious charges have been alleged against the purity of his morals but these are, for the most part, allowed to rest on the very questionable authority of Paulus Jovius of whom it is said, that prejudice, resentment, or interest, generally guided his pen. Politian has found able advocates in Pierius Valerian us “De Infelicitate Literatorum,” in Barthius’ “Adversaria,” and in Mr. Roscoe. It must be acknowledged, however, says his late biographer, Mr. Gresswell, that the youthful muse of Politian did not always adhere to the strictness of decorum, a fault too common amongst the poetical writers of his age. A few of his Greek epigrams, as well as of his Latin verses, are very exceptionable.

The only probable account of the death of this distinguished scholar is, that it was prematurely occasioned by his grief for the misfortunes of the Medicean family, from whom he had received so many favours, and with whose prosperity and happiness, his own were so intimately connected. This event took place September 24, 1494, in the forty-first year of his age. His “Letters,” which serve to illustrate his life and literary labours, were prepared for the press by himself, a very short time before his death, at the particular request of the son and successor of Lorenzo. The letters of Politian and his friends, in the earlier editions, at least in that printed by Jo. Badius Ascensius at Paris, 1512, are entitled “Angeli Politiani Epistolae,” but in a subsequent edition of 1519 from the same press, more properly “Virorum Illustrium Epistolae.”

, an English lawyer and judge, was descended from a good family in Devonshire, where he probably was educated, as Prince intimates that he was of no university. He studied the law, however, at one of the inns of court, and acquired very considerable practice in the reign of Charles II. He was counsel for the earl of Danby in 1679, whom he advised to plead his pardon and the corporation of London afterwards engaged him to plead, with Treby, in behalf of their charter. Iti 1688 he sat as one of the members for the city of Exeter, and he was retained as one of the counsel for the bishops. After the revolution he was knighted, called a serjeant April 11, 1689, and appointed chief justice of the common pleas on May 5 following but he held this office a very short time, dying in 1692. Burnet calls him “an honest and learned, but perplexed lawyer.” In 1702 was published his “Arguments; and Reports in some special cases in the King’s Bench from 22 to 36 Car. II. with some cases in the Common Pleas and Exchequer, together with divers decrees in the High Court of Chancery, upon Limitations of Trusts of Terms for years,” fol. with two tables. The copies of these reports, Mr. Bridgman informs us, are very incorrect, varying in the pages, and in the dates. In the pages there is a chasm from 173 to 176, and from 181 to 184, with other errors.

, an ancient Greek grammarian, was born at Naucrates, a town in Egypt, in the year 180. Having been educated under the sophists, he became eminent in grammatical and critical learning taught rhetoric at Athens, and acquired so much reputation, that he was advanced to be preceptor of the emperor Commodus. He drew up for, and inscribed to this prince while his father Marcus Antoninus was living, an “Onomasticon, or Greek Vocabulary,” divided into ten books. It is still extant, and contains a vast variety of synonymous words and phrases, agreeably to the copiousness of the Greek language, ranged under the general classes of things. The first edition of the “Onomasticon” was published at Venice by Aldus in 1502, and a Latin version was added in the edition of 1608, by Seberus; but there was.no correct and handsome edition of it, till that of Amsterdam, 1706, in folio, by Lederlin and Hemsterhuis. Lederlin went through the first seven books, correcting the text and version, and subjoining his own, with the notes of Salmasius, Is. Vossius, Valesius, and of Kuhnius, whose scholar he had been, and whom he succeeded in the professorship of the Oriental languages in the university of Strasburgh. Hemsterhuis continued the same method through the three last books. Pollux died in the year 238. He is said to have written many other works, none of which are come down to us but there was another of the same name, who is supposed to have flourished about the end of the fourth century, and wrote “Historia physica, seu chronicon ab origine mundi ad Valentis tempora.” Of this Bianconi published the first edition at Bonon. 1779, fol. and Ignatius Hardt, a second in 1792, 8vo, without knowing of the preceding.

