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

From lady Luxborough’s Letters, p. 211, we find that Mr. Somervile translated from Voltaire the play of “Alzira,” which was then in manuscript in her hands.

, an eminent English antiquary, was born at Canterbury, March 30, 1606, according to the account given by his wife and son; but, according to the register of the parish of St. Margaret’s, much earlier, for it represents him to have been baptized Nov. 5, 1598. It was a proper birth-place for an antiquary, being one of the most ancient cities in England; and Somner was so well pleased with it, that, like Claudian’s good old citizen of Verona, within the walls, or in the sight of them, he grew up, lived, and died. He was of a reputable family; and his father was registrar of the court of Canterbury under sir Nathaniel Brent, commissary. At a proper age he was sent to the free-school of that city, where he seems to have acquired a competent knowledge of the Latin language at least. Thence he was removed, and placed as clerk to his father in the ecclesiastical courts of that diocese; and was afterwards preferred to a creditable office in those courts by archbishop Laud. His natural bent in the mean time lay to the study of antiquities; and he took all opportunities of indulging it. He was led early, in his walks through the suburbs and the fields of that city, to survey the British bricks, the Roman ways, the Danish hills and works, the Saxon monasteries, and the Norman churches. This was his amusement abroad; at home he delighted in old manuscripts, leger-books, rolls-and records; his knowledge of which was such, that upon questions concerning descent of families, tenure of estates, dedication of churches, right of tithes, and the history of use and custom, he was consulted by all his neighbours.

In 1640 he published “The Antiquities of Canterbury,” 4to; an accurate performance, and very seasonably executed, as it preserved from oblivion many monuments of antiquity, which were soon after buried by civil discord iti ruin. This work obtained a high character; and Dr. Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, and a great encourager of our author in his studies, represents it as “exceedingly useful, not only to -those who desire to know the state of that once flourishing city, but to all that are curious in the ancient English history.” It was reprinted in folio, with cuts, and revised and enlarged by the editor, Nicholas Batteley, to which he added a second part, of his own composition. Thus far Somner had searched only into the Latin writers, and such national records as had been penned since the Norman conquest: but his thirst after antiquities urged him to proceed, and to attain the British and Saxon tongues. To acquire the British, there were rules of grammar, explications of words, and other sufficient memoirs, besides the living dialect, to guide a man of industry and resolution; but the Saxon was extinct, and the monuments of it so few and so latent, that it required infinite courage as well as patience. Encouraged, however, by his friend Casaubon, and being of an active spirit, he did not despair; but, beginning his work, he succeeded so wonderfully, as to be compared with the most knowing rn that way: and he has always been ranked by the best judges among the few complete critics in the Saxon language. His skill in this obliged him to inquire into most of the ancient European languages; and made him also go through the Old Gaelic, Irish, Scotch, and Danish dialects, and yet more particularly the Gothic, Sclavonian, and German. Of his perfection in the latter he gave the world a public specimen on the following occasion. While his friend Casaubon was employed in an essay on the Saxon tongue, he met with an epistle of Lipsius to Schottus, which contained a large catalogue of old German words, in use with that nation eight or nine hundred years before. Casaubon thought that many of them had a great affinity to the Saxon; and, therefore, being then in London, sent down the catalogue to Somner at Canterbury; who in a few days returned his animadversions upon them, and shewed the relation of the German with the Saxon language. They were published as an appendix to Casaubon’s essay in 1650, 8vo; at which time the same Casaubon informs us, il that Somner would have printed all his useful labours, and have written much more, if that fatal catastrophe had not interposed, which brought no less desolation upon letters than upon the land."

Somner' s reputation was now so well established that no monuments of antiquity could be further published without his advice and helping hand. In 1652, when a collection of historians came forth under this title “Histories Anglicanze Scriptores X. ex vet. Mss. mine primuin in lucem editi,” the Appendix, or Glossarium, (SeeyEu-Ric,) was the labour of Mr. Somner: whom sir Roger Twisden, who, with the assistance of archbishop Usher and Mr. Selden, published these historians, represents in the preface as “a man of primitive probity and candour, a most sagacious searcher into the antiquities of his country, and most expert in the Saxon tongue.” Hickes afterwards calls this glossary of Sotnner’s “incomparable, a truly golden work without which the ten historians luid been imperfect and little useful.” Somner’s friends had still more work for him: they observed it was impossible to cultivate any language, or recommend it to learners, without the help of a dictionary; and this was yet wanting to the Saxon. On him, therefore, they laid the mighty task of compiling one: but, as this work required much time and great expence, it became an object to contrive some competent reward and support, besides affording him their countenance and assistance. Sir Henry Spelman had founded at Cambridge a lecture for “promoting the Saxon tongue, either by reading it publicly, or by the edition of Saxon manuscripts, and other books:” and, this lecture being vacant in 1657, archbishop Usher recommended Somner to the patron, Roger Spelman, esq. srrandson of the founder, that “he would confer on him the pecuniary stipend, to enable him to prosecute a Saxon dictionary, which would more improve that tongue, than bare academic lectures.” Accordingly, Somner had the salary, and now pursued the work, in which he had already made considerable progress; for it was published at Oxford in April 1659, with an inscription to all students in the Saxon tongue, a dedication to his patron Roger Speiman, esq. and a preface.

Just before the Restoration, he was imprisoned in the castle of Deal, for endeavouring to procure hands to petition for a free parliament. In 1660, he was made master of St. John’s hospital, in the suburbs of Canterbury; and about the same time auditor of Christ-church, in that city. The same year he published, in quarto, “A treatise of Gnvel-kind, both name and thing, shewing the true etymology and derivation of the one; the nature, antiquity, and original, of the other; with sundry emergent observations, both pleasant and profitable to be known of Kentishtnen and others, especially such as are studious either of the ancient custom, or the common law of this kingdom.” In this work he shewed himself an absolute civilian, and a complete common lawyer, as well as a profound antiquary. This was his last publication: he left behind him many observations in manuscript, and some treatises, one of which, “of the Roman ports and forts in Kent,” was published at Oxford, 1693, 8vo, by James Brome, M. A. rector of Cheriton, and chaplain to the Cinque-ports and “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus a Somnero, Du Fresne, et Gibson,” was printed at the same place, 1624, 8vo. To the former is prefixed his life by White Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. These works were parts of an intended history of the antiquities of Kent.

Somner died March 30, 1669, after having been twice married, and was buried in the north aile of St. iMargaret’s church, Canterbury, where is an inscription to his memory. Dr. Kennet tells us, that “he was courteous, without design wise, without a trick faithful, without a reward humble and compassionate moderate and equal; never fretted by his afflictions, nor elated by the favours of heaven and good men.” Of his “Saxon Dictionary” he says, “For this, indeed, is a farther honour to the work, and the author of it, that it was done in the days of anarchy and confusion, of ignorance and tyranny, when all the professors of true religion and good literature were silenced and oppressed. And yet Providence so ordered, that the loyal suffering party did all that was done for the improvement of letters, and the honour of the nation. Those that intruded into the places of power and profit did nothing but defile the press with lying new and fast sermons, while the poor ejected churchmen did works of which the world was not worthy.” This opinion, which is not strictly just, is yet considerably strengthened by an appeal which Dr. Kennet makes to the “Monasticon, the Decem Scriptores, the Polyglot Bible, the London Critics, the Council of Florence, and the Saxon Dictionary.” Somner’s many well-selected books and choice manuscripts were purchased by the dean and chapter of Canterbury for the library of that church, where they now remain. A catalogue of his manuscripts is subjoined to the life abovementioned. He was a man “antiquis moribus,” of great integrity and simplicity of manners. He adhered to king Charles, in the time of his troubles; and, when he saw him brought to the block, his zeal could no longer contain itself, but broke out into a passionate elegy, entitled “The insecurity of princes, considered in an occasional meditation upon the king’s late sufferings and death,” 1648, 4to. Soon after, he published another affectionate poem, to which is prefixed the pourtraicture of Charles I. before his Ειχων βασιλικη and this title, “The frontispiece of the king’s book opened, with a poem annexed, ‘ The Insecurity of Princes,’ &c.” 4to.

, an ancient Greek tragic poet, was born at Athens in the 71st olympiad, about 500 B. C. His father Sopbilus, of whose condition nothing certain can be collected, educated him in all the politer accomplishments: he learned music and dancing of Lamprus, as Athenaeus says; and had jEschylus for his master in poetry. He was about sixteen at the time of Xerxes’s expedition into Greece: and being at Salamis, where the Grecians were employed in fixing the monuments of the victory, after the flight of that prince, and the entire rout of;11 his generals, he is reported to have appeared at the head of a choir of youths.; and while they sung a pa,>an, to have guided the measures with his harp.

He was five and twenty, when he conquered his master Æschylus in tragedy. Cimon, vhe Athenian general, having found Theseus’s bones, and bringing the noble relics with solemn pomp into the city, a contention of tragedians was appointed; as was usual on extraordinary occasions, JEschylus and Sophocles were the two great rivals; and the prize was adjudged to Sophocles, although it was the first play he ever presented in public. The esteem and wonder that all Greece expressed at his wisdom, made him conceived to be the peculiar favourite of the gods. Thus they tell us, that Æsculapius did him the honour to visit him at his house; and, from a story related by Cicero, it should seem that Hercules was supposed to have no less respect for him. Apollonius Tyanensis, in his oration before Domitian, tells the emperor, that Sophocles the Athenian was able to check and restrain the furious winds, when they were visiting his country at an unseasonable time.

This opinion of his extraordinary worth opened him a free passage to the highest offices in the state. We find him, in Strabo, going in joint commission with Pericles, to reduce the rebellious Samians. Cicero, in his book “De Senectute,” produces Sophocles as an example, to shew, that the weakness of the memory and parts is not a necessary attendant of old age. He observes, that this great man continued the profession of his art, even to his latest years; but his sons resented this severe application to writing, as a neglect of his family and estate. On this account, they at last brought the business into court before the judges; and petitioned the guardianship of their father, as one that was grown a dotard, and therefore incapable of managing his concerns. The aged poet, being acquainted with the motion, in order to his defence, came presently into court, and recited his “CEdipusof Colonoaj” a tragedy he had just before finished; and then desired to know, whether that piece looked like the work of a dotard? There needed no other plea in his favour; for the judges, admiring and applauding his wit, not only acquitte'd him of the charge, but, as Lucian adds, voted his sons madmen for accusing him. The general story of his death is, that, having exhibited his last play, and obtained the prize, he fell into such a transport of joy, as carried him off; though Lucian differs from the common report, and affirms him to have been choaked by a grape-stone, like Anacreon. He died at Athens in his 90th year, as some say; in his 95th, according toothers, B. C. 405.

If JEschylus be styled, as he usually has been, the father, Sophocles will certainly demand the title of the master of tragedy; since what the former brought into the world, the other reduced to a more regular form. Diogenes Laertius, when he would give us the highest idea of the advances Plato made in philosophy, compares them to the improvements of Sophocles in tragedy. The chief reason of Aristotle’s giving him the preference to Euripides was, his allowing the chorus an interest in the main action, so as to make every thing to conduce regularly to the main design; whereas we often meet in Euripides with a rambling song of the chorus, entirely independent of the main business of the play. Aristotle, indeed, has given Euripides the epithet of T^ayixuralog, but it is easy to discover, that he can mean only the most pathetic; whereas, on the whole, he gives Sophocles the precedency, at least in the most noble perfections of ceconomy, manners, and style. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his “Art of Rhetoric,” commends Sophocles for preserving the dignity of his persons and characters; whereas Euripides, says he, did not so much consult the truth of his manners, as their conformity to common life. He gives the preference to Sophocles on two other accounts: first, because Sophocles chose the noblest and most generous affections and manners to represent; while Euripides employed himself in expressing the more dishonest, abject, and effeminate passions; and, secondly, because the former never says anything but what is necessary, whereas the latter frequently amuses the reader with oratorical deductions. Cicero had so high an opinion of Sophocles, that he called him the divine poet; and, Virgil, by his “Sophocleo cothurno,” has left a mark of distinction, which seems to denote a preference of Sophocles to all other writers of tragedy. Sophocles is certainly the most masterly of the three Greek tragedians, the most correct in the conduct of his subjects, and the most just and sublime in his sentiments; and is eminent for his descriptive talent.

Out of above an hundred tragedies, which Sophocles wrote, only seven remain. They have been frequently published, separately and together; with the Greek scholia and Latin versions, and without. The first edition was by Aldus at Venice in 1502; after which followed those of Turnebus, 4to. 1553; of H. Stephens, 4to. 1568; of Johnson, 1705, 1746, 3 vols. 8vo; of Capperonius, 1781, 2 vols, 4to; of Brunck, 1786, 2 vols. 4to, and 1786 9, 3 vols.; of Musgrave, Oxon. 1800, 3 vols.; and of Both, in 1806, 2 vols. 8vo. They have been all translated into English by Francklin, and by Potter.

, a good medical writer, a native of Hainaut, was physician to the imperial court, and professor of medicine at Vienna for twenty-four years. He died in 1691, at an advanced age. He has left, 1. “Commentaries on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates,” in Latin, 1680, 4to. 2. “Medicina universalis, theoretica et practica,” 1701, fol. Though this work has been much esteemed, as solid and useful, it contains some things which at present appear rather strange. 3. “Consilium medicutn, sive dialogus loimicus, de peste Viennensi,” 1679, 12mo. He says here, that the plague of that year carried off 76,921 persons. 4. Several discourses in a periodical paper entitled “Ephemerides of the Curious in Nature.”

, a French writer, was born of Protestant parents Sept. 7, 1615. His father was a tradesman; his mother Louisa was the sister of the learned Samuel Petit, minister of Nismes. These dying when he was young, his uncle Petit educated hioi as his own child. Having laid a proper foundation in languages and polite literature, he went to Paris, where he studied divinity; but, being presently disgusted with this, he applied himself to physic, and soon made such a progress, as to form an abridged system for his own use, which was afterwards printed on one sheet of paper. He went into Holland in 1642, back to France in 1645, and then again to Holland in 1616, in which year he married. He now intended to practise, and with that view went to Leyden, but again changing his mind, was scarcely settled at Leyden, when he returned to France, and was made principal of the college of Orange in 1650.

In 1653 he embraced the Popish religion; and, going to Paris in 1654, published, according to custom, a discourse upon the motives of his conversion, which he dedicated to cardinal Mazarine. He went afterwards to Rome, where he made himself known to Alexander VII, by a Latin letter addressed to that pope, in which he inveighed against the envious Protestants, as he called them. Upon his return from Rome, he came over to England; and afterwards published, in 1664, a relation of his voyage hither, which brought him into trouble and disgrace; for, having taken some unwarrantable liberties with the character of a nation with which France at that time thought it policy to be on good terms, he was stripped of his title of “Historiographer of France,” which had been given him by the king, and sent for some time into banishment. His book also was discountenanced and discredited, by a tract published against it in the city of Paris; while Sprat, afterwards bishop of Rochester, refuted its absurdities in “Observations on M. de Sorbiere’s Voyage into England,” 1665, 12mo. This work was reprinted with an English edition of Sorbiere’s voyage, and a life of him in 1709, 8vo. Voltaire has also been very severe upon this work: “I would not,” says he, “imitate the late Mr. Sorbiere, who, having stayed three months in England, without knowing any thing either of its manners or of its language, thought fit to print a relation, which proved but a dull scurrilous satire upon a nation he knew nothing of.”

Cardinal Rospigliosi being likely to succeed Alexander VII. in the papal chair, Sorbiere made a second journey to Rome. He was known to the cardinal when he was at Rome before, and having published a collection of poems in his praise, fancied that promotion must follow. Rospigliosi was made pope, and took the name of Clement IX.; but Sorbiere was disappointed; for, though the pope gave him good words, yet he gave him nothing more, except a small sum to defray the charges of his journey. Sorbiere is said to have been one of those who could not be content, and was therefore never happy. He was continually complaining of the injustice and cruelty of fortune; and yet his finances were always decent, and he lived in tolerable plenty. Louis XIV,. cardinal Mazarine, and pope Alexander VII. had been benefactors to him; and many were of opinion, that he had as much as he deserved. He could not help bemoaning himself even to Clement IX. who contenting himself, as we have observed, with doing him some little honours, without paying any regard to his fortune, is said to have received this complaint from him, “Most holy father, you give ruffles to a man who is without a shirt.”

In the mean time, it is supposed that Sorbiere’s connections would have advanced him higher in the church, if he had been sound in his principles; but he was more of a philosopher than a divine. He revered the memory of such writers as Rabelais, whom he made his constant study: Montaione and Charron were heroes with him, nor would he suffer them to be ill spoken of in his presence: and he had a known attachment to the principles and person of Gassendi, whose life, prefixed to his works, was written by Sorbiere. These connections and attachments made him suspected of scepticism, and this suspicion was probably some check to his promotion: for, otherwise, he was a man of learning, and not destitute of good qualities. He was very well skilled in languages and polite literature, and had some knowledge in many sciences. He died of a dropsy, the 9th of April, 1670.

Though his name is so well known in the literary world, yet it is not owing to any productions of his own, but rather to the connections he sought, and the correspondences he held with men of learning. He was not the author of any considerable work, although there are more than twenty publications of his of the smaller kind. Some have been mentioned in the course of this memoir, and there are others as, “Lettres & Discours sur diverses matieres curieuses,” Paris, 1660, 4to; “Discours sur la Comete,” written upon Gassendi’s principles against comets being portents, 1665; “Discours sur la transfusion de sang d‘un animal clans le corps d’un homme,” written at Rome; “Discours sceptiqne sur le passage dn chyle, & sur le mouvement du cceur,” a production of Gassendi, but published by Sorbiere in his own name. He published in 1669 at Paris, “Epistolueillustrintn & eruditorum virorum;” among which are some of Clement IXth’s letters to him, while that pope was vet cardinal. This publication was thought improper, and imputed to vanity. He translated some of our English authors into French: as More’s Utopia, some of Hobbes’s works, and part of Camden’s Britannia. He corresponded with Hobbes; and a story has been circulated of his management in this correspondence, which is not much to his credit. Hobbes used to write to Sorbiere on philosophical subjects; and, those letters being sent by him to Gassendi, seemed so worthy of notice to that great man, that he set himself to write proper answers to them. Gassendi’s answers were sent by Sorbiere as his own to Hobbes, who thought himself happy in the correspondence of so profound a philosopher: but at length the artifice being discovered, Sorbiere was disgraced. Other minute performances of Sorbiere are omitted as being of no consequence at all. There is a “Sorberiana,” which is as good as many other of the “Ana;”' that is, good for very little.

, founder of the celebrated college called after him, was born October 9, 1201, at Sorbonne, otherwise Sorbon, a little village of Rhetelois in the diocese of Rheinis, whence he had his name. His family was poor and obscure, and not of the blood royal as Dupleix imagined. He distinguished himself as a student at Paris, and after having taken a doctor’s degree, devoted his whole attention to preaching and religious conferences, by which he soon became so celebrated that St. Louis wished to hear him. This prince immediately conceived the highest esteem for Sorbonne, invited him to his own table, took great pleasure in his conversation, and in order to have him more constantly about his person, appointed him his chaplain and confessor. Robert, being made canon of Cambray about 1251, and reflecting on the pains it had cost him to obtain a doctor’s degree, determined to facilitate the acquisition of learning to poor scholars. For this purpose he judged that the most convenient and efficacious plan would be to form a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in a community, and having the necessaries of life provided for them, should be wholly employed in study, and teach gratis. All his friends approved the design, and offered to assist him both with their fortunes and their advice. With their assistance, Robert de Sorbonne founded, in 1253, the celebrated college which bears his name. He then assembled able professors, those most distinguished for learning and piety, and lodged his community in the rue des deux portes, opposite to the palace des Thermes. Such was the origin f the famous college of Sorbonne, which proved the model of all others, there having been no society in Europe before that time where the seculars lived and taught in common, 'i he founder had two objects in view wi tins establishment, theology and the arts; but as his predilection was to the former, he composed his society principally of doctors and bachelors in divinity. Some have said that his original foundation was only for sixteen poor scholars (boursiers) or fellows; but it appears by his statutes that from the first establishment, it consisted of doctors, bachelor-fellows, bachelors not fellows, and poor students as at present, or at least lately. The number of fellows was not limited, but depended on the state of the revenues. The number in the founder’s time appears to have been about thirty, and he ordered that there should be no other members of his college than guests and associates (hospites et socii), who might be chosen from any country or nation whaieu-r. A guest, or perhaps as we should call him, a commoner, was required to be a bachelor, to maintain a thesis, tailed, from the founder’s name, Robertine, and was to be admitted by a majority of votes after three different scrutinies. These hospites remained part of the establishment until the last, were maintained and lodged in the house like the rest of the doctors and bachelors, had a right to study in the library (though without possessing a key), and enjoyed all other rights and privileges, except that they had no vote in the assemblies, and were obliged to quit the house on becoming doctors. For an associate, Socius, it was necessary, besides the Robertine thesis, to read a course of philosophical lectures gratis. In 1764, when the small colleges were united with that of Louis-le-grand, the course of philosophy was discontinued, and a thesis substituted in its place, called the second Robertine.

As to the fellowships, they were granted to those only among the Socii who had not forty livres, of Paris money, per annum, either from benefices or paternal inheritance; and when they became possessed of that income, they ceased to be fellows. A fellowship was worth about five sous and a half per week, and was held ten years. At the end of seven years all who held them were strictly examined, and if any one appeared incapable of teaching, preaching, or being useful to the public in some oilier way, he was deprived of his t<-!! /wship. Yet, as the founder was far from wishing to exclude the rich from his college, but, on the contrary, sought to inspire them with a taste for learning, and to revive a knowledge of the sciences among the clergy, he admitted associates, who were not fellows, “Socii uon Bursales.” These were subject to the same examinations and exercises as the Socii, with this only difference, that they paid fn - e sols and a half weekly to the honse, a sum eqnal to that which the fellows received. All the Socii bore and still bear the title of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House and Society of Sorbonne,” whereas the Hospites have only the appellation of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House of Sorbonne.” Their founder ordered that every thing should be managed and regulated by the Socii, and that there should be neither superior nor principal among them. Accord'ngly he forbade the doctors to treat the bachelors as pupils, or the bachelors to treat the doctors as masters, whence the ancient Sorbonists used to say, “We do not live together as doctors and bachelors, nor as masters and pupils; but we live as associates and equals.” In consequence of this equality, no monk of whatever order, has at any time been admitted “Socius of Sorbonne;” and from the beginning of the seventeenth century, whoever is received into the society takes an oath on the gospels, ' That he has no intention of entering any society or secular congregation, the members of which live in common under the direction of one superior, and that if after being admitted into the society of Sorbonne, he should change his mind, and enter any such other community, he will acknowledge himself from that time, and by this single art, to have forfeited all privileges of the society, as well active as passive, and that he will neither do nor undertake any thing contrary to the present regulation.“Robert de Sorbonne permitted the doctors and bachelors to take poor scholars, whom he wished to receive benefit from his house; and great numbers of these poor scholars proved very eminent men. The first professors in the Sorbonne were William de Saint Amour, Odon de Douai, Gerard de Rheims, Laurence the Englishman, Gerard ^'Abbeville, &c. They taught theology gratis, according to the founder’s intention; and from 1253, to the revolution, there have been always six professors at least, who gave lectures on the different branches of that science gratis, even before the divinity professorships were established. Fellowships were given to the poor professors, that is, to those whose incomes did not amount to forty livres; but it appears from the registers of the Sorbonne, that the first professors above mentioned, were very rich, consequently they were not fellows. Robert de Sorbonne ordered that there should always be some doctors in his college who applied particularly to the study of morality and casuistry; whence the Sorbonne has been consulted on such points ever since his time from all parts of the kingdom. He appointed different offices for the government of his college. The first is that of the Proviseur, who was always chosen from among the most eminent persons. Next to him is the Fn‘ciu’, chosen from the Socii bachelors, who presided in the assemblies of the society, at the Robertine acts, at the reading of the Holy Scriptures, at meals, and at the Sorboniques, or acts of the licentiates, for which he fixed the day; he also made two public speeches, one at the first, the other at the last of these. The keys of the gate were delivered up to him every night, and he was the first person to sign all the acts. The other offices are those of” Senieur, Conscripteur, Procureurs, Professors, Librarian, &c.“There is every reason to believe that the Sorbonne, from its foundation, contained thirty-six apartments, and it was doubtless in conformity to this first plan that no more were added when cardinal Richelieu rebuilt it in the present magnificent style. One, however, was afterwards added, making thirty-seven, constantly occupied by as many doctors and bachelors. After Robert de Sorbonne had founded his divinity college, he obtained a confirmation of it from the pope, and it was authorized by letters patent from St. Louis, uho had before given him, or exchanged with him, some houses necessary for that establishment in 1256, and 1258. He then devoted himself to the promotion of learning and piety in his college, and with success, for it soon produced such excellent scholars as spread its fame throughout Europe. Legacies and donations now flowed in from every quarter, which enabled the Sorbonists to study at their ease. The founder had aLvays a particular partiality for those who were poor, for although his society contained some very rich doctors, as appears from the registers and other monumeiHs remaining in the archives of the Sorbonne, yet his establishment had the poor principally in view, the greatest part of its revenues being appropriated to their studies and maintenance. He would even have his college called” the House of the Poor,“which gave rise to the form used by the Sorbonne bachelors, when they appear as respondents, or maintain theses in quality of Antique; and hence also we read on many Mss. that they belong to the” Pauvrcs Matures de Sorbonne.“The founder, not satisfied with providing sufficient revenues for his college, took great pains to establish a library. From the ancient catalogue of the Sorbonne library drawn up in 1289 and 1290, it appears to have consisted at that time of above a thousand volumes; but the collection increased so fast, that a new catalogue became necessary two years after, i. e. in 1292, and again in 1338, at which time the Sorbonne library was perhaps the finest in France. All the books of whatever value were chained to the shelves, and accurately ranged according to their subjects, beginning with grammar, the belles lettres, &c. The catalogues are made in the same manner, and the price of each book is marked in them. These Mss. are still in the house. Robert de Sorbonne (very different from other founders, who begin by laying down rules, and then make it their whole care to enforce the observance of them,) did not attempt to settle any statutes till he had governed his college above eighteen years, and then prescribed only such customs as he had before established, and of which the utility and wisdom were confirmed to him by long experience. Hence it is that no attempt towards reformation or change has ever been made in the Sorbonne; all proceeds according to the ancient methods and rules, and the experience of five centuries has proved that the constitution of that house is well adapted to its purposes, and none of the French colleges since founded have supported themselves in so much regularity and splendour. Robert de Sorbonne having firmly established his society for theological studies, added to it a college for polite literature and philosophy. For this purpose he. bought of William de Cambrai, canon of S. Jean de Maurienne, a house near the Sorbonne, and there founded the college tie Culvi, in 1271. This college, which was also called” the little Sorbonne,“became very celebrated by the great men xvho were educated there, and subsisted till 1636, when it was demolished by cardinal Richelieu’s order, and the chapel of the Sorbocne huilt upon the same spot. The cardinal had, however, engaged to erect another, which should belong equally to the house, and be contiguous to it; but his death put a stop to this plan: and to fulfil his promise in some degree, the family of Richelieu united the college du Plessis to the Sorbonne in 1648. Robert de Sorbonne had been canon of Paris from 1258, and became so celebrated as to be frequently consulted even by princes, and chosen for their arbiter on some important occasions.' He bequeathed all his property, which was very considerable, to the society of Sorbonne, and died at Paris, August 15, 1274, aged seventy-three, leaving several works in Latin. The principal are, a treatise on” Conscience,“another on” Confession,“and” The Way to Paradise,“all which are printed in the” Bibl. Patrum." He wrote also other things, which remain in ms. in the library. The house and society of Sorbonne is one of the four parts of the faculty of theology at Paris, but has its peculiar revenues, statutes, assemblies, and prerogatives.

, an Egyptian mathematician, whose principal studies were chronology and the mathematics in general, and who flourished in the time of Julius Cxsar, is represented as well versed in the mathematics and astronomy of the ancients; particularly of those celebrated mathematicians, Thales, Archimedes, Hipparchus, Calippus, and many others, who had undertaken to determine the quantity of the solar year; which they had ascertained much nearer the truth than one can well imagine they could, with instruments so very imperfect; as may appear by reference to Ptolomy’s Almagest. It seems Sosigenes made great improvements, and gave proofs of his being able to demonstrate the certainty of his discoveries; by which means he became popular, and obtained repute with those who had a genius to understand and relish such inquiries. Hence he was sent for by Julius Caesar, who being convinced of his capacity, employed him in reforming the calendar; and it was he who formed the Julian year, which begins 45 years before the birth of Christ. His other works are lost since that period.

, a learned Dominican, of great fame under the emperor Charles V. was born at Segovia in 1494. His father, who was a gardener, would have bred him to his own profession, but having learned to write and read, he went to a small town near Segovia, where he performed the office of sacristan. By persevering in study, he fitted himself for the university of Aicala, and proceeded from thence to Paris. It was after his return into Spain that he became a Dominican, and appeared with great distinction in the university of Salamanca. His reputation was now so high, that he was chosen by the emperor Charles V. as arbitrator in some important disputes, and appointed in 1545 his first theologian at the council of Trent. In that assembly he was one of the most active and esteemed members. He spoke frequently, and took the charge of forming the decrees from the decisions which had passed. Every one was fond of consulting him, and this peculiar distinction was the more remarkable, as there were more than fifty bishops, and other theologians, of the same order in the assembly. He refused the bishopric of Segovia, and though he had not been able to decline the appointment of confessor to Charles V. he resigned it as soon as he could with propriety. He died in 1560, at the age of sixty-six. He published, 1. two books “on Nature, and on Grace,” Paris, 1549, 4to, and dedicated them to the-fathers of the council. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans,” 1550, folio. 3. “Commentaries on the Master of Sentences,” folio. 4. “De justitia etjure,” two treatises, in folio. 5. “De legend is secretis,” 8vo. 6. “De pauperum causa.” 7.“De cavendo iurarjientorum abusu.” 8. “Apologia contra Ambrosium Catharinum,” &c.

, a contemporary of the preceding, but more connected with this country, was born at Cordova, and educated among the Dominicans of Salamanca. Having distinguished himself in the duties of the cloister, and made an eqiujl progress in learning, especially divinity and the sacred languages, he was called to court, and was successively confessor to the king of Spain, and to Charles V. of Germany, who employed him to write against the Lutherans. When Philip of Spain married our queen Mary, Soto was one of those Spanish divines who attended him to England, and settled at Oxford, where he was professor of divinity, and sometimes read a Hebrew lecture, as Wood supposes, for Dr. Bruerne, the Hebrew professor. This occurred in 1556; and, the year before, Soto had been incorpora; ed D. D. in this university. After the death of queen Mary, he was called to the council of Trent, where be died in April 1563. He published “Institutiones Chris, tiana?,” 1548, and some other works of the controversial kind against John Brentius, or Brent. Dodd says he was a zealous assertor of church discipline, as appears by a letter which he wrote to pope Pius IV. in his last sickness, in which he insists that the residence of bishops should be declared dejure divino.

, Sotwellus, but properly Southwell (Nathaniel), was an English Jesuit of the seventeenth century, and is entitled to some notice, as one of the historians of his order, but we have no particulars of his own life. Being employed to write the lives of eminent authors among the Jesuits, he carried on the plan of llibadeneira and Alegambe down to his own times, that is, the latter part of the seventeenth century. His improved edition was published under the title of “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu, opus inchoatum a R. P. Petro Ribadeneira, et productum ad annum 1609: continuatum a Philippo Alegambe ad annum 1643; recognitum, et productum ad annum 1675, a Nathanaelo Sotvvello,” Rome, 1676, fol. This is, of course, reckoned the best edition of this collection of biography, but some prefer that of Alegambe, on account of its superior correctness.

, a French writer who died in 1746, at the age of fifty-nine, was born at Saint-Amand, near Vendome, and educated by an uncle. Removing to Paris, he gained the applause and esteem of all the learned; and in 1720 was elected into the academy of inscriptions, in whose memoirs his dissertations make a distinguished figure. He was not without preferment also, being canon ofRodez, counsellor to the king, and reader and professor of eloquence in the college royal. The abbe Souchai is said to have formed in himself the rare union of profound knowledge and elegant manners. He wrote, 1. a French translation of Brown’s Vulgar Errors, entitled “Essais sur les Erreurs Populaires,” 2 vols. 12mo. 2. An edition of the works of Peiisson, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. Remarks on d'Audilly’s Josephus, in the edition of Paris, 1744. 4. An edition of Boileau’s works, 1740, 2 vols. 4 to. 5. An edition of the “Astrea” of Honore d'Urfe, in which the language is modernized, and the conversations abridged, 1733, 10 vols. 12mo. 6. An edition of “Ausonius,” in 4to, with copious notes. 7. The dissertations above-mentioned in the Memoirs of the Academy.

, an architect very famous in France, particularly for his plan of the beautiful church of St. Genevieve at Paris, was born in 1713, at Trenci near Auxerre. His family was engaged in commerce, but he very early shewed a strong disposition for the arts, and particularly for architecture. It is related of him, as of our countryman Smeaton, that, from his earliest childhood, he was more delighted by attending to workmen than any other amusement; and, like him, was so strongly directed by the bent of his genius to the profession in which he afterwards excelled, as to frustrate the wishes of his father to place him in his own business. The father of Soufflot, however, did not yield to his son’s inclination, and he was obliged to quit his home in order to indulge it. He immediately, with a small stock of money, set out for Italy, but paused at Lyons, where, by working under the artists of that place, he improved at once his knowledge and his finances. He then visited Rome and every part of Italy. Having improved himself under the best artists, and by modelling from the finest antiques, he returned to France, and for a time to Lyons, where he had made himself beloved in his former visit. He was soon employed by the magistrates of that city to build the exchange and the hospital, the latter of which edifices extended his reputation throughout France. Madame Pompadour heard of him, and having obtained for her brother the piace of director of the royal buildings, &c. engaged Sou/Hot and Cochin to attend him into Italy. Returning from that engagement, he quitted Lyons, and established himself at Paris; where he was successively comptroller of the buildings of Marli and the Tuilleries, member of the academies of architecture and painting, knight of the order of St. Michael, and lastly, superintendant of the royal buildings. With respect to the dome of his great work, the church of St. Genevieve, he met with so many contradictions, and so much opposition excited by envy, that though be had demonstrated the possibility of executing it, they threw great obstacles in his way and are thought to have shortened his life hy the severe vexation he experienced from them. After languishing for two years, in a very infirm state, he died August 29, 1780, at the age of sixtyseven.

Soufflot was much beloved by his relations and friends, who, knowing the excellence of his heart, were not offended by a kind of warmth and roughness of character which was peculiar to him. They called him jocularly “Le bourru bienfaisant,” the benevolent humourist, as we may perhaps translate it; from the title of a comedy then fashionable. He did not live to finish the church of St. Genevieve; but, besides the buildings here mentioned, he was concerned in many others, particularly the beautiful theatre at Lyons.

, an English divine of great parts and learning, but of very inconsistent character, was the son of a merchant in London, and born at Hackney, in Middlesex, 1633. He was educated in Westminster-school, under Dr. Busby, where he acquired an uncommon share of grammatical and philological learning. In 1648 he made himself remarkable by reading the Latin prayers in the school, on the day in which king Charles was beheaded, and praying for that prince by name. He continued four years at Westminster, and in 1651 was elected thence student of Christchurch, Oxford. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1654; and the same year wrote a copy of Latin verses, to congratulate the protector Cromwell upon the peace concluded with the Dutch. They were published in a collection of poems by the university. The year after, he published another Latin poem, entitled “Musica Incantans; sive Poema exprimens Musicse vires juvenem in insaniam abigentis, et?lusici hide periculum.” This was at that time highly appLuded for the beauty of the language, and was printed at the request of Dr. Fell; but it is said that Dr. South, to his dying day, regretted the publication of it, as a juvenile and trifling performance. He commenced M. A. in June 1657, alter performing all the preparatory exercises for it with the highest applause, and such wit and humour, as justly entitled him to represent the Terra: F'dius, in which character he spoke the usual speech at the celebration of the act the same year. He preached frequently, and (as Wood thinks) without any orders. He appeared, at St. Mary’s, the great champion for Calvinism against Sociniuuism and Arminianisir; and his behaviour was such, and his talents esteemed so exceedingly useful and serviceable, that the heads of that party were considering how to give proper encouragement and proportionable preferment to so hopeful a convert. In the mean time the protector Cromwell died and then, the presbyterians prevailing over the independents,South sided with them. He began to contemn, and in a manner to defy, the dean of his college. Dr. Owen, who was reckoned the head of the independent party; upon which the doctor plainly told him, that he was one who “sate in the seat of the scornful.” The author of the memoirs of South’s life tells us, that he was admitted into holy orders according to the rites and ceremonies of the church or England, in 1658. In July 1659, he preached the assize-sermon at Oxford, in which he inveighed vehemently against the independents; and by this greatly pleased the presbyterians, who made him their acknowledgments. The same year, when it was visible that the king would be restored, he appeared someuhat irresolute, yet was still reckoned a member of “the fanatic ordinary,” as Wood expresses it; but, as his majesty’s restoration approached, he began to exercise his pulpittalents, which were very great, as much against the presbyterians, as he had done before against the independents. Such was the conduct and behaviour of this celebrated divine in the earlier part of his life, as it is described by his contemporary in the university, Mr. Anthony Wood; and if Wood was not unreasonably prejudiced against him, he is, doubtless, to be classed among those time-servers, who know no better use of the great abilities God has given them, than to obtain the favour of those who can reward them best .