is the name of many eminent personages recorded in ancient writers, particularly Julius Polysenus, of whom some Greek epigrams are extant, in the first book of the Anthologia. But the Polyænus who is best known, flourished in the second century, and is the author of the eight books of the “Stratagems of illustrious Commanders in war.” He appears to have been a Macedonian, and probably was a soldier in the younger part of his life; but we are more certain that he was a rhetorician, and a pleader of causes and that he enjoyed a place of trust and dignity under the emperors Antoninus and Veriis, to whom he dedicated his work. The “Strategemata” were published in Greek by Isaac Casaubon, with notes, in 1589, 12mo but no good edition of them appeared, till that of Leyden; 1690, in 8vo. The title-page runs thus: “Polygeni Strategematum libri octo, Justo Vulteio interprete, Pancratius Maasvicius recensuit, Isaaci Casauboni nee non suas notas adjecit.” This was followed, in 1756, by Mursinua’s edition, Berlin, and by that of Coray, at Paris in 1809, 8vo. We have now an excellent English translation by Mr. R. Shepherd, 1793, 4to. It contains various stratagems, of above three hundred commanders and generals of armies, chiefly Greeks and Barbarians, which are at least entertaining, and illustrative of the manners of the times in which those commanders lived but it may be doubted whether a modern soldier would gain much advantage by making himself master of this tricking study. The original has come down to us incomplete, and with the text considerably mutilated and corrupted; but the style is classical, and even elegant.

The whole collection, says the translator, if entire, would have consisted of nine hundred stratagems; containing the exploits of the most celebrated generals, of various nations, fetched from ages remote as the page of history will reach, and carried forward to our author’s own time so wide was the field he traversed of annals, histories, and lives, in the prosecution of his design a manual, as he terms it, of the science of generalship. And in so large a collection, if some stratagems occur, that bear a resemblance to each other, sometimes with little variation employed by the same general, and sometimes, on different occasions, copied by others - 9 the reader will be rather surprised that he finds so few instances of this kind, than led to have expected none. Some will strike him as unimportant, and some are not properly military stratagems. Some devices again will appear so ludicrous and absurd, as nothing but the barbarism of the times, the ignorance and superstition that in some states prevailed, will reconcile to credibility. The stratagems however that rank under those classes are few the work in general was executed with great judgment; and, as the author himself observes, he had employed upon it no small degree of pains.

Polyænus composed other works besides his “Strategemata.” Stobaeus has produced some passages out of a book “De Republica Macedonum” and Suidas mentions another concerning “Thebes,” and three books of “Tactics.” If death had not prevented, he would have written “Memorabilia of the emperors Antoninus and Verus” for this he promises in the preface to his sixth book of Stratagems.

, an eminent Greek historian, was of Megalopolis, a city of Arcadia, and was the son of Lycortas, general of the Achaeans, who were then the most powerful republic in Greece. He was born in the fourth year of the 143d olympiad, or in the 548th year of the building of Rome, or about 203 years before Christ. When twentyfour years of age, the Achaeans sent him and his father Lycortas ambassadors to the king of Egypt; and the son had afterwards the same honour, when he was deputed to go to the Roman consul, who made war upon Perses, king of Macedon. In the consulships of Æmilius Paetus and Julius Pennus, a thousand Achaeans were ordered to Rome, as hostages, for the good behaviour of their countrymen who were suspected of designs against the Romans; and were there detained seventeen years. Polybius, who was one of them, and was then thirty-eight years of age, had great talents from nature, which were well cultivated by education; and his residence at Rome appears to have been of great advantage to him since he owed to it, not only the best part of his learning, but the important friendship he contracted with Scipio and Lselius and when the time of his detention expired, he accompanied Scipio into Africa. After this he was witness to the sack and destruc* tion of Corinth, and of the reduction of Achaia to tho condition of a Roman provinces Amidst these dreadful scenes, he displayed noble traits of patriotism and disinterestedness, which obtained for him so much credit, that he was entrusted with the care of settling the new form of government in the cities of Greece, which office he performed to the satisfaction both of the Romans and the Greeks. In all his journeys he amassed materials for his history, and took such observations as to render his descriptions very accurate. Although his chief object was the history of the Romans, whose language he had learned with great care, and the establishment of their empire, yet he had in his eye the general history of the times in which he lived and therefore he gave his work the name of “Catholic or Universal” nor was this at all inconsistent with his general purpose, there being scarcely any nations at that time in the known world, which had not some contest with, or dependence upon, the Romans. Of forty books which he composed, there remain but the first five entire; with an epitome of the twelve following, which is supposed to have been made by that great assertor of Roman liberty, Marcus Brutus. Brutus is said to have been so particularly fond of Polybius, that, even in the last and most unfortunate hours of his life, he amused himself not only in reading, but also in abridging his history. The space of time which this history includes, is fifty-three years, beginning, after two of introductory matter, at the third book.