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

Wood observes, that Dr. South, notwithstanding his various preferments, lived upon none of them; but upon his temporal estate at Caversham near Reading, and, as the people of Oxford imagined, in a discontented and clamorous condition for want of more. They were mistaken, however, if the author of the Memoirs of his Life is to be depended on, who tells us, that he refused several offers of bishoprics, as likewise that of an archbishopric in Ireland, which was made him in James the Second’s reign, by his patron the earl of Rochester, then lord lieutenant of that kingdom. But this was only rumour; and there is little reason to suppose that it had any foundation. South’s nature and temper were violent, domineering, and intractable to the last degree; and it is more than probable, that his patrons might not think it expedient to raise him higher, and by that means invest him with more power than he was likely to use with discretion. There is a particular recorded, which shews, that they were no strangers to his nature. The earl of Rochester, being solicited by James II. to change his religion, agreed to be present at a dispute between two divines of the church of England, and two of the church of Rome; and to abide by the result of it. The king nominated two for the Popish side, the earl two for the Protestant, one of whom was South; to whom the king objected, saying, that he could not agree to the choice of South, who instead of arguments would bring railing accusations, and had not temper to go through a dispute that required the greatest attention and calmness: upon which Dr. Patrick, then dean of Peterborough, and minister of St. Paul’s, Covent garden, was chosen in his stead.

After the revolution, South took the oath of allegiance to their majesties; though he is said to have excused himself from accepting a great dignity in the church, vacated by a refusal of those oaths. Bishop Kennet says, that at first he made a demur about submitting to the revolution, and thought himself deceived by Dr. Sherlock, “which was the true foundation of the bitter difference in writing: about the Trinity.” Whatever the cause, Dr. South, in 1693, published “Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s book, entitled, ‘A vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity,’ &c. together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions and false explications of it: humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them,” 1693, 4to. Sherlock having published in 1694 a “Defence” of himself against these Animadversions, South replied, in a book entitled, “Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock’s neur notion of the Trinity, and the charge made good in an answer to the Defence,” &c. This was a sharp contest, and men of great note espoused the cause of each; though the cause of each, as is curious to observe, was not the cause of orthodoxy, which lay between them both: for if Sherlock ran into Tritheism, and made three substances as well as three persons of the Godhead, South on the other hand leaned to the heresy of Sabellius, which, destroying the triple personage, supposed only one substance with something like three modes. The victory, nevertheless, was adjudged to South in an extraordinary manner at Oxford, as we have already noticed in the life of Sherlock; for Mr. Bingham of University college, having fallen in with Sherlock’s notions, and asserted in a sermon be to re the university, that “there were three infinite distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, and also that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct minds or spirits and three individual substances, was censured by a solemn decree there in convocation: wherein they judge, declare, and determine the aforesaid words, lately delivered i;i the said sermon, to be” false, impious, heretical, and contrary to the doctrine of the church of England.“But this decree rather irritated, than composed the differences: and at length the king interposed his authority, by directions to the archbishops and bishops, that no preacher whatsoever in his sermon or lecture, should presume to preach any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what was contained in the Holy Scriptures, and was agreeable to the three Creeds and thirty-nine Articles of religion. This put an end to the controversy; though not till after both the disputants, together with Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the Charter-house, had been ridiculed in a wellknown ballad, called” The Battle Royal.“Burnet about the same time had ridiculed, in his” Arclueologia Philosophica," the literal account of the creation and fall of man, as it stands in the beginning of Genesis; and this being thought heterodox and profane, exposed him to the lash upon the present occasion.

During the greatest part of queen Annie’s reign, South was in a state of inactivity; and, the infirmities of old age growing fast upon him, he performed very little of the duty of his ministerial function, otherwise than by attending divine service at Westminster abbey. Yet when there was any alarm about the church’s danger, none shewed greater activity; nor had Sacheverell in 1710 a more strenuous advocate. He had from time to time given his sermons to the public; and, in 1715, he published a fourth volume, which he dedicated to the right hon. William Bromley, esq. “some time speaker to the Hon. House of Commons, and after that principal Secretary of State to her Majesty Queen Anne, of ever blessed memory.” He died aged eightythree, July 8, 1716 and was interred with great solemnity, in Westminster abbey, where a monument is erected to him, with an inscription upon it. He was a man of very uncommon abilities and attainments; of judgment, wit, and learning equally great. There is as much wit in his sermons, as there is good sense and learning, well combined and strongly set forth: and there is yet more ill humour, spleen, and batire. His wit indeed was his bane, for he never could repress it on the most solemn occasions, and preaching may surely be reckoned one of those. Of this he seems to have been sensible himself; for when Sherlock accused him of employing wit in a controversy on the Trinity, South, in his reply, observed that, " had it pleased God to have made him (Dr. Sherlock) a wit, he wished to know what he would have done? However admirable, there was certainly nothing amiable in his nature: for it is doing him no injustice to say, that he was sour, morose, peevish, quarrelsome, intolerant, and unforgiving; and, had not his zeal for religion served for the time to cover a multitude of moral imperfections, all his parts and learning could not have screened him from the imputation of being but an indifferent kind of man.

His sermons have been often printed in 6 vols. 8vo. In 1717, his “Opera Posthuma Latina,” consisting of orations and poems; and his “Posthumous Works” in English, containing three sermons, an account of his travels into Poland, memoirs of his life, and a copy of his will, were published in 2 vols. 8vo. By this will, as well as his general conduct in life, it appears that covetousness was not to be enumerated among his failings. His fortune he bestowed liberally on the church, the clergy, and the poor.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

The reputation which Dryden gained by the many prologues he wrote, made the players always solicitous to have one of his, as being sure to be well received by the public. Dryden’s price for a prologue had usually been four guineas, with which sum Southern once presentee; him when Dryden, returning the money, said, “Young man, this is too little, I must have six guineas.” Southern answered, that four had been his usual price: “Yes,” says Dryden, “it has been so, but the players have hitherto had my labours too cheap; for the future I must have six guineas.” Southern also was industrious to draw all imaginable profits from his poetical labours. Dryden once took occasion to ask him, how much he got by one of his plays? Southern said, after owning himself ashamed to tell him, 7OO/.; which astonished Dryden, as it was more by 6OO/, than he himself had ever got by his most successful plays. But it appears that Southern was not beneath the arts of solicitation, and often sold his tickets at a very high price, by making applications to persons of quality and distinction; a degree of servility, which Dryden might justly think below the dignity of a poet, and more in the character of an under-player. Dryden entertained a high opinion of Southern’s abilities; and prefixed a copy of verses to a comedy of his, called “The Wife’s Excuse,” acted in 1692. The night that Southern’s “Innocent Adultery” was first acted, which has been esteemed by some the most adocting play in any language, a gentlemnu took occasion to ask Dryden, “what was his opinion of Southern’s genius?” who replied, “that he thought him such another poet as Otway.” Such indeed was Dry den’s opinion of his talents, that being unable to finish his “Cieomenes,” he consigned it to the care of Southern, who wrote one half of the fifth act of that tragedy, and was with reason highly flattered by this mark of the author’s confidence and esteem. Of all Southern’s plays, ten in number, the most finished is “Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave:” which is built upon a real fact, related by Mrs. Beha in a novel. Besides the tender and delicate strokes of passion in this play, there are many shining and manly sentiments; and some have gone so far beyond the truth as to say, that the most celebrated even of Shakspeare’s plays cannot furnish so many striking thoughts, and such a glow of animated poetry. Southern died May 26, 1746, aged eighty-five. He lived the last ten years of his life in Tothill street, Westminster, and attended the abbey service very constantly; being particularly fond of church music. He is said to have died the oldest and the richest of his dramatic brethren. Oldys, in his ms additions to Gildon’s continuation of Langbaine, says, that he remembered Mr. Southern “a grave and venerable old gentleman. He lived near Covent-garden, and used often to frequent the evening prayers there, always neat and decently dressed, commonly in black, with his silver sword and silver locks; but latterly it seems he resided at Westminster.” The late poet Gray, in a letter to Mr. Walpole, dated from Burnham in Buckinghamshire, in Sept. 1737, has also the following observation concerning this author: “We have old Mr. Southern at a gentleman’s house a little way off, who often comes to see us; he is now seventy-seven years old, and has almost wholly lost his memory; but is as agreeable an old man as can be; at least I persuade myself so when I look at him, and think of Isabella and Oroonoko.” Mr. Mason adds in a note on this passage, that “Mr. Gray always thought highly of his pathetic powers, at the same time that he blamed his ill taste for mixing them so injudiciously with farce, in order to produce that monstrous species of composition called Tragi-comedy.” Mr. Southern, however, in the latter part of his life, was sensible of the impropriety of blending tragedy and comedy, and used to declare to lord Corke his regret at complying with the licentious taste of the time. His dramatic writings were for the first time completely published by T. Evans, in 3 vols. 12mo.

, a late worthy divine and antiquary, was born at Alwalton, in Huntingdonshire, March 16, 1729. He was the son of William Southgate, a considerable farmer of that place, and of Hannah, the daughter of Robert Wright, of Castor, in Northamptonshire, a surveyor and civil engineer. He was the eldest of ten children, three of whom died in infancy, and all the rest survived him. He was educated for some time at a private school at Uppingham, but chiefly at the free grammar-school at Peterborough, under the rev. Thomas Marshall, an excellent scholar, who became afterwards his cordial friend. The rapidity of his acquisitions at this school gained him the esteem of many, particularly of Dr. John Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, an intimate friend of his father. Under the patronage of this prelate, and with an exhibition from Peterborough, he removed to Cambridge, where he was entered of St. John’s college in 1745, under Mr. (afterwards the learned Dr.) Rutherforth, to whom he was recommended with great warmth by his friend and late master, Mr. Marshall.

At the university he studied hard, and lived retired, delighted with the opportunities for improvement which a college life affords, and in Easter term, 1749, took his degree of A. B. and was on the list of honours on the first tripos. Some unpleasant occurrences in his family, however, obliged him to leave the university, after a residence of little more than four years; and he now retired to his father’s house at Alwalton, where, by the assistance of books from the library of Dr. Neve, who was rector of the parish, he was enabled to continue his studies. In Sept. 1752, he was ordained deacon, and in the same month, 1754, priest, by his friend and patron, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, who in the last mentioned year gave him the rectory of Woolley, in Huntingdonshire, worth about 120l. a year. The circumstances attending this preferment are too highly honourable to the character of Mr. Southgate to be omitted in even a short sketch of his life. This living became vacant during the minority of a Mr. Peacock, who was the patron, and was himself intended for the church. His guardians, not being able to agree as to the person they should present, suffered it to lapse to the bishop; who mentioned these circumstances to Mr. Southgate when he presented htm to the living; and although the bishop left him entirely clear of any promise or restraint respecting it; as soon as Mr. Peacock had taken orders, Mr. Southgate went to his lordship, and resigned the living. During the time that he held it, he had to rebuild a considerable part of the premises, and to make such repairs, that he may be said rather to have acted like a faithful steward to Mr. Peacock than the real rector of the parish; so that when he resigned it, after possession for more than five years, he had not saved out of the income one shilling. The bishop, on his resignation, said, “You have done, Richard, what I knew you would do; you have behaved like a Christian and a good man; and I have this additional motive for thinking myself bound to provide for you.”

This obligation, however, appears to have been forgotten, for although the bishop lived till 1766, and had various opportunities of fulfilling his promise, Mr. Southgate received no other promotion from him, and never shewed the least sign of disappointment, but on the contrary endeavoured to apologize for the bishop, which perhaps few of our readers will be inclined to do, as the only plea was “a constitutional weakness which too easily yielded to the incessant requests of the importunate, or the powerful solicitations of the great.”

Before Mr. Southgate settled in London, he successively served several curacies in the country, and was frequently in the habit of reading prayers and preaching at three different churches: and it appears from his journal that he Ik:i unfreqnently served four different churches in one day. During this time he found the want of books, and of persons of literature to converse with, were insurmountable obstacles to his improvement in knowledge, and had to lament that small country villages could not supply these; on which account he formed the resolution of coming to London. Accordingly. Jan. 2, 1763, having received a recommendation from bishop Thomas to Dr. Nicolls, rector of St. James’s, Westminster, became to London, and was immediately engaged by that gentleman as one of the subcurates of St. James’s, and served this cure till 1766. In December of the preceding year he entered upon the curacy of St. Giles’s, to which he was oppoiuted by Dr. Gaily, on the recommendation of Dr. Parker, the successor of Dr. Nicolls in St. James’s, and this last cure he reilined till the time of his death. In serving it, he is universally acknowledged to have exhibited the portraiture of a learned, pious, and most iudeiatigably conscientious parish priest. The duties of this extensive parish were not more urgent than the wants of its numerous poor, and in works of charity Mr. Soutligate was eminently distinguished. “If,” says one oi his. biographers, “hi any parts of his pastoral office, more than in others, he was particularly laborious, it was in visiting, catechising, and exhorting the poor. In the parish of St. Giles’s, the baptisms at the font are daily, and very numerous; on which occasions, he constantly catechised, or lectured, the sponsors, awfully impressing upon them the high importance of an attention, not only to the ge there undertaken, but to the various obligations and privileges of the Christian life: and the good seed so judiciously and season.;bly sown, at those times, could not but be eminently fruitful. In visiting the sick, and particularly the sick poor, he was almost every day engaged, as his iniimate friends well know, and his journal testifies; praying with, and exhorting the afflicted to submit patiently to the chastising hand of God, counselling the profane, and inconsiderate, to reflect upon, and amend their ways, and admonbhing all to flee from the wrath to come, and accept the salvation tendered in the gospel, on the terms it prescribes. When he became able, his prayers and exhortations were frequently accompanied with his alms, administering at once to the spiritual and bodily wants of his poor parishioners,” &c. &,c.

From the time of Mr. Sonthgatc’s coming to London to 1783, though he hau little more than the profits of his enracy (fifty guineas a year), yet so great was his oeconomy, that he had- made a very considerable collection of books, and had got together no inconsiderable number of coins and medals. But, in order to increase his income, and to iusist him in this, he had several times young gentlemen under his care, with whom he read the Greek and Roman classics. Even when at college he began to be a collector of books and coins, and though what he then bought of the latter were of little value, yet so nice was his taste, that he never purchased any which were not in the highest preservation and perfection. It was not until a considerable time after he had been in London, that he was enabled to increase his library and museum, by purchasing articles of value and ornament.

In May 1783 he received his first preferment since coming to London, the small rectory of Little Steeping in Lincolnshire, from the duke of Ancaster; and the following year he was appointed assistant librarian of the British Museum, on the death of Dr. Giftbrtl. In 1786 he became, by the death of a near relation, possessor of an estate of 100l. a year in Whitechapel; and in H'Jo his income was farther increased by the valuable living of Warsop, in the diocese of York, and county of Nottingham, to which he was presented by John Gaily Knight, of Langold, esq. son of his old friend Dr. Gaily. These promotions came late, but in time to afford him for a few years the only enjoyments he prized, that of exerting his benevolence among his poor parishioners, and that of adding to his library and collection of coins. In the same year he became a member of the society for propagating Christian knowledge; and of the society for the support of the widows and orphans of the clergy within the bills of mortality and the county of Middlesex. In 171H he was elected a fellow of the society of Antiquaries, and was afterwards made a member of the Linneean society. He died Jan. 25, 1795, in the sixtysixth year of his age, and was interred in St. Giles’s church, where a marble tablet is inscribed to his memory.

Mr. Soutbgate never committed any of his writings to the press, but had made preparations for a work much wanted, and for which he xvas thoroughly qualified a new “History of the Saxons and Danes in this country,”' illustrating and illustrated by their coins. His general knowledge was very great, and in medallic science perhaps few were to be compared to him. He left a choice and valuable collection of books, coins, medals, shells, and other natural curiosities, which in April and May 1795, were sold by auction, by Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby, the sale continuing twenty-one days. Prefixed to the catalogue was a life of Mr. Southgate, written by Dr. Charles Combe, to which we must refer for many other interesting particulars and also to a biographical preface by Dr. Gaskin, prefixed to 2 vols. of Mr. Soutbgate’s “Sermons,” published by that tlivine in 1793.

, an English Jesuit and poet, was born in 1560, and is said to have descended from an ancient family, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. Being sent abroad for education, he became a Jesuit at Rome, Oct. 1578. In 1585, he was appointed prefect of studies in the English college there, and not long after was sent as a missionary into England. His chief residence was with Anne countess of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London. After carrying on his mission for some time, he was, in July 1592, apprehended and examined with the strictest rigour, but having evaded the questions put to him, was imprisoned for three years, and as he affirmed, underwent the torture several times. He owned that he was a priest and a Jesuit, that he came into England to preach the truths of the catholic religion, and was prepared to lay down his life for it. In Feb. 1595, he was tried at the bar of the King’s Bench, Westminster, and executed the next day at Tyburn. He was a man of singular parts, says Dodd, and happy in a peculiar talent of expressing himself in the English language, both in prose and verse. Edmund Bolton, whom Warton calls a sensible critic, speaks of Southwell’s works in the same strain of panegyric “Never must be forgotten St. Peter’s complaint, and those other serious poems said to be father Southwell’s: the English whereof, as it is most proper, so the sharpness and light of wit is very rare in them.” Mr. Headley seems first to have revived the memory of Southwell, as a poet, by some curious specimens, in which he has been followed by Mr. Ellis. “There is a moral charm,” says Headley, “in the little pieces of Southwell, that will prejudice most readers of feeling in their favour.” Unless, however, there were encouragement for republication, which is not very probable, Southwell’s fame must principally rest on these specimens, as his works are rarely to be met with; yet Mr. Ellis remarks that the few copies known to exist, are the remnant of at least twenty-four different editions, of which eleven were printed between 1593 and 1600.