How much this historian was valued by the ancients, appears by the number of statues erected to his honour, and Cicero, Strabo, Josephus, Plutarch, and others, have spoken, of him in terms of the highest applause. Livy however has been censured for calling him only auctor haudquaquam spernendus, “an author by no means to be despised,” after he had borrowed very largely from him but Casaubon and Vossius think that according to the usual phraseology of the ancients, Livy’s expression implies a rery high eulogium. Polybius’s style is by no means elegant, but the accuracy and fidelity of his narrative render his history a work of great importance. There is no historian among the ancients, from whom more is to be learned of the events which he professes to narrate, and it is much to be lamented that his history has not descended to us in a perfect state. We have only the Brst five books entire, and an abridgment of the twelve following, with some excerpta or extracts of this history, formerly made by Constantinus Forphyrogenitus which were first published in Greek by Ursinus in 1582, and in Greek and Latin by the learned Henry Valesius in 1634. Poly bi us lived to a great age; but concerning the particulars of his life much eannot be collected. He was highly honoured by the friendship of Scipio who, when the other hostages from Achaia were distributed through the cities of Italy, obtained leave by his interest for Polybius to live at Rome. He died at eighty-two years of age, of an illness occasioned by a fall from his horse.

His history was first published at Haguenau, by Obsopgeus, in 1530, fol. Gr. and Lat. and was reprinted by Isaac Casaubon at Paris, 1609, in folio, an edition very highly valued. The next is Gronovius’s, with many additions, particularly the “Excerpta de legationibus, et virtutibas ac vitiis;” for the “Extracts of Constantine,” published separately by Ursinus and Valesius, were upon those subjects. Gronovius’s edition was published at Amsterdam, 1670, 3 vols. 8vo but the best, and indeed an incomparable specimen of editorial learning and accuracy, is that of Leipsic, 1789, 9 vols. 8vo. Hampton’s English translation has usually been reckoned a good one, but has been severely criticised by the late learned Mr. Whitaker in his " Course of Hannibal.

, an apostolic father of the Christian church, was born in the reign of Nero, probably at Smyrna, a city of Ionia in Asia Minor, where he was educated at the expence of Calisto, a noble matron of great piety and charity. In his younger years he is said to be instructed in the Christian faith by Bucolus, bishop of that place but others consider it as certain that he was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and familiarly conversed with others of the apostles. At a proper age, Bucolus ordained him a deacon and catechist of his church; and, upon the death of that prelate, he succeeded him in the bishopric. To this he was consecrated by St. John who also, according to archbishop Usher, directed his “Apocalyptical Epistle,” among six others, to him, under the title of the “Angel of the Church of Smyrna,” where, many years after the apostle’s death, he was also visited by St. Ignatius. Ignatius recommended his own see of Antioch to the care and si>perintendance of Polycarp, and afterwards sent an epistle to the church of Smyrna from Troas, A. C. 107 when Polycarp is supposed to have written his “Epistle to the Philippians,” a translation of which is preserved by Dr. Cave.