, an ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, was of a good family; and born at Bethelia, a town of Palestine. After being liberally educated, he studied the law at Berytus in Phoenicia; and then going to Constantinople, became a pleader at the bar. Afterwards he applied himself to the writing of ecclesiastical history; and first drew up a compendium of it in two books, from the ascension of Christ to the year 323; but this is lost. Then he continued his history in a more circumstantial and closer manner to the year 440; and this part is extant. He has many particulars relating to him in common with the ecclesiastical historian Socrates: he lived at the same time, was of the same profession, and undertook a work of the same nature, and comprised it within the same period: for his history ends, as it nearly begins, at the same point with that of Socrates. His style is more florid and elegant, says Jortin, in his “Ecclesiastical Remarks,” vol. III. than that of Socrates; but he is by no means so judicious an author. Being of a family which had excessively admired the monks, and himself educated among them, he contracted a superstitious turn of mind, and great credulity for monkish miracles: he speaks of the benefit which himself had received from the intercession of Michael the archangel. He gives an high commendation of a monastic life, and enlarges very much upon the actions and manners of those recluses: and this forms the greater part of what he has added to the “History of Socrates,” who, it is universally agreed, wrote first, and whom he every where visibly copies. His history has been translated and published by Valesius, with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians; and repnblished, with additional notes by Reading, at London, 1720, in 3 vols. folio.

, so named in Italy, and usually so called, was born in 1589, at Xativa, a city in Spain, about ten leagues from Valentia. Though his parents were not in circumstances to give him the education in painting which his early genius deserved, he contrived to travel into Italy, and there applied to his art under the greatest masters. He first resided at Parma, where he so completely studied the works of Correggio, as to be able to imitate his style and colouring with great success. He then removed to Rome, where he changed his manner altogether, and adopted Caravaggio as his model. Like that master, he painted with bold and broad lights and shadows, and gave so extraordinary a degree of force to his pictures, that the works of most other artists, when placed near them, appear comparatively tame and feeble. In his colouring he is esteemed equal to Caravaggio, and superior to him in correctness of design; yet inferior in sweetness and mellowness of touch. It is said, that a cardinal having become his patron at Rome, and given him apartments in his own palace, he became indolent, and unable to exert his talents; in order to do justice to which, he found it necessary to return to that poverty in which he was bred, and therefore voluntarily renounced this asylum, and fixed himself at Naples. Here his works being greatly admired, and his pencil being, after a time, constantly employed by the viceroy of Naples, and other potentates of Europe, he gradually rose to that affluence, the sudden acquisition of which, had produced so bad an effect. It was not so now; he continued to paint historical pictures, and sometimes portraits, which are dispersed throughout Europe; but he rarely worked for the churches or convents. His principal works are at Naples, and in the Escurial in Spain.

The genius of Spagnoletto naturally inclined him to subjects of horror, which, therefore, he selected from sacred and profane history; such as the martyrdoms of saints, the torments of Ixion and Prometheus, or Cato tearing out his own bowels. He also delighted in designing old men emaelated by mortification, such as saints and hermits, his pictures on which subjects were much admired by the Spaniards and Neapolitans. “St. Jerome was one of his darling subjects; he painted, he etched him, in numerous repetitions, in whole lengths and bait figures. He delighted in the representation of hermits, anchorets, prophets, apostles, perhaps less to impress the mind with gravity of character, and the venerable looks of age, than to strike the eye with the incidental deformities attendant on decrepitude, and the picturesque display of bone, vein, and tendons, athwart emaciated muscle. As in design he courted excrescence or meagreness, so in the choice of historic subjects he preferred to the terrors of ebullient passions, features of horror, cool assassination, and tortures methodized, the spasms of Ixion; and St. Bartholomew under the butcher’s knife.” An extraordinary story is related by Sandrart, of the effect of one of his pictures on the imagination of a pregnant woman, and on her child; but as the possibility of such effects is by no means ascertained, we shall not venture to relate it. The force of his colouring, the extraordinary relief of his figures, and the singular strength of his expression, certainly make his pictures likely to affect the mind as powerfully as those of any master who can be mentioned.

, a celebrated modern naturalist, was born at Scandiano, in Italy, Jan. 10, 1729, and studied polite literature under the Jesuits at Reggio de Modena, whence he removed to Bologna, where his relation Laura Bassi, a lady deservedly celebrated for her genius, eloquence, and knowledge of natural philosophy and mathematics, was at that time one of the most illustrious professors of Italy. Under this instructor, he improved his taste for philosophy, but bestowed at the same time much attention in the cultivation of his native language, and became a very accomplished Latin, Greek, and French scholar. His father had destined him for the law as a profession, but Vallisneri, the professor of natural history at Padua, was the means of diverting him from this pursuit, and he soon acquired such reputation, that in 1754, the university of Keggio chose him professor of logic, metaphysics, and Greek. This, however, was not his final destination, for, during the six years that he held this office, he devoted all his leisure hours to those physical researches which constituted the basis of his fame. Some new discoveries excited his passion for natural history, which was continually augmented by the success of his early efforts; and his observations upon the animalculae in infusions attracted the attention of Haller and Bonnet, and various universities, Coimbra, Parma, and Cesena, tempted him with flattering offers, but he preferred an invitation to be professor at Modena, in 1760, where about five years afterwards he published a pamphlet, in which he proved by many ingenious experiments the anirnality of microscopical animalcuia; and in the same year a truly original dissertation “De lapidibus ab aqua resilientibus.” Here he demonstrates, by the most strking experiments, contrary to the received opinion, that the phenomenon which is called by children “ducks and drakes,” is not produced by the elasticity of the water, but by the change of direction which the stone undergoes in its motion after having struck upon the water when it ascends the inflection of the cavity indented by the shock.

When the university of Padua was re-established upon a more extensive plan, the empress Maria-Theresa, invited Spallanzani to fill the chair of professor of natural history; and in commencing his duties, he selected Bonnet’s “Contemplation de la Nature” as his text-book, supplying its deficiencies, and illustrating Bonnet’s theory by his own experiments. He likewise published an Italian translation of it, enriched with notes and a preface, 1769 and 1770, in 2 vols. His study and admiration of Bonnet’s works led him particularly to researches on the generation of organic bodies, a subject which for a considerable time engrossed his whole attention. In 1776 he published the first two volumes of his “Opusculi di Fisica Animale e Vegetable,” which consist of illustrations of a part of the microscopical observations which had already appeared. In the mean time, having been placed at the head of the university’s cabinet of natural history, then in a very low state, he greatly enriched it, in the course of his repeated travels by land and sea, in Europe and Asia, some of which he afterwards published. In 1780 appeared his two new volumes of a “Dissertation on the physiology of animals and vegetables.” The first contains some experiments made by him on digestion, the result of which is a confirmation of the agency of the gastric fluid in man and other animals, and the second treats of the generation of animals and plants. In 1791, he published a letter addressed to professor Fortis, upon the Pennet hydroscope; he there relates the experiments which he had directed to be made for ascertaining the degree of confidence which might be allowed to the singular talents of this man; but he ingenuously confesses, that he is not decided upon the reality of the phenomenon. Spallanzani, however, in 1792-3, made a discovery of this kind, by which we learn that the bats, if blinded, act in every respect with the same precision as those which have their eyes; that they in the same manner avoid the most trifling obstacles, and that they know where to fix themselves on ceasing their flight. These extraordinary experiments were confirmed by several natural philosophers, and gave occasion to suspect a nevr sense in these birds, because Spallanzani thought he had evinced that the other senses could not supply the deficiency of that sight, which he had deprived them of.

These numerous works did not, however, contain all the series of Spallanzani’s labours. He had been occupied a considerable time upon the phenomena of respiration; their resemblances and differences i:i a great number of species of animals; and he was busily employed in reducing to order his researches upon this subject. He left a large collection of experiments, and new observations upon animal reproductions, upon sponges, the nature of which he determines, and upon many interesting phenomena, which he knew how to draw out of obscurity. He had almost finished his voyage to Constantinople, and had amassed considerable materials for a history of the sea, France, Germany, and England, were all eager to avail themselves of his works by means of translations, tie was admitted into the academies and learned societies of London, Stockholm, Gottingen, Holland, Lyons, Bologna, Turin, Padua, Mantua, and Geneva. He was a correspondent of the academy of sciences of Paris and of Montpelier: and received from the great Frederick himself the diploma of member of the academy of Berlin, holding even often a direct correspondence with him. This eminent philosopher died Feb. 17, 1798, not less admired for his private very amiable character, than for the extensive reputation which his lectures, his experiments, and his publications had established. Highly, however, as his experiments have been commended, we must enter our protest against the cruelty with which they were mostly accompanied, and cannot think that the value of the object to be attained, or indeed any object, can justify the destruction of so many living creatures by the most painful and lingering torments.

, professor of divinity at Leyden, was born at Amberg in the Upper Palatinate, Jan. 1, 1600, of a good family. His father Wigand Spanheim, doctor of divinity, was a very learned man, and ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector-palatine; he died in 1620, holding in his hand a letter from his son, which had made him weep for joy. Frederic was educated with great care under the inspection of this affectionate parent; and, having studied in the college of Amberg till 1613, was sent the next year to the university of Heidelberg, which was then in a very flourishing condition. He there made such progress both in languages and philosophy, as to justify the most sanguine hopes of his future success. After paying a visit to his father in 1619, he went to Geneva to study divinity. In 1621, after his father’s death, he went into Dauphine, and lived three years with the governor of Ambrun, as tutor in his family. He then returned to Geneva, and went afterwards to Paris, where he met with a kind relation, Samuel Durant, who was minister of Charenton, and dissuaded Spanheim from accepting the professorship of philosophy at Lausanne, which the magistrates of Berne then offered him. In April 1625, he paid a visit of four months to England, and was at Oxford; but the plague having broke out there, he returned to Paris, and was present at the death of his relation Durant, who, having a great kindness for him, left him his whole library. He had learned Latin and Greek in his own country, French at Geneva, English at Oxford; and the time which he now spent at Paris, was employed in acquiring the oriental tongues. In 1627, he disputed at Geneva for a professorship of philosophy, and was successful; and about the same time married a lady, originally of Poitou, who reckoned among her ancestors the f;unous Budtrus. He was admitted a minister some time after; and, in 1631, succeeded to the chair of divinity, which Turretin had left vacant. He acquitted himself of liis functions with such ability, as to receive the most liberal offers from several universities: but that of Leyden prevailed, after the utmost endeavours had been used to keep him at Geneva. He left Geneva in 1642; and taking a doctor of divinity’s degree at Basil, that he might conform to the custom of the country to which he was going, he arrived at Leyden in October that year. He not only supported, but even increased the reputation he had brought with him but he lived to enjoy it only a short time, dying April 30, 1649. His great labours shortened his days. His academical lectures and disputations, his preaching (for he was minister of the Walloon church at Leyden), the books he wrote, and many domestic cares, did not hinder him from keeping up a great literary correspondence. Besides this, he was obliged to pay many visits he visited the queen of Bohemia, and the prince of Orange and was in great esteem at those two courts. Queen Christina did him the honour to write to him, assuring him of her esteem, and of the pleasure she took in reading his works. It was at her request that he wrote some memoirs of Louisa Juliana, electress palatine. He was also the author of some other historical as well as theological works the principal of which are his “Dubia evangelica discussa et vindicata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, but afterwards thrice printed in 2 vols. 4to, with large additions; “Exercitationes de Grafla universali,” Leyden, 1646, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with Amyraut; and “Epistolae ad Davidem Bu chananum super controversies quibusdam, quse in ecclesiis Anglicanis agitantur,” ibid. 1645, 8vo. Some other of his works were published with those of his son, and his funeral oration on Henry prince of Orange, pronounced at Leyden in 1647 may be seen in Bates’s “Vitas selectorupi aliquot virorum.” He was a correspondent of, and highly esteemed by archbishop Usher.

, a very learned writer, as well as excellent statesman, the eldest son of the preceding, was born at Geneva in 1625). He distinguished himself so much in his earliest youth by his progress in literature, that, on a visit to Leyden with his father in 1642, he gained immediately the friendship of Daniel Heinsius and Salmasius, and preserved it with both, notwithstanding the mutual animosity of these two celebrated scholars. Like his father he was not satisfied with making himself master of Greek and Latin, but also applied himself with great vigour to the oriental languages. Ludovicus Capellus had published, at Amsterdam, in 1645, a dissertation upon the ancient Hebrew letters against John Buxtorf; in which he maintains, that the true characters of the ancient Hebrews were preserved among the Samaritans, and lost among the Jews. Spanheim undertook to refute Capellus in, certain theses, which he maintained and published at sixteen years of age; but which afterwards, out of his great candour and modesty, he called “unripe fruit;” and frankly owned, that Bochart, to whom he had sent them, had declared himself for Capellus against Buxtorf.

In 1649, he lost his father; and soon after returned to Geneva, where he was honoured with the title of professor of eloquence, but never performed the functions of that place. "When his reputation extended into foreign countries, Charles Louis, elector-palatine, sent for him to his court, to be tutor to his only son: which employment he not only discharged with great success, but with much prudence and address, contrived to preserve the good opinion of the elector and electress, who did not live on terms of mutual regard and affection. While here he employed his leisure hours in perfecting his knowledge of the Greek and Roman learning; and also studied the history of the later ages, and examined all those books and records which relate to the constitution of the empire, and contribute to explain and illustrate the public law of Germany. The first produce of this department of science was a French tract, published in 1657; in which he asserted the right of the elector-palatine to the post of vicar of the empire, in opposition, to the claims of the duke of Bavaria. Skill and acuteness in disputes of this kind have always been a sure foundation for preferment in the courts of Germany; and there is no doubt, that it opened Spanheim’s way to those great and various employments in which he was afterwards engaged.

In 1660, he published at Heidelberg a French translation of the emperor Julian’s “Caesars,” with notes and illustrations from medals and other monuments of antiquity. He had always an extraordinary turn for antiquities and medals; but had not yet seen Italy, where the study of them was much cultivated, and therefore was highly gratified in receiving a commission from the elector, to go to Rome, in order to watch the intrigues of the catholic electors at that court On his arrival he gained the esteem of that general patroness queen Christina, at whose palace was held an assembly of learned men every week; and in 1664, he complimented her with the dedication of his “Dissertationes de praestantia & usu numismatum antiquorum,” printed at Rome, in 4to. The same year he took a journey to Naples, Sicily, and Malta, and then returned to Rome, where he found the princess Sophia, mother of George I. of England. That princess, being highly pleased to meet with one whom she had already known as a man of learning, and corresponded with upon subjects of politics and literature, was desirous of enjoying his conversation at leisure, and, therefore, wish the leave of the elector her brother, carried him with her into Germany.

Upon his return to Heidelberg in April 1665, he was received by the elector his master with every proof of esteem; and was afterwards employed by him in various negociations at foreign courts. The same year, he went to that of Lorrain; the year following, to that of the elector of Mentz; then to France; afterwards, in 1668, to the congress of Breda; and then to France again. He then returned to Heidelberg, whence, after being for some time confined by a dangerous illness, he was sent by his master first to Holland, and then to England. In 1679, the elector of Brandenburg, having recalled his envoy at the court of England, gave his employment to Spar.'neim, wiih the consent of the elector-palatine and, though h:? was charged at the same time with the affairs of these two princes, yet he acquitted himself so well, that the elector of Brandenburg desired to have his exclusive services, to which the elector-palatine at last consented. In 16KO, he went to France, by order of his new master, with the title of envoy extraordinary; and, during nine years’ residence at Paris, never left that city but twice. In 1684, he went to Berlin, to receive the post of minister of state; and the year after to England, to compliment James II. upon his accession to the throne. Upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, he rendered important services to many of the reformed, who found a place of refuge in his house, when they durst not appear abroad, for fear of their persecutors. Though he performed his master’s business at the French court with the greatest ability and exactness, yet he led a life of much study, wrote various works, and maintained a correspondence with the learned all over Europe, with the utmost punctuality.

After this long embassy, he spent some years at Berlin, in retirement and among books; but, after the peace of Ilyswick, was again obliged to quit his study, and was sent on an embassy to France, where he continued from 1697 to 1702. The elector of Brandenburg, having during that interval assumed the title of king of Prussia, conferred on him the title and dignity of baron. In 1702, he quitted France, and went ambassador to England; where he spent the remainder of his days, dividing his time between business and study. He died Oct. 28, 17jO, aged eighty-one, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He left one daughter, who married in England the marquis de Montandre. It is surprising, that Spanheim, who seems to have been moving from one European court to another all his life, and to have been continually engaged in negotiations and state-affairs, which he always discharged with the utmost exactness, could find time to compose so many works of learning and labour, which could only be written in his study and among his books. It was said of him, that he negotiated and did business like a man who had nothing else in his thoughts, and that he wrote like a man who had spent his whole time by himself. He never appeared the man of letters but when it was proper to do so; yet be conversed no more frequently with the unlearned than was necessary for his business.

Some of his writings have been mentioned already. His Latin work k ' upon the use and excellence of ancient Medals,“is his capital performance; it was published at Rome in 1664, as has been observed; at Paris in 1671, much enlarged; and after that with so many additions, as extended it to two large volumes in folio, the first printed at London in 1706, the second at Amsterdam in 1717. This work is justly esteemed a treasure of erudition. Two pieces of Spanheim are inserted in Grsevius’s collection of Roman antiquities; one in the fifth volume,” De nummo Smyrnaeorum, seu de Vesta et Prytanibus Grsecorum, diatriba;“the other in the eleventh volume, entitled,” Orbis Romanus, seu ad Constitutionem Antonini Imperatoris, de qua Ulpianus, Leg. xvii. Dig. de Statu Hominum, Exercitationes duse.“This was also printed at London, with additions, in 1704, 4to. At Leipsic, 1696, folio, came out” Juliani Imperatoris Opera, Greece et Latine, cum variorum nods recensente Ez. Spanheim, qui observationes adjecit." But there is nothing of Spanheim in this edition, except the preface, and very ample remarks upon the first oration of Julian; he not having leisure and opportunity to proceed further. Notes of his upon Callimachus are inserted in Graevius’s edition of that author, at Utrecht, 1697; and also upon the three first comedies of Aristophanes in. Raster’s edition, 1709.

, brother of Ezekiel Spanheim, and also a man of great learning, was born at Geneva in 1632, and, at ten years of age, carried by his father to Leyden. He studied philosophy under Hereboord, and was admitted doctor July 12, 1651. He had lost his father two years before; and, as he had been designed for the ministry, he applied himself vigorously to the study of divinity and the languages. Boxhorn was his master in Greek and Latin; and Golius in Arabic. He was a candidate for the ministry in 1652, and soon after preached in several parts of Zealand. He discharged the functions of a minister at Utrecht for one year with a reputation that raised some jealousy in the mind of Alexander Morus, whose name was then famous in the United Provinces. He received soon after an invitation from Charles Louis elector-palatine, who had resolved to re-establish his university at Heidelberg, and gave him the professorship of divinity, though he was then but twenty-three. Before he went to take possession of that post, he was admitted doctor of divinity at Leyden in!655. He gained great reputation at Heidelberg; and the elector palatine always shewed him the highest marks of his esteem and confidence; but these favours did not prevent him from opposing the elector with great freedom, when heattempted to divorce himself from the princess his wife, in order to marry another. His merit procured him, during the time he lived in the palatinate, several invitations from other universities; but he only accepted that from Leyden, where he was admitted professor of divinity and sacred history, with general applause, in 1670. Here his reputation was raised to the greatest height. He was four times rector of the university of Leyden, and had also the post of librarian. Many years before hisdeath, he was excused from reading public lectures, that he might have the more leisure to apply himself to several works which he published. In 1695, he was attacked by a palsy, which affected half his body: of which, however, he afterwards appeared to be tolerably well recovered. He did not indeed enjoy a perfect state of health from that time; and not being able to restrain himself from his studies and labours, which was absolutely necessary, he relapsed, and died May 18, 1701. He was thrice married, and had several children; but only one, whose name was Frederic, survived him.

, editor of Lactantius, &c. the son of Archibald Spark, minister of Northop in Flintshire, was born in 1655, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1672. After taking his degrees in arts, and being ordained, he was appointed chaplain to sir George Jeffries, who promoted him when he became chancellor, to what benefices, or at what times, Wood has not discovered; but at his death, which took place at Bath, Sept. 7, 1692, he was rector of Ewehurst in Surrey, to which he had been instituted in 1687, and of Norton, or Hogsnorton, near Bosworth, in Leicestershire, a prebendary of Lichfield and of Rochester; and D. D. Wood says, he “left behind him the character of a learned man, but confident and forward without measure; and by his excesses, and too much agitation in obtaining spiritualities, he brought himself into an ill disposition of body, which, contrary to his expectation, brought him, in the prime of his years, to his grave.” He published a good edition of “Lactantii Firmiani opera quae extant, ad fidem Mss. recognita, et commentariis illustrata,” Oxon. 1684, 8vo; and “Notae in libros sex novae historic Zozini comitis,” ibid. 1679, 8vo; dedicated to his old master Dr. Busby, and translated into English in 1684, by another hand.

, a puritan divine of considerable note, was born at South-Somercote in Lincolnshire in 1548. Of his early education we have no account until he became a fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1570, in whicli year he was admitted bachelor of arts. Soon after he was presented, by Arthur lord Grey, to the parsonage of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire, where he was held in great esteem for his piety. He was also chaplain to Cooper, bishop of Lincoln, who, in 1575, bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Stow. In 1581 he proceeded in his divinity degrees, being then, Wood says, in great esteem for his learning. In 1582, h'ncling that he could not attend to his archdeaconry, from its distance from his cure, he resigned it, and retained Bletchley only; but in Sept. 1582 he was installed into the prebend of Sutton in Marisco in the church of Lincoln. In 1603 he was called to the conference at Hampton-court, as one of the representatives of the puritans, as he had been one of their champions in 1584 at the dispute at Lambeth; but the issue of the Hampton-court conference was, that he inclined to conformity, and afterwards expressed his sentiments in “A brotherly persuasion to unity and uniformity in judgment and practice, touching the received and present ecclesiastical government, and the authorized rites and ceremonies of the church of England,” Lond. 1607, 4to. This brought on a controversy, his book being answered by two anonymous writers. During queen Elizabeth’s reign he had written on the subject of the succession to the crown, the title of which we are not told. This brought him into some trouble, but in a conversation with king James he so satisfied him that his majesty ever after countenanced him. He died at Bletchley Oct. 8, 1616, and was buried in the chancel of that church, with a long epitaph on a plate of brass.

Wood says, he “was a learned man, a solid divine, well read in the fathers, and so much esteemed for his profoundness, gravity, and exemplary life and conversation, that the sages of the university thought it fit, after his death, to have his picture painted on the wall in the schoolgallery among the English divines of note there.” His works, besides what we have mentioned, were, “A comfortable treatise for a troubled conscience,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. 2. “Brief Catechism,” printed with the former, and a treatise on catechising, Oxon. 1588, 4to. 3. '“Answer to Mr. Job. deAlbine’s notable discourse against heresies,” ibid. 1591, 4to, 4. “The Highway to Heaven, &c. against Bellarmine and others, in a treatise on the 37, 38, and 39 verses of the 7 John,” Lond. 1597, 8vo; also a funeral sermon on the earl of Bedford, and another on lord Grey. Dr. Sparke left three learned sons, Thomas, fellow of New-college, Oxford, Andrew of Peterhouse in Caiiibridge, and William of Magdalen-college, Oxford, who succeeded his father in the living of Bletchley. He wrote “Vis naturae, et Virtus Vitae explicata, ad universum doctrine ordinem constituendum,” Lond. 1612, 8vo; and “The Mystery of Godliness,” Oxon. 1628, 4to. He was living at Bletchley in 1630.

, a learned prelate, successively bishop of Exeter and Norwich, was born at Depden in Suffolk, and was educated in Queen’s college, Cambridge, of which he became scholar and fellow, but was ejected in 1643, with the rest of the society, for their loyalty and refusing the Covenant. Soon afterwards he accepted the rectory of Hawkedon in Suffolk, but before he had held it above five weeks, was again ejected for reading the Common Prayer. After the restoration he returned to his living, was elected one of the preachers at St. Edmund’s Bury, and was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and a prebendary of Ely. About 1577 he was elected master of Queen’s college, where he had been educated, and resigned his charge at St. Edmund’s Bury, and the rectory of Hawkedon, on which he had bestowed in repairs 200l. On Nov. 3, 1667, he was consecrated bishop of Exeter, and on the death of Dr. Reynolds in 1678 was translated to Norwich, where he died in May 1685. He is well known by a very useful book, and if we mistake not, the first of its kind, entitled the “Rationale of the Book of Common-prayer of the Church of England,” Lond. 1657, J2mo, often reprinted. The best edition is that of 1722, 8vo, with Downes’s Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, and bishop Sparrow’s sermon on “Confession of Sins and Absolution.” Bishop Sparrow also published another useful “Collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Ordinances, &c.” 1671, 4to.

, a well-known English historian, was born at Farington in Cheshire, about 1555, and brought up to the business of a taylor, and became a freeman of the company of Merchant-taylors in the city of London. He had probably shewn some taste for literature, as sir Fulk Grevile, a patron of learning, took him from his shop-­board, and supported him in his study of English history and antiquities. By such encouragement he published, in 1606, his “Theatre of Great-Britain;” which was afterwards reprinted, particularly in 1650, under this title: “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the isles adjoyning. With the shires, hundreds, cities, and shire-townes within the kingdome of England, divided and described by John Speed,” folio. Nicolson observes, that these maps “are extremely good; and make a noble apparatus, as they were designed, to his history: but his descriptions of the several counties are mostly short abstracts of what Camden had said before him.” In 1614 he published, in folio, “The History of Great Britain under the conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; their originals, manners, warres, coines, and scales, with the successions, lives, actes, and issnes of the English monarchs, from Julius Cæsar to our most gracious sovereigne king James;” dedicated to James I. He borrowed many of his materials from Camden; and was supplied with many by sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, and other antiquaries, with whom he was well acquainted. There are prefixed to it commendatory poems in Latin, French, and English, by sir Henry Spelman and others; and many writers have spoken of it in terms of high commendation. Speed was not only an historian, but also a divine; for, in 1616, he published a work in 8vo, called “The Cloud of Witnesses, or the Genealogies of Scripture, confirming the truth of holy history and humanity of Christ.” This was prefixed to the new translation of the Bible in 1611, and printed for many years in the subsequent editions, particularly of the folio and quarto sizes, and king James I. gave him a patent for securing the property of it to him and his heirs.

He died July 28, 1629, and was buried in the church of St Giles, Cripplegate, London, where a monument was erected to his memory. By his wife Susanna, with whom he lived fifty-seven years, and who died almost a year before him, he had twelve sons, and six daughters. One of his sons, named John, was an eminent physician; of whom we shall give some account. As to Speed himself, “he must be acknowledged,” says Nicolson, “to have had a head the best disposed towards history of any of our writers; and would certainly have outdone himself, as far as he has gone beyond the rest of his profession, if the advantages of his education had been answerable to those of his natural genius. But what could be expected from a taylor? However, we may boldly say, that his chronicle is the largest and best we have hitherto extant.” In another place, “John Speed was a person of extraordinary industry and attainments in the study of antiquities; and seems not altogether unworthy the name of `summus & eruditus antiquarius,' given him by Sheringham, who was certainly so himself”

His son John Speed was born at London in 1595, and educated at Merchant-taylors’ school, whence he was elected a scholar of St. John’s-college in Oxford, in 1612, of which he afterwards became a fellow, and took the degree of master of arts, and bachelor and doctor of physic. He wrote “Sjwaetoj utriusque sexus Toxtwsvrof,” a manuscript in Latin, dedicated to archbishop Laud, and preserved in the library of St. John-college. This piece relates to two skeletons, one of a man, another of a woman, made by Dr. Speed, and given by him to that library. He wrote likewise “Stonehenge, a Pastoral,” acted before Dr. Rich. Baylie, and the president and fellows of St. John’s-college in 1635. It is extant in manuscript. He died in May 1640, and was buried in the chapel of that college. He married a daughter of Bartholomew Warner, M. D. and had by her two sons. One of them, Samuel, was a student of Christ-church in Oxford, and was installed canon of that church May the 6th, 1674, and died at Godalmin in Surrey, of which he was vicar, January the 22d, 1681. The other, John, was born at Oxford, and elected scholar of St. John’s-coliege there about 1643, but ejected thence by the parliament-visitors in 1648, he being then bachelor of arts and fellow. At the restoration he was restored to his fellowship, and in 1666 took the degree of physic, and afterwards quitting his fellowship, he practised that faculty at Southampton, where he was living in 1694. He wrote “Batt upon Batt; a Poem upon the parts, patience, and pains of Bartholomew Kempster, clerk, poet, and cutler of Holy-rood parish in Southampton;” and also “The Vision, wherein is described Batt’s person and ingenuity, with an account of the ancient and present state and glory of Southampton.” Both these pieces were printed at London in two sheets in fol. and afterwards in 4to. The countess de Viri, wife of a late Sardinian ambassador, was lineally descended from our historian. Such was the friendship between lord Cobham and colonel Speed, her father, that upon his decease, he esteemed her as his own child, brought her up in his family, and treated her with paternal care and tenderness. Her extraordinary merit recommended her to the viscountess Cobham, who left her the bulk of her fortune. This lady, who was eminent for her wit and accomplishments, is celebrated by Gray in his “Long Story,” which indeed was written in consequence of a visit from her.

, an eminent English antiquary, was descended from an ancient family of his name, which flourished in the time of Henry III. at Bekington in Hampshire, and in the fifteenth century was settled in Norfolk, where our author’s great-grandfather was possessed of a considerable estate. This great-grandfather married the heiress of the Narborough family, by whom he had a son who became sir John Spelman, knt. of Narborough, and our author’s father, Henry, was the fourth son of sir John, and lived at Conghata near Lynn-regis in Norfolk. He married Frances, daughter of William Sanders of Ewell in Surrey, by whom he had our author, his eldest son, who was born in 1562, and educated at the school of Walsinghatn in the neighbourhood. In his fourteenth year, when according to his own modest account he was scarcely ripe for academical studies, he was entered of Trinity-college, Cambridge. Here he applied with great diligence for two years ana a half, but upon the death of his father, he was obliged to return home, and assist his mother, in managing the affairs of the family.

After remaining at Congham about a year, he was admitted of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to the law as a profession. This, however, he appears to have studied rather in a general way, as far as respected the laws, customs, and constitution of his country, and at the same time cultivated polite literature and antiquities. When almost of age, he returned to Norfolk, and married Eleanor, the daughter of John Le Strange, a gentleman of an ancient family in the same county. He now employed himself in rural and domestic affairs, studying also, at intervals, the constitution and antiquities of his country; and having some property, either paternal or acquired by his marriage, he was enabled to add to it by certain purchases, particularly of the lease of Blackburgh and Wrongey abbies in Norfolk. Besides a family of his own, he had the guardianship of sir Hamon Le Strange, Kis brother-in-law, and during his minority, resided at Hunstanton, the seat of sir Hamon. The first fruit of his studies, said to have been begun when very young, was a Latin treatise on coats of arms, entitled “Aspilogia,” in which he displays a considerable fund of curious information; and he frequently employed himself in making transcripts of several foundation-charters of the monasteries of Norfolk and Suffolk. Having been admitted a member of the original society of antiquaries, he became acquainted with those celebrated lovers of that science, Camden, sir Robert Cotton, and others, whose conversation improved his knowledge, and decided his taste for pursuits similar to what had engaged their attention. In 1594 he is thought to have written “A Discourse concerning the Coin of this kingdom,” chiefly with a view to prove the immense treasures which had been drawn from England, in consequence of the usurpations of the pope.

In 1604 he served as high sheriff of Norfolk, of which county he furnished Speed with a description, and being now distinguished for his abilities, he was sent by king James three several times into Ireland as one of the commissioners for determining the unsettled titles to lands and manors in that country; and at home was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the oppression of exacted fees in all the courts and offices of England, as well ecclesiastical as civil; which bishop Hacket calls “a noble examination and full of justice.” This gave rise to his learned treatise “De Sepultura,” or of “Burial Fees,” in which he proved the existence of very exorbitant exactions. These employments, however, having tended to the injury of his fortune, the government was so sensible of his services, that a present of 300l. was made him, not as a full recompence“(for so it is expressed in the king’s writ), but only” as an occasional remembrance," till something more equal to his merit could be done for him. He was also knighted by James I. who had a particular esteem for him; as well on accountof hisknown capacity for business, as his extensive learning, especially in the laws and antiquities of our nation, which were the constant subjects of his researches. With a view to pursue those researches with more advantage than was possible in a country residence, he determined to remove to London. Accordingly in 1612, he sold his stock upon the farms, let out his estate to tenants, and removed with his family to the metropolis, where he had a house in Barbican.

While here employed in investigating “the grounds of the law from original records,” which engaged him in a perusal of the fathers, councils, and ancient historians, he was for some time diverted from this pursuit by a conversation with his uncle, Mr. Francis Sanders, who complained to him of the many crosses and disappointments he had met with in a building he had then in hand upon the glebe of his appropriated parsonage at Congham. Sir Henry, who had a profound veneration for church-property, told his uncle that this was a judgment upon him for defrauding the church, and that it was utterly unlawful to keep appropriated parsonages in lay hands; and finding him somewhat impressed with what he had said, he expatiated more fully on the subject in a written paper, which, owing to Mr. Sanders’s death, never reached him. It was, however, published under the title “De non temerandis Ecclesiis,” or, “Churches not to be violated.” He reprinted it in 1615, 8vo, and about the same time a defence of it against an anonymous writer, with a Latin epistle to Mr. Richard Carew, who had made some objections to his treatise. The effect of sir Henry’s arguments was very extraordinary; for several persons actually parted with their impropriations. That he was sincere himself is sufficiently obvious, for being possessed of the impropriation of Middleton in Norfolk, he disposed of it for the augmentation of the vicarage, and also some additions to Congham which lies near it. It is said likewise that during the whole of his life, almost at every law-term in London, he was consulted by various lay-impropriators as to the mode by which they might restore their unlawful possessions of this kind; and some are reported to have thanked him for his book, declaring that they would never purchase any appropriate parsonages to augment their estates.

The meetings of the society of antiquaries which had been liscontinued for twenty years, were revived, in 1614, by sir Henry Spelman and others, who now drew up his “Discourse concerning the original of the four Law Terms of the year,” in which the laws of the Jews, Grecians, Romans, Saxons, and Normans, relating to this subject are fully explained. This treatise does not appear to have been published until 1684, 12mo, and then from a very incorrect copy, yet was printed from the same in Hearne’s “Curious Discourses,” along with others on the same subject, by Mr. Joseph Holland and Mr. Thomas Thynn. In 1621, an apology for archbishop Abbot, respecting the death of a park-keeper, (see Abbot) was answered by sir Henry, who endeavours to prove, not only that the archbishop was guilty of an irregularity by that act, but also intimates that he could not be effectually reinstated without some extraordinary form of new consecration. He even goes so far as to assert that by the canons hunting is unlawful in a clergyman; and he also advances many other positions to which no very cordial assent will now perhaps be given.

In the course of those antiquarian studies which respect the on<iin and foundation of our laws, he frequently found himself impeded by obsolete words. These he began to collect by degrees, with references to the places where they occur, and by comparing these places was enabled to form, at least some very probable conjectures as to the meaning of them. This labour he soon experienced must be assisted by a knowledge of the Saxon, which at that time was very rare, and his helps consequently were few, yet by dint of industry he acquired a very considerable knowledge of this language, and before 1626 had, in a great measure, prepared his “Glossary” for the press, and because he would not depend upon his own judgment, he printed one or two sheets by way of specimen, for the perusal of his friends. These were so satisfied, that he received ample encouragement from the most learned persons of that age: at home, from Usher, Williams, then lord keeper, Selden, and sir Robert Cotton; abroad, from Rigaltius, Salmasius, Peiresc, and others; as also from Bignonius, Meursius, and Lindenbrokius, whose assistance he very gratefully acknowledges. Upon this, he published it as far as to the end of the letter L. Why he went no farther, is varioasly explained. Some have fancied, that he stopped at the letter M, because he expressed certain sentiments, under the heads “Magna charta,” and “Maximum consilium,” which his friends were afraid might give offence; “that not being a season,” says bishop Gibson, “to speak freely, either of the prerogative of the king, or the liberty of the subject, both which upon many occasions would have fallen in his way.” The author has told us, in an advertisement bcfore the book, that he chose to entitle his work, “Archacologus,” rather than “Glossarium,” as we commonly call it: for a glossary, strictly speaking, is no more than a bare explication of words; whereas this treats more especially of things, and contains entire discourses and dissertations upon several heads. For this reason, it was thought worthy not only to be consulted upon occasion, like common lexicons or dictionaries; but it ought to be carefully perused and studied, as the greatest treasure extant of the ancient customs and constitutions of England.