From this time, for many years, history is silent concerning him, till some unhappy differences in the church brought him into general notice. It happened, that the controversy about the observation of Easter began to grow very warm between the eastern and western churches each obstinately insisting upon their own way, and justifying themselves by apostolical practice and tradition. To prevent the worst consequences of this contest, Polycarp undertook a journey to Rome, that he might converse with those who were the main supports and champions of the opposite party. The see of that capital of the Roman empire was then possessed by Anicetus and many conferences were held between the two bishops, each of them urging apostolical tradition for their practice. But all was managed peaceably and amicably, without any heat of contention; and, though neither of them could bring the other into his opinion, yet they retained their own sentiments without violating that chanty which is the great and common law of our religion. In token of this, they communicated together at the holy sacrament when Anicetus, to do honour to Polycarp, gave him leave to consecrate the eucharistical elements in his own church. This done, they parted peaceably, each side esteeming this difference to be merely ritual, and no ways affecting the vitals of religion but the dispute continued many years in the church, was carried on with great animosity, and ended at length in a fixed establishment, which remains to this day, of observing Easter on different days in the two churches: for the Asiatics keep Easter on the next Lord’s day after the Jewish passover, and the church of Rome the next Sunday after the first full moon that follows the vernal equinox.

During Polycarp’s stay at Rome, he employed himself particularly in opposing the heresies of Marcion and Valentinus, which he did with more zeal and warmth than on former occasions. Irenaeus tells us, that upon Polycarp’s passing Marcion in the street without the common salutation, the latter called out, “Polycarp, own us” to which the former replied, with indignation, “I own thee to be the first-born of Satan.” To this the same author adds, that, when any heretical doctrines were spoken in his presence, he would presently stop his ears, crying out, “Good God to what times hast thou reserved me, that I should hear such things I” and immediately quitted the place. In the same zeal he was wont to tell, that St. John, going into a bath at Ephesus, and finding the heretic Cerinthus in it, started back instantly without bathing, crying out, “Let us run away, lest the bath should fall upon us while Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is in it.” Polycarp governed the church of Smyrna with apostolic purity, till he suffered martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aureiius, A. C. 167; the manner of which is thus related:

The persecution growing violent at Smyrna, and many having already sealed their confession with their blood, the general outcry was, “Away with the impious; let Polycarp be sought for.” On this he withdrew privately into a neighbouring village, where he lay concealed for some time, continuing night and day in prayer for the peace of the church. He was thus occupied, when, one night falling into a trance, he dreamed that his pillow took fire, and was burnt to ashes; which he told his friends was a presage, that he should be burnt alive for the cause of Christ. Three days after this dream, in. order to escape the search which was carried on incessantly after him, he retired into another village, where he was discovered, although some say he had time to escape but he refused it, saying, “The will of the Lord be done.” Accordingly he saluted his persecutors with a cheerful countenance and, ordering a table to be set with provisions, invited them to partake of them, only requesting for himself one hour for prayer. This being over, he was set upon an ass, and conducted towards the city. Upon the road he was met by Herod, an Irenarch or justice of the province, and his father, who were the principal agents in this persecution. This magistrate taking him up into his chariot, tried to undermine his constancy and, being defeated in the attempt, thrust him out of the chariot with so much violence, that he bruised his thigh with the fall. On his arrival at the place of execution, there came, as is said, a voice from heaven, saying, “Polycarp, be strong, and quit thyself like a man.” Being brought before the tribunal, he was urged to swear by the genius of Caesar. “Repent,” continues the proconsul, “and say with us, Take away the impious.” On this the martyr looking round the stadium, and beholding the crowd with a severe and angry countenance, beckoned with his hand, and looking up to heaven, said with a sigh, quite in another tone than they intended, “Take away the impious.” At last, confessing himself to be a Christian, proclamation was made thrice of his confession by the crier, at which the people shouted, “This is the great teacher of Asia, and the father of the Christians; this is the destroyer of our gods, that teaches men not to do sacrifice, or worship the deities.” The fire being prepared, Polycarp, at his own request, was not, as usual, nailed, but only tied to the stake and after pronouncing a short prayer, with a clear and audible voice, the executioner blew up the fire, which increasing to a mighty flame, “Behold a wonder seen,” says Eusebius, “by us who were purposely reserved, that we might declare it to others the flames disposing themselves into the resemblance of an arch, like the sails of a ship swelled with the wind, gentty encircled the body of the martyr, who stood all the while in the midst, not like roasted flesh, but like the gold or silver purified in the furnace, his body sending forth a delightful fragrancy, which, like frankincense, or some other costly spices, presented itself to our senses. The infidels, exasperated by the miracle, commanded a spearman to run him through with a sword which he had no sooner done, but such a vast quantity of blood flowed from the wound, as extinguished the fire when a dove was seen to fly from the wound, which some suppose to have been his soul, cloathed in a visible shape at the time of its departure.” The Christians would have carried off his body entire, but were not suffered by the Irenarch, who commanded it to be burnt to ashes. The bones, however, were gathered up, and decently interred by the Christians.

Thus died this apostolical man, as supposed, in May 167. The amphitheatre whereon he suffered was remaining in a great measure not many years ago, and his tomb is in a little chapel in the side of a mountain, on the southeast part of the city, solemnly visited by the Greeks on his festival day and for the maintenance and repairing of it, travellers were wont to throw a few aspers into an earthen pot that stands there for the purpose. He wrote some homilies and epistles, which are all lost, except that to the “Philippians,” which is a pious and truly Christian piece, containing short and useful precepts and rules of life, and which, St. Jerome tells us, was even in his time read in the public assemblies of the Asian churches. It is among archbishop Wake’s “Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers,” and the original was published by archbishop Usher in 1648, and has been reprinted since in various collections, [Wake has also given a translation of the account of Polycarp’s death, written in the name of the church of Smyrna.] It is of singular use in proving the authenticity of the books of the New Testament; inasmuch as he has several passages and expressions from Matthew, Luke, the Acts, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians, 1st Timothy, 1st Epistle of St. John, and 1st of Peter; and makes particular mention of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Indeed his whole “Epistle” consists of phrases and sentiments taken from the New Testament.

, a famous sculptor of antiquity, was a native of Sicyon, and flourished about the year 430 B. C. We know nothing of his history but from incidental notice of him in Pliny. His Doryphorus, one of his figures, for his excellence lay in single figures, was esteemed a canon of proportion; we read also of the statue of a boy, which was estimated at a hundred talents, or perhaps nearly 20,000l. according to our mode of reckoning. The emperor Titus had two naked boys playing at a game, by his hand, which was considered as a perfect performance. Lysippus the painter formed his manner on the study of the Doryphorus of this artist.

, a celebrated painter of Thasos, flourished about 422 B. C. and was the son and scholar of Aglaophon. He particularly distinguished himself by a series of pictures, including the principal events of the Trojan war. He refused the presents offered him by the Grecians on this occasion which so pleased the Amphictyons, who composed the general council of Greece, that they thanked him by a solemn decree; and it was provided by the same decree, that this skilful painter should be lodged and entertained, at the public expence, in every town through which he passed. The talents of Polygnotus are celebrated by many of the best authors of antiquity, as Aristotle and Plutarch, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Pausanias, but especially Pliny, whose sentiments, as well as those of Pausanias, are criticised by Mr. Fuseli in his Lectures on Painting."