About the time that he disposed of the unsold copies of his “Glossary,” sir William Dugdale acquainted sir Henry Spelman, that many learned men were desirous to see the second part published, and requested of him to gratify the world with the work entire. Upon this, he shewed sir William the second part, and also the improvements which he had made in the first; but told him, at the same time, the discouragement he had met with in publishing the first part. Upon his death, all his papers came into the hands of sir John Spelman, his eldest son; a gentleman, who had abilities sufficient to complete what his father had begun, if death had not prevented him. After the restoration of Charles II. archbishop Sheldon and chancellor Hyde inquired of sir William Dugdale, what became of the second part, and whether it was ever finished; and, upon his answering in the affirmative, expressed a desire that it might be printed. Accordingly it was published by sir William in 1664; but, as Gibson says, “the latter part in comparison of the other is jejune and scanty; and everyone must see, that it is little more than a collection, out of which he intended to compose such discourses, as he has all along given us in the first part, under the words of the greatest import and usefulness.” It was surmised, for it never was proved, that because sir William Dugdale had the publishing of the second part, he inserted many things of his own, which were not in sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly some passages, which tend to the enlargement of the prerogative, in opposition to the liberties of the subject. This- is noticed by Mr. Atwood, in his “Jus Anglorum ab antique” and the authenticity of it is vindicated, and some curious particulars are related concerning it, by Dr. Brady, in his “Animadversions on Jani Anglorum f'acies nova,” Bishop Gibson also assures us, that the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian library in sir Henry’s own hand, and exactly agrees with the printed book; and particularly under the word “Parlamentum,” and those other passages, upon which the controversy was raised. So far then as the copy goes, for it ends at the word “Riota,” it is a certain testimony, that sir William Dugdale did no more than mark it for the printer, and transcribe here and there a loose paper; and, though the rest of the copy was lost before it carne to the Oxford library, on which account there is not the same authority for the Glossary’s being genuine of the letter R; yet it is not likely, that sir William had any more share in these last letters of the alphabet, than he had in any of the rest. There was a third edition in 1687, illustrated with commentaries, and much enlarged. In 1627, sir Henry compiled a history of the civil affairs of the kingdom, from the conquest to Magna Charta, taken from the best historians, and generally in their own words. This was printed by Wilkins at the end of his edition of the Saxon laws. His next great work was his “Collection of the Councils, Decrees, Laws, and Constitutions of the English church from 1066 to 1531.” In this he was particularly encouraged by the archbishops Abbot, Laud, and especially Usher. The deceased bishop Andrews had suggested this scheme to Dr. Matthew Wren, who had made some progress, but desisted when he heard that sir Henry Spelman was engaged in the same design. Archbishop Abbot lived to see some part of the copy, and greatly approved of it. He branched his undertaking into three parts, assigning an entire volume to each division: I. “From the first plantation of Christianity to the coming in of the Conqueror in 1066.” 2. “From the Norman conquest to the casting off the pope’s supremacy, and the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII.” 3. “The History of the Reformed English Church, from Henry VIII. to his own time.” The volume, which contained the first of these heads, was published in 1639, about two years befoiv death, with his own annotations upon the more difficult places. The second volume of the “Councils,” was put into the hands of sir William Dugdale, by the direction of Sheldon and Hyde. Sir William made considerable additions to it ont of the archbishop’s registers and the Cottonian library; and it was published in 1664, but with abundance of faults, occasioned by the negligence of either the copier, or corrector, or both. His revival of Saxon literature was of great importance to the study of antiquities. He had found the excellent use oi" that language in the whole course of his studies, and much lamented the neglect of it both at home and abroad; which was so very general, that he did not then know one man in the world, who perfectly understood it. This induced him to found a Saxon lecture in the university of Cambridge, allowing lOl. per annum to Mr. Abraham Wheelocke, presenting him to the vicarage of Middleton in the county of Norfolk, and giving him likewise the profits of the impropriate rectory of the same church; both which were intended by him to be settled in perpetuity as an endowment of that lecture: but sir Henry and his eldest son dying in the compass of two years, the civil wars breaking forth, and their estate being sequestered, the family became incapable of accomplishing his design.

The last labour of sir Henry Spelman was his treatise on ft The original growth, propagation, and condition of Tenures by knight service in England," a remarkable proof of mental vigour at his very advanced age, for he was now approaching to eighty. His last days he passed with his son-in-law, sir Ralph Whitfield, in Barbican, at whose house he died in 1641, in the eighty-first year of his age. He was interred with great solemnity, by order of the king, in Westminster abbey, in the south isle, near the door of St. Nicholas chapel, at the foot of the pillar, opposite to the monument of his friend Camden.

On the death of sir Henry, his papers became the property of his eldest son, sir John Spelman, whom he calls “the heir of his studies.” Sir John, whom, by the way, Wood erroneously calls sir Henry’s youngest son, received great encouragement and assurance of favour from Charles I. That king sent for sir Henry Spelman, and offered him the mastership of Sutton’s hospital, with some other advantages, in consideration of his good services both to church and state; but sir Henry, thanking his majesty, replied, “that he was very old, and had one foot in the grave, but should be more obliged, if he would consider his son” on which, the king sent for Mr. Spelman, and conferred that and the honour of knighthood upon him at Whitehall in 1611. After the rebellion commenced, his majesty, by a letter under his own hand, commanded him from his house in Norfolk, to attend at Oxford where he resided in Brazennose college, and was often called to private conncii, and employed to write several p.ipers in vindication of the proceeding of the court. He wis the author of “A view of a pretende book, entitled, ' Observations upon his Majesty’s late Answers and Epistles,” Oxford, 1642, 4to. His name is not to it; but Dr Barlow, who ha i received a copy from him, informed VVood that it was composed bv him. Si: John wi“'e also” The case of our affairs in law, religion, and other circumstances, briefly ex mined and presented to the cmisc ence,“1643, 4to. While he vva^ thus attending the aduirs of the public, and his own private studies, as those ' >uld iiive him leave, he died July 25, 1643. His funeral sermon, by his majesty’s special order, was preached by archbishop Usher. He published the Saxon Psalter under the title of” Phaltenum Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus,“1641, 4to, from an old manuscript in his father’s library, collated with three other copies. He wrote also the” Life of king Alfred the Great" in English, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, 1709, 8vo. It had been translated into Latin by Mr. Wise, and was published by Obadiah Walker, master of University college at Oxford in 1678, fol.

In 1656, a volume was published, entitled “Villare Anglicum; or a view of the towns of England, collected by the appointment, at the charge, and for the use, of that learned antiquary sir Henry Spelman.” Bishop NicolsbH thinks this wasjointly composed by sir Henry and Mr. Dodsworth. In 1663, Mr. Stevens, before mentioned, who appears to have been particularly entrusted with such of sir Henry’s Mss. as might be thought fit for the press, began to print his “History of Sacrilege,” a very singular attempt under the existing government, for as sir Hemy makes the alienation of church property by our former monarchs to be sacrilege, his arguments must have had a very powerful effect on those who had now overturned the whole property and constitution of the church. Accordingly we are told that the printing was interrupted until the fire of London, and then the whole was destroyed in that calamity. Gibson, however, published it afterwards from the manuscript copy given by bishop Barlow to the Bodleian library.

Among the manuscripts left by sir Henry, was “A Scheme of the Abbreviations, and such other obsolete forms of writing as occur in our ancient Mss. to facilitate the reading of ancient books and records.” Of this we have a transcript, purchased at Mr. Cough’s sale, entitled “Archaismus Graphicus ab Henrico Spelman, in usum filiorum conscriptus.” There were likewise found among his Mss. “A Discourse on the ancient Government of England in general,” “Of Parliaments in particular” and “A Catalogue of the places and dwellings of the archbishops and bishops of this realm, now or of former times, in which their several owners have ordinary jurisdiction, as of a parcel of their diocese, though they be situate within the precinct of another bishop’s diocese.” This appears to have been drawn up in the reign of James I. for the use of the archbishop of Canterbury. Some of these, and his other miscellaneous tracts, were published by Mr. Gibson, afterwards bishop of London, first as “The English Works of sir Henry Spelman,” to which, in 1698, he added “The Posthumous Works,” and both collections were reprinted in one vol. fol. in 1723. Some correspondence between Spelman and Wheelocke is among the Harleian Mss. No. 7041.

, youngest son of sir Henry, was a eounsellor-at-law, and made puisne baron of the exchequer upon the restoration of Charles II. He published some pieces relating to the government, and a large preface to his father’s book, “De non temerandis ecclesiis.” He died in June 1679, and was interred in St. Duns(. church, Fleet-street. 1 Spelman (Edward), esq. the translator of, Xenophon, and of Dionysius Halicarnasscnsis, and author of a Tract on the Greek accents, wuo died March 12, 1767, was greatgreat-grandson of sir Henry Spelman.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

1747. Of this work of acknowledged taste and learning“, Mr. Gray has been thought to speak too contemptuously in his Letters. His chief objection is, that the author has illustrated his subject from the Roman, and not from the Greek poets; that is, that he has not performed what he never undertook; nay, what he expressly did not undertake. A third edition appeared in folio in 1774, and the abridgment of it by N. Tindal has been frequently printed in 8vo. There is a pamphlet with Spence’s name to it in ms. as the author, called” Plain Matter of Fact, or, a short review of the reigns of our Popish Princes since the Reformation; in order to shew what we are to expect if another shouKl happen to reign over us. Part I.“1748, 12mo. He was installed prebendary of the seventh stall at Durham, May 24, 1754; and published in that year” An account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy at Edinburgh,“8vo, which was afterwards prefixed to his poems. The prose pieces which he printed in” The Museum“he collected and published, with some others, in a pamphlet called” Moralities, by sir Harry Beaumont,“1753. Under that name he published,” Crito, or a Dialogue on Beauty,“and” A particular account of the emperor of China’s Gardens, near Pekin, in a letter from F. Attiret, a French missionary now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris;“both in 1752, Hvo, and both reprinted in Dodsley’s” Fugitive Pieces.“He wrote” An Epistle from a Swiss officer to his friend at Rome,“first printed in” The Museum,“and since in the third volume of” Dodsley’s Collection.“The several copies published under his name in the Oxford Verses are preserved by iNichols, in the” Select Collection,“1781. In 175S he published” A Parallel, in the manner of Plutarch, between a most celebrated Man of Florence (Magliabecchi), and one scarce ever heard of in England (Robert Hill, the Hebrew Taylor),“12mo, printed at Strawberry Hill. In the same year he took a tour into Scotland, which is well described in an affectionate letter to Mr. Shenstone, the collection of several letters published by Mr. Hull in 1778. In 17c3 he communicate i to Dr. Wartun several excellent remarks on Virgil, which he had made when he wasbroad, and some few of Mr. Pope’s. West Finchale Priory (the scene of the holy Godric’s miracles and austerities, who, from an itinerant merchant, turned hermit, and wore out three suits of iron cloaths), was now become Mr. Spence’s retreat, being part of his prebendal estate. In 1764 he was well pourtrayed by Mr. James Ridley, in his admirable” Tales of the G nil,“under the name of” Pbesoi Ecnep> (his name rrad backwar l>) iervise of the groves,“and a panegyrical letter from nim to that ingenious moralist, under the same signature, is inserted i-i 4k Lexers of Emi'-eni Persons,” vol. III. p. 139. In 1764 he paid the last kind office to the remains of his friend Mr. Dodsley, who died on a visit to him at Durham. He closed his literary labours with “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil with some other classical observations; by the late Mr. Holdsworth. Published, with several notes and additional remarks, by Mr. Speutv,” 4to. This volume, of which the greater part was printed off in 1767, was published in February 1768; and on the iiOth of August following, Mr. Spence was unfortunately drowned in a caiidl in his garden at Byrieet in Surrey. Being, when the accident inppened, quite alone, it could only be conjectured in what manner it happened but it was generally supposed to have been occasioned by a fit while he was standing near the brink of the water. He was found flat upon his face, at the edge, where the water was too shallow to cover his head, or any part of his body. He was interred at Byfleet church, where is a marble tablet inscribed to his memory. The duke of Newcastle possesses some ms volumes of anecdotes of eminent writers, collected by Mr. Spence, who in his lifetime communicated to Dr. Warton as many of them as related to Pope; and, by permission of the noble owner, Dr. Johnson has made many extracts from them in his “Lives of the English Poets.” These have lately been announced for publication. Mr. Spence’s Explanation of an antique marble at Ciandon place, Surrey, is in “Gent. Mag.” 1772, p. 176 “Mr. Spence’s character,” says a gentleman who bad seen this memoir before it was transplanted into the present work, " is properly delineated and his Polymetis is justl vindicated from the petty criticisms of the; fastidious Gray *. In Dr. Johnson’s masterly preface to Dry den,

bury was the first who bionsjhi in o llmd II.K. point' <l out, by example as

, a learned divine, was a native of Bocton under Biean, in Kent, where he was baptised, Oct. 31, 1G30. While an infant he lost his father, who, leaving him in very narrow circumstances, the care and expence of his education was undertaken by an uncle. By bin) he was sent to the free school at Canterbury, where he made great proficiency, and became a king’s scholar. At the age of fourteen he was recommended by Mr. Thomas Jackson, then the onry prebendary of that church, t a Parker scholarship in Corpus college, Cambridge, of which he was admitted, March 25, 1645. Under Mr. Richard Kennet, an excellent tutor, an ancestor of the bishop of Peterborough, he applied with great assiduity to his studies, and having taken his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 164-8, and of A. Jvj. in 1652, he was chosen fellow of his college in 1655. About this time his uncle, who had hitherto supported his education, died, and having kept an xact account of what he had expended, left the same tincancelled, and his executors and sons immediately sued Mr. Spencer for the debt, which he was totally unable to ;niy. In this perplexity he found friends i- it college, among w.,om was Dr. Tenison, afterwards achbishop of Canterbury, who raised a loin among the suthcit-nt to extricate him from the rigour of his unworny relations. He now also became a tutor, and entering int. holy orders was appointed one of the university preacher-, -Ik. served the cures, first of St. Gyles’s, and then of St. Benedict, in Cambridge. In 1659 he proceeded B. D. As he was not ciisuJrhed in his fellowship, it has been supposed that he acquiesced in the measures taken during the usurpation, without approving them. He was soon, however, released from this painful restraint by the restoration, on which event he preached a sermon before the university, June 2tf, 1660, which was printed the same year, under the title of “The Righteous Ruler.” He published about three years after, a preservative against the prophecies in which the fanatics of that day dealt very largely. This he entitled “A discourse concerning Prodigies, wherein the vanity of presages by them is reprehended, and their true and proper ends asserted and vindicated.” A second edition of this seasonable and learned work, corrected and enlarged, was published at London, 1665, 8vo; when was added to it, “A discourse concerning vulgar Prophecies; wherein the vanity of receiving them, as the certain indications of any future event, is discovered; and some characters of distinction between true and pretended prophets are laid down.” In this last- mentioned year he proceeded D. D. and in 1667 was presented by his college to the rectory of Landbeach, in Cambridgeshire, and Aug. 3, was elected master of the college. In this office he shewed himself not only a lover of learning, but a great encourager of it in others, as the many salutary regulations made in ­his time concerning the discipline and exercises of the college amply testily and the society had such an opinion of liis judgment an1 integrity, that he was generally made the arbiter of their differences.

While he was vice-chancellor, the duke of Monmouth was chosen chaucellor of the university, and upon his instalment Dr. Spencer addressed his ^race in a speech, published by Hi/arne in his appendix to the " Vindiciac

Tho. Caii." Mr. Masters mentions it as somewhat singular, that Dr. Spencer, while holding the high office of head of a hoiuse, was suspended bv Dr. Borcle, surrogate to the official, lor tun appearing at the archdeacon’s visitation, but what the issue was he has not discovered. Dr. Spencer had c ntr.ieie.lA:I early and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Thomas Hill, ah<> was admitted of Corpus about the same time vvuh himself, which, notwithstanding their differing in their opinions, Hill being a non-conformist, continued to the end of the life of the latter. This appears by a correspondence, referred to by Calamy, in which the doctor expresses a high regard and affection for hirn, and made him some kind and generous offers whenever he should have a son fit to send to the university. His charity, indeed, to 'non-conformist ministers, if goo! and pious men, seems to have bt-en so extensive, that he, with the learned Dr. Henry More, made one of them, Mr. Robert Wilson, their almoner in this branch of it. And so greai a respect had he for his tutor, Mr Kennet, who was a sufferer in this cause, that he not only frequently visited him as long as he lived, but was kind to his poor widow for his sake.

About a month after being elected master of Corpus, he was preferred by the king to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, in 1672 to a prebend of Ely, and in 1677 to the deanery of that church. In 1669 he published a Latin dissertation concerning Urim and Thummim, reprinted in 1670, In 1683 iie resigned the rectory of Landbeach in favour of his kinsman, William vSpencer, A. M. fellow of the collage; and 1685 published at Cambridge, in 2 vols. folio, his celebrated work, “De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus et etiruiu rationibus libri tres.” His professe<i view in explaining the reasons of the Mosaic ritual, was to vindicate the ways of God to men, and clear the Deity, as he tells in his preface, from arbitrary and fantastic humour; with which some, not discerning these reasons, had been ready to charge him, and thence had fallen into unbelief. But this attempt very much displeased all those, who think the divinity of any doctrine or institution weakened, in prOTportion as it is proved to be rational; and one great objection to it, even among some who are not irrationalists, is, the learned author’s having advanced, that many rites and cen monies of the Jewish nation are deduced from the practices of their heathen and idolatrous neighbours. This position uuve no small offence, as greatly derogatory from the aivine institution of those rites; and many writers attacked it both at home and abroad, particularly Herman Wit>iiis 1:1 his “^gyptiaca,” sir John Marsham, Caimet, and Shi.ckford. His position has been, since their time, shortU and ably refuted in a treatise by Dr. Woodward, entitled “A Discourse on the worship of the ancient Egyptians,” communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by Dr. Lort in 1775, and more recently (1799) by the late Rev. William Jones, in his“Considerations on the religious worship of ttie Heainens.” Mr. Jones says, that Dr. Spencer, “preposterously deduced the rites of the Hebrews from therites of the Heathens; and so produced a work of learned appearance, and composed in elegant Latin, but disgraceful to Christian divinity, dishonourable to the church of England, and affording a very bad example to vain scholars who should succeed him.” Others, however, saw no ill consequences from admitting it; and the work upon the whole has been highly valued, for extensive erudition and research. The author afterwards greatly enlarged it, particularly with the addition of a fourth book; and his papers, being committed at his death to archbishop Tenison, were bequeathed by that prelate to the university of Cambridge, together with the sum of 50l. to forward the printing of them. At length Mr. Leonard Chappelow, fellow of St. John’s-college, and professor of Arabic, being deputed by the university, and offered the reward, undertook a new edition of this work, with the author’s additions and improvements; and published it at Cambridge, in 1727, in 2 vols. folio. It was also previously reprinted at the Hague in 1686, 4to and at Leipsic in 1705.

Dr. Spencer died May 27, 1695, in the sixty-third year of his age, and was interred in the chapel of Corpus-college. To this college such was his liberality, that Mr. Masters says “he far exceeded all former benefactors.” In 1687, he purchased an estate at Elmington, an hamlet belonging to Oundle in Northamptonshire, which cost him 3600l. and settled it by a deed of gift on the college, for the augmentation of the mastership, fellowships, scholarships, &c. and, in his will, bequeathed various sums to the society, to the church and deanery of Ely, and to the poor of the parishes in which he had officiated. He married Hannah, the daughter of Isaac Pullen of Hertford, by whom he had a son and daughter, but neither survived him.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of Frankfort on the Maine, but born in Alsatia, Jan. 1J, 1635, was one of those who first endeavoured to free divinity from scholastic subtleties, and captious questions, and to introduce a more plain and popular method of teaching theology. He succeeded, in a great measure, though not universally and, about 1680, became the founder of a new sect, style1 Pietists It originated in certain private societies forme >j nim at Frankfort, with a design to rouse the lukewarm from their indifference, and excite a spirit of vigour and resolution in those who before had silently lamented the progress of impiety. The effect of these pious* meetings was greatly increased by a book published by this able am! wt it -meaning man, entitled “Pious Desires,” in which he exhibited a striking -view of the disorders of the church, and proposed the suitable remedies. His work was approved; but the remedies he proposed fell into unskiliul hands, and were administered without sugacity and prudence.

The religious meetings, or Colleges of Piety, as they were called, tended, in several instances, to inflame the people with a blind and intemperate zeal, and produced tumults, and various complaints; lill at length, in many places, severe laws were passed against the Pietists. Spener settled for a time at Dresden, and afterwards at Berlin, where be held important offices of ecclesiastical trust under the elector of Brandenburg, and where he died i.> 1705, aged severity. He was a man of eloquence and piety; and certainly far from intending to produce dissentions and schisms. His pious works were published in the German language; but he wrote some in Latin on genealogy and heraldry; such as “Opus heraldicum” “Theatrum nobilitati.-” “Sylloge historico-gen^alogica,” &c. His son, James Charles Spener, wrote a “Historia Germanica universalis et pragmatica,” 2 vols. 8vo, and “Notitia Germaniæ antiquæ,” 1717, 4to, both works of authority. He died in 1730.

, a justly celebrated English-poet, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Spenser, was born in London, in East Smithfield by the Tower, probably about 1553 In what school he received the first part of his education, has not been ascertained. He was admitted, as a sizer, of Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, May 10, 1569, proceeded to the degree of bachelor of arts, January 16, 1572-3, and to that of master of arts June 26, 1576. Of nis proficiency during this time, a favourable opinion may be drawn from the many classical allusions itv his works, while their moral tendency, which, if not uniform, was more general than that of the writings of his contemporaries, incline us to hope, that his conduct was irreproachable. At Cambridge he formed an intimacy with Gabriel Harvey, first of Christ’s-college, afterwards of Trinity-hall, who became doctor of laws in 1585, and survived his friend more than thirty years Harvey was a scnolar, and a poet of no mean estimation in his own time. He appears also as a critic, to whose judgment Spenser frequently appeals, looking up to him with a reverence for which it is not easy to account. We are, however, much indebted to his correspondence with Spenser, for many interesting particulars; relating to the life and studies of the latter, although some of them afford little more than probable conjecture?. It is now fully disproved that Spenser was an unsuccsssful candidate for a fellowship in Pembroke-hall, in competition with Andrews, afterwards successively bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester. Hie rival of Andrews was Thomas Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. But from one of Harvey’s letters to Spenser it appr;,rs that some disagreement had taken place between our poet and the master or tutor of the society to which he belonged, which terminated his prospects of farther advancement in it, without lessening his veneration for the university at large, of which he always speaks with filial regard.

When he left Cambridge he is supposed to have gone to reside with some friends in the North of England, probably as a tutor. At what time he began to display his poetical powers is uncertain, but as genius cannot be concealed, it is probable that he was already known as a votary of the Muses among his fellow-students. There are several poems in the “Theatre for Worldlings,” a collection published in the year in which he became a member of the university, which are thought to have come from his pen. The “Visions,” in this work, were probably the first sketch of those which now form a part of his acknowledged productions. Absolute certainty, however, cannot be obtained in. fixing the chronology of his early poems; but it may be conjectured, with great probability, that his muse would not be neglected at an age when it is usual to court her favours, and at which he had much leisure, the scenery of nature before his eyes, and no serious cares to disturb his enthusiasm. His “Shepheard’s Calender” was published in 1579. The tenderness of complaint in this elegant poem, appears to have been inspired by a mistress whom he has recorded under the name of Rosalind; and who, after trifling with his affection, preferred his rival. He is supposed also to allude to the cruelty of this same lady in book VI. of the “Faerie Queene,” under the name of Mirabella.

The year preceding the publication of this poem, he had been advised by his friend Harvey to remove to London, where he was introduced to sir Philip Sidney, and by him recommended to his uncle the carl of Leicester. There is a wide difference of opinion, however, among Spenser’s biographers, as to the time and mode of the former of these events. Some suppose that his acquaintance, with sir Philip Sidney was the consequence of his having presented to him the ninth canto of the “Faerie Queene.” Others think that his first introduction was owing to the dedication of the “Shepherd’s Calender,” but a long letter from Spenser to Harvey, which Mr. Todd has preserved, proves that he was known to Sidney previous to the publication of the “Shepheard’s Calender” in 1579.

It is certain that in consequence of this introduction, by whatever means procured, he became a welcome guest in iir Philip’s family, and was invited to their seat at Penshurst in Kent, where it is conjectured that he wrote at least the ninth eclogue. Under such patronage, the dedication of the “Calender,” when finished, to “Maister Philip Sidney,” became a matter of course, as a mark of respectful acknowledgment for the kindness he had received. The praise, however, bestowed on this poem was but moderate, and the name of the author appears to have been for some time not generally known. Dove-, whose translation of it. into Latin is extant in the library of Caius college, Cambridge, speaks of it not only as an “unowned” poem, but as almost buried in oblivion. On the wther hand, Abraham Fraunce, a barrister as well as a poet of that time, selected from it examples to illustrate his work entitled “The Lawier’s Logike;” but Fraunce, it may be said, was the friend of sir Philip Sidney, and would naturally be math; acquainted, anil perhaps induced to admire the productions of a poet whom he favoured.

The patronage of men of genius in Spender’s age was frequently exerted in procuring for them public employments, and Spenser, we find, was very early introduced into the business of active life. In July 1580, when Arthur lord Grey of Wilton departed from England, as lord lieutenant of Ireland, Spenser was appointed his secretary, probably on the recommendation of the earl of Leicester, Although the office of secretary was not at this time of the same importance it is now, and much might not be expected in official business from a scholar and a poet, yet Spenser appears to have entered with zeal into political affairs, as far as they were connected with the character of the lord lieutenant. In his “View of the State of Ireland,” which was written long after, he takes frequent opportunities to vindicate the measures and reputation of that nobleman, and has, indeed, evidently studied the polities of Ireland with great success.

After holding this situation about two years, lord Grey returned to England, and was probably accompanied by his secretary. Their connection was certainly not dissolved, for in 1586, Spenser obtained, by his lordship’s interest, and that of Leicester and Sidney, a grant of three thousand and twenty-eight acres in the county of Cork, out of the forfeited lands of the earl of Desmond. As far as sir Philip Sidney was concerned, this was the last act of his kindness to our poet, for he died in October of the same year. Such were the terms of the royal patent, that Spenser was now obliged to return to Ireland, in order tO cultivate the land assigned him. He accordingly fixed his residence at Kilcolman, in the county of Cork, a place which topographers have represented as admirably accommodated to the taste of a poet by its romantic and diversified scenery. Here he was visited by sir Walter Raleigh, with whom he bad formed an intimacy on his first arrival in Ireland, who proved a second Sidney to his poetical ardour, and appears to have urged him to that composition which constitutes his highest fame. In 1590 he published “The Faerie Qneene disposed into Twelve Books, fashioning XII Morall Vertues.”

This edition contains only the first three books. To the end of the third were annexed, besides the letter to Raleigh, the poetical commendations of friends to whose judgment the poem had been submitted. The names of Raleigh and Harvey are discernible, but the others are concealed under initials. These are followed by his own “Sonnets” to various persons of distinction, the number of which is augmented in the edition of 1596. Mr. Todd remarks that in that age of adulation, it was the custom of the author to present, with a copy of his publication, a poetical address to his superiors. It was no less the custom also, to print them afterwards, and, we may readily suppose, with the full consent of the parties to whom they were addressed.

Such was his original design in this undertaking, and having prepared three books for the press, it is probable that he accompanied Raleigh to England, with a view to publish it. Raleigh afterwards introduced him to queen Elizabeth, whose favour is supposed by some to have extended to his being appointed poet laureate; but Elizabeth, as Mr. Malone has accurately proved, had no poet laureate. Inileed, in February 1590-1, she conferred on Spenser a pension of fifty pounds a year, the grant of which was discovered some years ago, in the chapel of the Rolls, and this pension he enjoyed till his death, but the title of laureate was not given in his patent, nor in that of his two immediate successors.

"I was promised on a time,

On which he was immediately paid; but for the whole of this representation, there appears neither foundation nor authority.

Spenser appears to have returned to London about the end of 1591, as his next publication, the beautiful elegy on Douglas Howard, daughter of Henry lord Howard, entitled “Daphnaida,” is dated Jan. 1, 1591-2. From this period there is a long interval in the history of our poet, which was probably passed in Ireland, but of which we have no account. It would appear, however, that he did not neglect those talents of which he hacl already given such favourable specimens. In 1595, he published the pastoral of “Colin Clout’s come home again,” the dedication to which bears date, Dec. 27, 1591, but this Mr. Todd has fully proved to be an error. The pastoral elegy of “Astrophel,” devoted entirely to the memory of sir Philip Sidney, and perhaps written on the immediate occasion of his death, was published along with this last mentioned piece.

It is conjectured that in the same year appeared his “Amoretti,” or “Sonnets,” in which the poet gives the progress of his addresses to a less obdurate lady than Rosalind, and whom he afterwards married, if the “Epithalamion,” published along with the “Sonnets,” is allowed to refer to that event. Mr. Todd deduces from various passages that his mistress’s name was Elizabeth, and that the marriage took place in Ireland, on St. Barnabas’ day, 1594. Other biographers seem to be of opinion that he had lost a first wife, and that the courtship of a second inspired “Amoretti.” Where we have no other evidence than the expression of a man’s feelings, and that man a poet of excursive imagination, the balance of probabilities may be equal. Spenser was now at the age of forty-one, somewhat too late for the ardour of youthful passion, so feelingly given in his sonnets; but on the other hand, if he had a first wife, we have no account of her, and the children he left are universally acknowledged to have been by the wife he now married.

It is necessary, however, in this place, to notice a question which has been started, and contested with much eagerness by Spenser’s biographers and critics, namely, whether any part of the “Faerie Queene” has been lost, or whether the author did not leave the work unfinished as we now have it. Sir James Ware informs us that the poet finished the latter part of the “Faerie Queene” in Ireland, “which was soone after unfortunately lost by the disorder and abuse of his servants, whom he had sent before him into England.” The authority of sir James Ware, who lived so near Spenser’s time, and gave this account in 1633, seems entitled to credit, but it has been opposed by Fenton, who thinks, with Dryden, that “upon sir Philip Sidney’s death, Spenser was deprived both of the means and spirit to accomplish his design,” and treats sir James Ware’s account as a hearsay or a fiction. Dr. Birch, on the other hand, contends that the event of sir Philip Sidney’s death was not sufficient to have prevented Spenser from finishing his poem, since he actually gave the world six books of it after his patron’s death. The author of Spenser’s life in the “Biographia Britannica,” after gaining some advantage over Dr. Birch’s inferences from incorrect dates, argues against the probability of a manuscript of the last six books, principally from the shortness of the poet’s life after the year 1596. The late Dr. Farmer is of the same opinion, but appears perhaps somewhat too hasty in asserting that the question may be effectually answered by a single quotation. The quotation is from Brown’s “Britannia’s Pastorals,” 1616, and merely amounts to this—that Spenser died

But Mr. Todd produces afterwards a document, more to the purpose, in support of the belief that some of Spenser’s papers were destroyed in the rebellion of 1598. This is an epigram written by John (afterwards sir John) Stradling, and published in 1607, and plainly intimates that certain Mss. of Spenser were burnt in the rebellion. Two years after the publication of this epigram, part of the “Legend of Constancy,” the only manuscript that had escaped the fury of the rebels, was added to the second edition of the “Faerie Queene.” It appears therefore highly probable that among the manuscripts destroyed was some part of the six last books of the “Faerie Queene,” although they might not have been transcribed for the press, nor in that progress towards completion which ran in Fenton’s mind when he contradicted sir James Ware with so little courtesy.

The same year, 1596, appears to have been the time when Spenser presented his political, and only prose work, “The View of the State of Ireland,” to the queen. Mr. Todd, having seen four copies of it in manuscript, concludes that he had presented it also to the great officers of state, and perhaps to others. Why it was allowed to remain in manuscript so long as until 1633, when sir James Ware published it from archbishop Usher’s copy, has not been explained. If, as Mr. Todd conjectures, it was written at the command of the queen, and in order to reconcile the Irish to her government, why did it not receive the publicity which so important an object required? It appears more probable from a perusal of this work as we now have it, that it was not considered by the court as of a healing tendency; and the extracts from some of the manuscript copies which Mr. Todd had an opportunity of procuring, seem to confirm th s conjecture. Viewed in another light, it displays much political knowledge, and traces the troubles of that country, in many instances, to their proper causes. It is valuable also on account of the Author’s skill in delineating the actual state of Ireland. “Civilization,” says Mr Ledwich, the learned Irish antiquary, “having almost obliterated every vestige of our ancient manners, the remembrance of them is only to be found in Spenser, so that he may be considered, at this day, as an Irish antiquary.” It ought not to be omitted that in a note on one of the manuscript copies of this work, Spenser is styled, “Clerke of the Counsell of the province of Mounster.”

In 1597, he is said to have returned to Ireland, and by a letter which Mr. Malone has discovered from queen Elizabeth to the Irish government, dated Sept. 30, 1598, it appears that he was recommended to be sheriff of Cork. The rebellion of Tyrone, however, took place in October, and with such fury as to compel Spenser and his family to leave Kilcolman. In the confusion of flight manuscripts would be forgotten, for even one of his children was left behind, and the rebels, after carrying off the goods, burnt the house and this infant in it. Spenser arrived in England with a heart broken by these misfortunes, and died January 7 following, 1598-9, in the forty-sixth year of his age.

There are some circumstances respecting Spenser’s death which have been variously represented. Mr. Todd, from unquestionable evidence, has fixed the day, January 16, 1598-9, and the place, an inn or lodging-house in King-­street, Westminster; the time therefore which elapsed from his arrival in England to his death, was very short. But it has been asserted that he died in extreme poverty, which, considering how recently he was in England, and how highly favoured by the queen only a month before he was compelled to leave Ireland, seems wholly incredible. The only foundation for the report appears to be an expression of Camden intimating that he returned to England poor, which surely might be true without affording any reason to suppose that he remained poor. His pension of fifty pounds, no inconsiderable sum in his days, continued to be paid; and why he should have lost his superior friends at a time when he was a sufferer in the cause of government, is a question which may be asked without the risk of a satisfactory answer. The whining of some contemporary poets affords no proof of the fact, and may be rejected as authority; but the reception Mr. YVarton has given to the report of Spenser’s poverty is entitled to higher regard. It might indeed be considered as decisive, if Mr. Todd’s more successful researches did not prove that he founds all his arguments upon the mistaken supposition that Spenser died in Ireland. Nor will Mr. Warton’s agree with the lamentations of the poets, for they represent Spenser as poor by the neglect of his friends and country; and Mr Warton, as dying amidst the desolations of rebellion.

Spenser’s remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, near those of Chaucer, and the funeral expenses defrayed by the earl of Essex, a nobleman very erroneous in political life, but too much a friend to literature to have allowed Spenser to starve, and afterwards insult his remains by a sumptuous funeral. His monument, however, which has been attributed to the munificence of Essex, was erected by Anne, countess of Dorset, about thirty years after Spenser’s death. Stone was the workman, and had forty pounds for it. That at present in Westminster Abbey was erected or restored in 1778.

It does not appear what became of Spenser’s wife and children. Two sons are said to have survived him, Sylvanus and Peregrine. Sylvanus married Ellen Nangle, or Nagle, eldest daughter of David Nangle of Moneanymy in the county of Cork, by whom he had two sons, Edmund and William Spenser. His other son, Peregrine, also married and had a son, Hugolin, who, after the restoration of Charles II. was replaced by the court of claims in as much of the lands as could be found to have been his ancestor’s. Hugolin, however, attached himself to the cause of James II. and after the Revolution was outlawed for treason and rebellion. Some time after, his cousin William, son of Svlvanus, became a suitor for the forfeited property, and recovered it by the interest of Mr. Montague, afterwards earl of Halifax, who was then at the head of the Treasury. He had been introduced to. Mr. Montague by Congreve, who, with others, was desirous of honouring the descendant of so great a poet. Dr. Birch describes him as a man somewhat advanced in years, but unable to give any account of the works of his ancestor which are wanting. The family has been since very imperfectly traced.

It remains to be observed, almost in the words of Mr. Todd, that Spenser is the author of four Sonnets, which are admitted into the late editions of his works, of which three are prefixed to separate publications, and the fourth occurs in letters by his friend Harvey. He is conjectured to be the author of a sonnet signed E. S. addressed to Master Henry Peacham, and entitled “A Vision upon his Minerva,” and of some poor verses on Phiilis, in a publication called “Chorus Poetarum,” 1684. The verses on queen Elizabeth’s picture at Kensington have been likewise given to Spenser, hut lord Orford ascribes them to the queen herself. As “Britain’s Ida” iias been usually printed with the works of Spcenser, it is still retained, although the critics are agreed that it was not written by him. The lost pieces of Spenser are said to be, 1. His translation of Ecclesiasticus. 2. Translation of Canticum Canticorum. 3. The Dying Pelican. 4. The hours of our Lord. 5. The Sacrifice of a Sinner. 6. The Seven Psalms. 7. Dreams. 8. The English Poet. 9. Legends. 10. The Court of Cupid. 11. The Hell of Lovers. 12. His Purgatory. 13 A Se'nnight’s Slumber. 14. Pageants. 15. Nine Comedies. 16. Stemmata Dudleiana. 17. Epithalamion Thamesis. If his pen was thus prolific, there is very little reason to suppose that he might not have had leisure and industry to have nearly completed his “Faerie Queene,” before the fatal rebellion which terminated all his labours.

Of the personal character of Spenser, if we may be allowed to form an opinion from his writings, it will be highly favourable. With a few exceptions, their uniform tendency is in favour of piety and virtue. His religious sentiments assimilate so closely with those of the early reformers, that we may conjecture he had not only studied the controversies of his age, but was a man of devotional temper and affections.