, marquis of, a famous Portuguese minister of state, whom the Jesuits, whose banishment he pronounced, have defamed by all possible means, and others have extolled as a most able statesman, was born in 1699, in the territory of Coimbra a robust and distinguished figure seemed to mark him for the profession of arms, for which, after a short trial, he quitted the studies of his native university. He found, however, a still readier path to fortune, by marrying, in spite of opposition from her relations, Donna Teresa de Noronha Almada, a lady of one of the first families in Spain. He lost her in 1739, and being sent on a secret expedition in 1745 to Vienna, he again was fortunate in marriage, by obtaining the countess of Daun, a relation of the marshal of that name. This wife became a favourite with the queen of Portugal, who interested herself to obtain an appointment for Carvalho, in which, however, she did not succeed, till after the death of her husband, John V. in 1750. Her son Joseph gave Carvalho the appointment of secretary for foreign affairs, in which situation he completely obtained the confidence of the king. His haughtiness, as well as some of his measures, created many enemies; and in 1758, a conspiracy headed by the duke d'Aveiro, who had been the favourite of John V. broke out in an attempt to murder the king as he returned from his castle of Belem. The plot being completely discovered, the conspirators were punished, not only severely but cruelly; and the Jesuits who had been involved in it, were banished from the kingdom. At the death of Joseph, in 1777, Pombal fell into disgrace, and many of the persons connected with the conspirators, who had been imprisoned from the time of the discovery, were released. The enemies of Pombal did not, however, succeed in exculpating the principal agents, though a decree was passed in 1781, to declare the innocence of those who had been released from prison. Carvalho was banished to one of his estate?, where he died in May 1782, in his eighty-fifth year. His character, as was mentioned above, was variously represented, but it was generally allowed that he possessed great abilities. A book entitled “Memoirs of the Marquis of Pombal,” was published at Paris in 1783, in four volumes, 12mo, but it is not esteemed altogether impartial.

, born April 2, 1658, obtained great wealth in the profession of a wholesale druggist and being appointed to superintend the materia medica in the king’s gardens, drew up a catalogue of all the articles in that collection, with some that were preserved in cabinets, under the title of “Histoire generale des Drogues,” folio, which, besides passing through some editions in the original, was translated into English in 1725, 4to. He died Nov. 18, 1699, in his forty-first year, and the very day that the king sent him an order for a pension. His work was republished by his son in 1735, in two volumes, 4to, but the engravings in this edition are not thought so good as in the first.

, a Jesuit, most known for his “Pantheum mythicum,” of which his French biographers assert that an “Englishman, named Tooke, gave a translation, prefixing his own name, without that of the author” and this book has gone through a vast number of editions. He died at Lyons, in 1673, at an advanced age. He had been employed as a teacher of youth in that city, and most of his works are formed for the use of students. They consist of, a large dictionary, since superseded by that of Joubert; a small one in 12mo, entitled “Flos Latinitatis;” “Indiculus universalis,” a kind of nomenclator colloquies; a treatise on particles and another on the funerals of the ancients with a work on rhetoric. Pomey was well versed in the Latin authors, but his publications would have been more valuable had he been more attentive to method and exactness.

, an English poet, was son of Mr. Pomfret, rector of Luton in Bedfordshire, and formerly of Trinity college, Cambridge. He was born about 1667. He was educated at a grammar-school in the country, and thence sent to Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1684, and that of master in 1698. He then went into orders, and was presented to the living of Malden in Bedfordshire. About 1703, he came up to London for institution to a larger and very considerable living but was stopped some time by Compton, then bishop of London, on account of these four lines of his poem entitled “The Choice:”

"And as I near approach'd the verge of life,

The parenthesis in these lines was so maliciously represented, that the good bishop was made to believe from it, that Pomfret prefered a mistress to a wife though no such meaning can be deduced, unless it be asserted, that an unmarried clergyman cannot live without a mistress. But the bishop was soon convinced, that this representation was nothing more than the effect of malice, as Pomfret at that time was actually married. The opposition, however, which his slanderers had given him, was not without effect for, being obliged on this occasion to stay in London longer than he intended, he caught the small-pox, and died of it, in 1703, aged thirty-five.

A volume of his poems was published by himself in 1699, with a very modest and sensible preface. Two pieces of his were published after his death by a friend under the name of Philalethes one called “Reason,” and written in 1700, when the disputes about the Trinity ran high; the other, “Dies Novissima,” or, “The Last Epiphany,” a Pindaric ode. His versification is sometimes not unmusical; but there is not the force in his writings which is 'necessary to constitute a poet. A dissenting teacher of his name, and who published some rhimes upon spiritual subjects, occasioned fanaticism to be imputed to him; but from this his friend Philalethes has justly cleared him. Pomfret had a very strong mixture of devotion in him, but no fanaticism.

“The Choice,” says Dr. Johnson, “exhibits a system of life adapted to common notions, and equal to common expectations such a state as affords plenty and tranquillity, without exclusion of intellectual pleasures. Perhaps no composition in our language has been oftener perused than. Pomfret‘ s * Choice.’ In his other poems there is an easy volubility the pleasure of smooth metre is afforded to the ear, and the mind is not oppressed with ponderous, or entangled with intricate sentiment. He pleases many, and he who pleases many must have merit,” His son, John, had the office of Rouge-croix in the heralds’ office, and wrote some satirical verses on the removal of the family portraits of the Howards from the hall of the heralds’ college to Arundei castle. He died March 24, 1751, aged forty-nine.

, a laborious Benedictine of the congregation de St. Maur, was born in 1617, at Rouen. After a suitable education, he refused all offices in his order, that he might devote himself wholly to study. He died of an apoplexy at the house of the learned M. Bulreau, to whom he was paying a visit, Oct. 28, 1687, aged seventy. His works are, “L'Histoire de TAbbaye de S. Ouen de Rouen, folio and a” History of the Archbishops of Rouen,“folio, which is his best work. He published also a” Collection of the Councils and Synods of Rouen,“4to” L'Histoire de la Cath&irale de Rouen,“4to” Pratique journaliere de TAumone," a small book, exhorting to give alms to those who beg for the poor. This Benedictine’s works are not written in a pleasing style, nor are they every where accurate, but they contain many curious observations.

, marchioness of, the celebrated mistress- of Louis XV. was the daughter of a financier, and early distinguished by the beauty of her person, and the elegance of her talents. She was married to a M. d'Etioles when she attracted the notice of the king, and becoming his mistress, was created marchioness of Pompadour in 1745. Her credit was abundant, and she employed it Chiefly in the patronage of talents, in all branches of the polite arts. She collected also a cabinet of books, pictures, and various curiosities. She died in 1764, at the age of forty-four; and, it is said, with much more resignation than could have been expected of a person so little advanced in years, and so situated. Two spurious works hate been attributed to her since her death, the one, a set of “Memoirs,” in two volumes, 8vo the other, a collection of “Letters,” in three volumes, which have at least the merit of painting her character with skill. The memoirs attribute to her, in conformity with the popular ideas, much more influence than she actually possessed.

, an Italian poet and a man of letters, was born of a noble family at Verona in 1731. He became an early proficient in classical literature, particularly the Greek, of which he was enthusiastically fond, and attained an excellent style. At this period the marquis Maffei and other eminent literary characters were resident at Verpna, in whose society the talents of Pompei received the most advantageous cultivation. He was first known as an author by “Canzoni Pastorali,” in two vols. 8vo. Able critics spoke in the highest terms of these pieces, on account of their sweetness and elegance it was thought by some good judges that they were never surpassed by any productions of the kind. He next translated some of the Idylls of Theocritus and Moschus, in which he exhibited a very happy selection of Italian words, corresponding with the Greek. The next object of his attention was dramatic poetry, in the higher departments of which the Italians were at that time very deficient, and he published in 1763 and 1770, his tragedies of “Hypermestra” and “Callirhoe,” which were represented with great success in several cities of the Venetian state. He now employed several years on a translation of “Plutarch’s Lives,” which appeared in 1774 in four vols. 4to. This work gave him considerable reputation as a prose writer and scholar, and it ranks among the very best classical versions in the Italian language. In 1778 he published two volumes of “Nuove Canzoni Pastorali” he also published poetical versions of the “Hero and Leander of Musjeus” of the “Hymns of Callimachus;” “A hundred Greek Epigrams” and the “Epistles of Ovid.” He was a member of some of the academies, and he served his native city in the capacities of secretary to the tribunal of public safety, and to the academy of painting. He died at Verona in 1790, at the age of fifty-nine, and his memory was honoured by various public testimonies, and by the erection of his bust in one of the squares of the city. He was highly respected and esteemed, as well for his morals as for his literary talents, and his fame was not limited to the confines of Italy. An edition of his works was published after his death in six vols. 8vo.

, or P0MPEIUS (CNEius), surnamed Magnus, or the Great, was of a noble Roman family, the son of Pompeius Strabo, and Lucilia. He was born the same year with Cicero, but nine months later, namely, in the consulship of Csepio and Serranus, 105 years before the Christian sera. His father was a general of great abilities, and under him he learned the art of war. When he was only twenty-three he raised three legions, which he led to Sylla. Three years after, he drove the opponents of Sylla from Africa and Sicily. Young as he was, he had already won the soldiers sufficiently, by his mildness and military talents, to excite the jealousy of Sylla, who therefore recalled him to Rome. His soldiers would have detained him in spite of the dictator’s orders, but he obeyed, and was rewarded on his arrival by the name of Magnus, given him by Sylla, and soon after confirmed unanimously by his countrymen. He obtained also the honours of a triumph, which the dictator permitted rather unwillingly, and was the first instance of a Roman knight, who had not risen to any magistracy, being advanced to that elevation. This was in 81 B. C. In a short time, he had obtained as much power by the voluntary favour of the people, as Sylla had before by arms and after the death of that extraordinary man, obliged Lepidus to quit Rome, and then undertook the war against Sertorius in Spain, which he brought to a fortunate conclusion. For this victory he triumphed a second time, B. C. 73, being still only in the rank of a knight. Not long afterwards he was chosen consul. In that office he re-established the power of the tribunes; and, in the course of a few years, exterminated the pirates who infested the Mediterranean, gained great advantages against Tigranes and Mithriclates, and carried his victorious arms into Media, Albania, Iberia, and the most important parts of Asia; and so extended the boundaries of the Roman empire, that Asia Minor, which before formed the extremity of its provinces, now became, in a manner, the centre of them. When he returned to receive a triumph for these victories, he courted popularity by dismissing his troops and entering the city as a private citizen. He triumphed with great splendour but not feeling his influence such as he had hoped, he united with Caesar and Crassus to form the first triumvirate. He strengthened his union with Ccesar by marrying his daughter Julia; he was destined nevertheless to find in Caesar not a friend, but too successful a rival. While Caesar was gaining in his long Gallic wars a fame and a power that were soon to be invincible, Pompey was endeavouring to cultivate his popularity and influence in Rome. Ere long they took directly contrary parties. Pompey became the hope and the support of the patricians and the senate, while Caesar was the idol of the people. On the return of the latter from Gaul, in the year 51 A. C. the civil war broke out, which terminated, as is well known, by the defeat of Pompey in the battle of Pharsalia, A. C. 49, and the base assassination of him by the officers of Ptolemy in Egypt. It appears that Pompey had not less ambition than Caesar, but was either more scrupulous, or less sagacious and fortunate in his choice of means to gratify that passion. He was unwilling to throw off the mask of virtue and moderation, and hoped to gain every thing by intrigue and the appearance of transcendant merit. In this he might have been successful, had he not been opposed to a man whose prompt and decisive measures disconcerted his secret plans, drove things a once to extremities, and forced him to have recourse to the decision of arms, in which victory declared against him. The moderate men, and those who were sincerely attached to the republic of Rome, dreaded, almost equally, the success of Pompey and of Caesar. Cato, who took the mourning habit on the breaking out of the civil war, had resolved upon death if Caesar should be victorious, and exile if sue* cess should declare for Pompey.