Hume was among the first who endeavoured to depreciate the value of the “Faerie Queene,” by asserting that the perusal of it was rather a task than a pleasure, and challenging any individual to deny this. Pope and lord Somers are two who might have accepted the challenge with hope of success. But in fact Spenser will not lose much if we admit the assertion. That the perusal of the Faerie Queene must be at first a task, and a very irksome one, will be confessed by all who are unacquainted with any English words but what are current. If that difficulty be surmounted, the reader of taste cannot fail to relish the beauties so profusely scattered in this poem. With respect to the objections that have been made to the allegorical plan, it is sufficient to refer to its antiquity; it was one of the earliest vehicles of pleasure blended with instruction, and although modern critics object to a continued allegory, which indeed it is extremely difficult to accomplish without falling into inconsistencies, yet specimens of it, detached personifications, aiming at the sublimity of Spenser, still continue to be among the efforts by which our best writers wish to establish their fame. Perhaps the same remark may be extended to the stanza of Spenser, which critics have censured, and poets, praised by those critics, have imitated. After all it is to the language of Spenser that we must look for the reason why his popularity is less than that of many inferior poets. Spenser, Chaucer, and indeed all the early poets can be relished, not by common readers, but by students, and not separately but as connected with times, characters, and manners, the illustration of which demands the skill and industry of the antiquary.

, an Italian scholar of great eminence in the sixteenth century, was born at Padua April 12, 1500, of noble parents. After finishing his studies at Bologna, under the celebrated Pomponatius, he returned to Padua, and took a doctor’s degree in philosophy and medicine. He also was made professor of logic, and afterwards of philosophy in general; but soon after he had obtained the chair of philosophy, he was so diffident of his acquirements that he returned to Padua for farther improvement under his old master, and did not return to hi% professorship until after the death of Pomponatius. In 1528, however, the death of his father obliged him to resign his office, and employ his time on domestic affairs. Yet these, a marriage which he now contracted, the lawsuits which he had to carry on, and some honourable employments he was engaged in by^the government, did not prevent him from cultivating his literary talents with such success, that there were few men in his time who could be compared with him in point of learning, eloquence, and taste. In 1560 he was deputed to go to Rome by the duke of Urbino, under the pontificate of Pius IV. and there obtained the esteem of the learned of that metropolis, and received marks of high favour from the pope and his nephew Charles Borromeo, who invited him to those literary assemblies in his palace, which were called “Vatican nights.” On his departure, after four years residence, the pope gave him the title and decorations of a knight. When he returned home he was equally honoured by the dukes of Urbino and Ferrara, but certain lawsuits, arising from his family affairs, induced him to remove again to Rome, about the end of 1573, and he did not return until five years after, when he took up his final residence at Padua. He had flattering invitations to quit his native city from various princes, but a private life had now more charms for him. He died June 12, 1588, having completed his eighty- eighth year. His funeral was performed with every circumstance of respect and magnificence. His works form no less than 5 vols. 4to, elegantly printed at Venice in 1740; but there had been editions of individual parts printed and reprinted often in his life-time. His range of study was extensive. He was equally conversant in Greek and Latin, sacred and profane literature, and displayed on every subject which employed his pen, great learning and judgment. Among his works, are dialogues on morals, the belles lettres, rhetoric, poetry and history. He wrote also both serious and burlesque poetry. His prose style is among the best of his age, and has fewer faults than arc to be found among the Italian writers o! the sixteenth century. He wrote a tragedy, “Canace et Macareus,” which had its admirers and its critics, and occasioned a controversy on its merits.

, an eminent medical writer, was born at Brussels in 1578, and studied at Louvain and Padua. He was afterwards appointed state-physician in Moravia, which, in 1616, he quitted for the professorship of anatomy and surgery at Padua. There he acquired a high refutation, was made a knight of St. Mark, and decorated with a collar of gold. He died April 7, 1625. His most valuable works are “De formato Fosiu, liber singularis” and “De Humani Cor­ poris Fabrica,” fol. It appears from the collected edition of his works by Vander Linden, 1645, 2 vols. fol. that he was well acquainted with every branch of the medical science.

, an eminent nonjuving divine, was the son of the rev. Edward, or Edmund Spinckes, rector of Castor, Northamptonshire, and was born there in 1653 or 1654. His father came from New Kngland with Dr. Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, and, being a nonconformist, had been ejected from Castor and from Overton Longviil in Huntingdonshire. His mother, Martha, was daughter of Thomas Elmes, of Lilford in Huntingdonshire. After being initiated in classical learning under Mr. Samuel Morton, rector of Haddon, he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, under Mr. Bainbrigg, March 22, 1670; and matriculated on July 9, the same year. In the following year, by the death of his father, he obtained a plentiful fortune, and a valuable library; and, on the 12th of October, 1672, tempted by the prospect of a Rustat scholarship, he entered himself of Jesus- college, where, in nine days, he was admitted a probationer, and May 20, 1673, sworn a scholar on the Iiustat foundation. “This,” Mr. T. Baker observes in the registers, “was for his honour; for the scholars of that foundation undergo a very strict examination, and afterwards are probationers for a year. And as these scholarships are the best, so the scholars are commonly the best in college, and so reputed.” He became B. A. early in 1674; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; was M. A. in 1677; and admitted into priest’s orders Dec. 22, 1678. After residing some time in Devonshire, as chaplain to sir Richard Edgcomb, he removed to Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr. Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St. Stephen’s Waibrook, London, where he continued two years, curate and lecturer. In 1685 the dean and chapter of Peterborough conferred on him the rectory of Peakirk or Peaking cum Glynton, in Northamptonshire, where he married Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Rutland, citizen of London. On July 21, 1687, he was made a prebendary of Salisbury; in the same year, Sept. 24, instituted to the rectory of St. Mary, in that town; and three days after, was licensed to preach at Stratford subter Castrum, or Mid en -castle, in Wilts, for which he had an annual stipend of 80l. Being decided in his attachment to the Stuart family, he was deprived of all his preferments in 1690, for refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary. He was, after this period, in low circumstances, but was supported by the benefactions of the more wealthy ftonjurors; and on the third of June, 1713, he was consecrated one of their bishops, receiving that title from the hands of Dr. Hickes. He died July 28, 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of the parish of St. Faith, on the north side of St. Paul’s, London, where an inscription is engraven on a white marble stone. By his wife, who lived but seven days after him, he had many children, of whom two survived their parents: William Spinckes, esq. who, by industry and abilities, acquired a plentiful fortune; and Anne, married to Anthony Cope, esq. Mr. Nelson was the particular friend of Mr. Spinckes, who was a proficient in the Greek, Saxon, and French languages, and had made some progress in the oriental. He is said to have been “low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in the faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon learning and superior judgment; and his exemplary life was concluded with a happy death. His patience was great; his self-denial greater; his charity still greater; though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of thirty-nine years.”. He assisted in the publication of Grabe’s Septuagint, Newcourt’s Repertorium, Howell’s Canons, Potter’s Clemens Alexandrinus, and Walker’s “Sufferings of the Clergy.” His own works were chiefly controversial, as, 1. An answer to “The Essay towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, &c.” 1705. 2. “The new Pretenders to Prophecy re-examined, &c.” 1710. 3. Two pamphlets against HoadJy’s “Measures of Submission,” 1711 and 1712. 4. Two pamphlets on “The Case stated between the church of Rome and the church of England,” as to supremacy, 1714 and 1718. 5. Two pamphlets against “Restoring the prayers and directions of Edward Vlth’s Liturgy,” 1718, &c. &c. His most popular work was “The Sick Man visited, &c.” 1712. A portrait of him, by Vertue, from a painting by Wollaston, is prefixed to this work, of which a sixth edition was published in 1775, containing a short account of his life, and an accurate list of his publications.

, an Italian painter of portrait and history, was born at Arezzo in 1328. His genius for painting was early developed, and he studied under Jacopo di Casentino, whom, at the age of twenty, he greatly surpassed. He gave a singular grace to his figures, and to his Madonnas especially, a modesty and beauty that seemed almost divine. His style was simple and elegant, with the utmost neatness in finishing The greatness of his abilities procured him an early fame, and a constant abundance of employment. He was particularly successful in the portraits of the popes Innocent IV. and Gregory IX. and in his fresco paintings on the life of the Blessed Virgin, in the chapel of S. Maria Maggiore, at Florence. He lived to the age of ninety-two, and died in 1420.

, his son, was educated under him, and was also famous as a painter, but applying too closely to his art, and being of a gloomy disposition, contracted a disorder which shortened his life, so that he died at fiftysix, having survived his father only two years. To him, not to hi;> father, must belong the anecdote which is related in some books, without proper distinction of the person, that having painted a hideous figure of the devil, in a picture representing the fallen angels, his imagination was so haunted by it, that he thought he saw him in his dreams, demanding in a threatening manner, on what authority he had represented him as so horrible, and where he had ever seen him? This is no more than might easily happen to a mind already tinctured with morbid melancholy, and would naturally tend to confirm the malady. His style very much resembled that of his father, but was rather more extravagant.

, an atheistical philosopher, was the son of a merchant, who was originally a Portuguese; and was born at Amsterdam about 1633. He learned Latin of a physician, who taught it at Amsterdam; and who is supposed to have been but loose in the principles of religion. He also studied divinity for many years; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to philosophy. He was a Jew by birth; but soon began to dislike the doctrine of the Rabbins; and discovered this dislike to the synagogue. It is said that the Jews offered to tolerate him, provided he would comply outwardly with their ceremonies, and even promised him a yearly pension, being unwilling to lose a man who was capable of doing such credit to their profession; but he could not comply, and by degrees left their synagogue; and was excommunicated. Afterwards he professed to be a Christian, and not only went himself to the churches of the Calvin i>t., or Lutherans, but likewise frequently exhorted others to go, and greatly recommended some particular preachers. His tirst apostacy was to Mennonism, on embracing which, he exchanged his original name, Baruch, for that of Benedict. He removed from Amsterdam, whither he had gone to avoid the Jews, to the Hague, where he subsisted as an optical-instrument-maker, and led a frugal and retired life, the leisure of which he devoted to study. While known only as a deserter from Judaism, he was invited by the elector Palatine to fill the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg; but from an apprehension that his liberty would, in that situation, be abridged, he declined the proposal. He lived in retirement, with great sobriety and decency of manners, till a consumption brought him to an early end, in 1677.

Spinoza, in his life-time, published “Tractatus theologico-politicus,” “A Treatise theological and political,” which was reckoned his great work; and after his death were published five treatises: 1. Ethics demonstrated geometrically. 2. Politics. 3. On the Improvement of the Understanding. 4. Epistles and Answers. 5. A Hebrew Grammar. The impieties contained in these treatises excited general indignation; and refutations were sent forth from various quarters, by writers of all religious persuasions, in which the empty sophisms, the equivocal definitions, the false reasonings, and all the absurdities of the writings of Spinoza are fully exposed. The sum of his doctrine, according to Brucker, is this: The essence of substance, is to exist. There is in naaire only one substance, with two modifications, thought and extension. This substance is infinitely diversified, having within its own essence the necessary causes of the changes through which it passes. No substance can be supposed‘ td’ produce or create another; therefore, besides the substance of the universe there can be no other, but all things are comprehended in it, and are modes of this substance, either thinking or extended. This one universal substance, Spinoza calls God, and ascribes to it divine attributes. He expressly asserts, that God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. His doctrine is, therefore, not to be confounded with that of those ancient philosophers, who held God to be To Trar, “The Universal Whole;” lor, according to them, the visible and intellectual worlds are produced by emanation from the eternal fountain of divinity; that is, by an expanding, or unfolding, of the divine nature, which was the effect of intelligence and design; whereas, in the system of Spinoza, all things are immanent, and necessary modifications of one universal substance, which, to conceal his atheism, he calls God. Nor can Spinozism be with any propriety derived, as some have imagined, from the Cartesian philosophy; for, in that system, two distinct substances are supposed; and the existence of Deity is a fundamental principle.

It may seem very surprising, that a man who certainly was not destitute of discernment, abilities, and learning, should have fallen into such impieties. And this could not have happened, had he not confounded his conceptions with subtle and futile distinctions concerning the nature of substance, essence, and existence, and neglected to attend to the obvious, but irrefragable, argument for the existence of God, arising from the appearances of intelligence and design in all the productions of nature.

The impious system of Spinoza was maintained with so much ingenuity, that it found many patrons in the United Provinces, among whom were Lewis Meyer, who republished Spinoza’s works, and himself wrote a work entitled, “Philosophy the Interpreter of Scripture” and Van Leenhof, an ecclesiastic of Zwoll, who wrote a piece entitled “Heaven in Earth,” of the doctrine of which he was obliged to make a public recantation. Others, under the pretence of refuting Spinoza, secretly favoured his system. But, against the poison of their impious tenets sufficient antidotes were soon provided by many able defenders of religion, whose writings are well known, particularly in Cudwortb’s “Intellectual System,” the professed object of which is, the refutation of atheism. In this country Spinoza does not appear to have had many followers. Few have been suspected of adhering to his doctrine; and among those who have been suspected, few have studied it: to which we may add, with Bayle, that of those who have studied it few have understood it. Toland seems to have approached the nearest to his system of any modern freethinker: and indeed the doctrines inculcated in his “Pantheisticon,” are much the same with those of Spinoza. Abroad, a German professor, E. G. Paulns, of Je;ia, lias lately attempted to revive the memory, at le;':-.t, of Spinoza, by a new edition of his works published in 1302; and at the Hague, was edited, about the same time, by C. T. de Murr, a manuscript of Spinoza’s, never before printed, containing annotations on his “Tractatum theologico-politicum.”

, a learned Lutheran divine, descended from a grandfather who had been ennobled by the emperor Ferdinand II. was born Sept. 11, 1639. His father dying when he was about seven years of age, the care of him devolved on a mother whose affection repaired that loss. In 1654 he began his academical studies at Leipsic, and was honoured with the degree of M. A. in 1658. He afterwards, as was much the custom in those days with men destined for literarylife, visited other eminent schools or colleges, at Wittemberg, Leyden, Cologne, Mentz, &c. and lastly Basil, where he formed a friendship with John Buxtorf. He had not quite completed his intended excursions, when in 1661 he was recalled to Augsburgh, to be deacon of the church of St. James. This office he filled until 1682, when he was made pastor of the same church, and iti 1690 was appointed elder. This, however, he did not long enjoy, as he died Jan. 7, 1691, in the fifty-second year of his age. He was a laborious student, and seems particularly to have studied literary history and biography, and his works on these subjects are noticed with respect by Morhoff, whose opinion, we confess, we are inclined to prefer to that of either Moreri or Baillet. He wrote some few books against infidelity, and some sermons: but among those of the classes we have mentioned, are, 1. “De re literaria Sinensinm commentarius,” Leyden, 16*60, 12mo. 2. “Sacra Bibliothecarum illustrium arcana retecta, sive Mss. theologicorum, in præcipuis Europie bibliothecis extantium de^signatio cum preliminari dissertatione, speciniine Uovib Bibliotbecae un'iversalis, et coronide philologica,” Augsburgh, 1668, 8vo. 3. “Templum honoris reseratum, in quo quinquagVnta illustrium hujus at-vi orthodoxorum theologarum, pbilologorumque imagines exhibentur,” ibid. 1673, 4to. It has beeu objected to these lives, which are accompanied with weltengraven portraits, that the author deals too much in generalities, and too little in facts; but this was a common fault with the early biographers. On the other hand, we have found him very correct in what he has given, and particularly in the lists of the works of the respective authors. 4. “Felix Litteratus,” ibid. 1673, “Infelix Litteratus,” ibid. 1630, and “Litteratus felicissimus,” are three works which Spizelius wrote on a subject that has lately engaged theingeniouspen of Mr. D'Israeli, in the “Calamities of Authors.” Mr. D‘Israeli blames our author’s ponderosity, but allows that he is not to be condemned because he is verbose and heavy; and he has reflected more deeply than Valerianus, his predecessor on the subject, by opening the moral causes of those calamities which he describes. Spizelius wrote a life of himself under the title of; ’ Ad Litteratos homines autor felicis, infelicis, felicissimique litterati de seipso.“We know not whether this was printed separately, but it was inserted in Pipping’s collection, entitled” Sacer decadum Septenarius memoriam Theologorum nostrae setatis renovatam exhibens," Leipsic, 1705, 8vo, a work which we have not seen.

, a learned Frenchman, was the son of a merchant, and born at Lyons Dec. 25, 1609. He. was sent early to learn Latin, at Ulm in Germany, whence- his grandfather had removed for the sake of settling in commerce, and he made a proficiency suitable to his uncommon parts. He gained some reputation by a Latin poem on the deluge and last conflagration, composed by him at fourteen, which Bayle says would have done honour to an adult. At his return from Germany, he was sent to Paris; and studied philosophy under Rodon, and mathematics and astronomy under John Baptist Morin. From 1627, he applied himself to medicine for three or four years; and quitting Paris in 1632, went to Montpellier, where he was . received a doctor in that faculty. Two years after, he was admitted a member of the college of physic at Lyons: at which place be practised with great success in his profession, till the time of his death. He was made, in 1645, a kind of honorary physician to the king. He maintained a correspondence with all the learned of Europe, and especially with Guy Patin, professor of physic at Paris: above 150 of whose letters to Spon were published after his death. He was perfectly skilled in the Greek language, and understood the German as well as his own. He always cultivated his talent for Latin poetry, and even versified the aphorisms of Hippocrates, but did not publish them. He published, however, in 1661, the prognostics of Hippocrates in hexameter verse, which he entitled “Sibylla Medica;” and dedicated them to his friend Guy Patin. He was a benefactor to the republic of letters, by occasioning many productions of less opulent authors to be published at Lyons, under his inspection and care. He died Feb. 21, 16S4, after an illness of about two months.

, son of the preceding, was born at Lyons in 1647. After an education of great care, he was admitted doctor of physic at Montpellier in 1667, and a member of the college of physicians at Lyons in 1669. These two years he spent at Strasburg with Boeder; and there becoming very intimate with Charles Patin, he contracted, probably from that gentleman, a strong passion for antiquities. Some time after, Vaillant, the king’s antiquary, passing through Lyons to Italy in quest of medals and other antiquities, Spon accompanied him. He afterwards, in 1675 amj 1676, made a voyage to Dalmatia, Greece, and the Levant, in company with Mr. (afterwards sir) George Wheler (see Wheler); of all which places he has given us an account, which was published in English. Whether he was weak by constitution, or injured his health in this voyage, does not appear; but he afterwards became a valetudinarian. Being of the reformed religion, he was obliged to emigrate in 1685, when the edict of Nantes was revoked. He intended to retire to Zurich, the freedom of which city had been bestowed in an honorary manner upon his father, and was upon the road thither; but wintering at Vevay, a town upon the lake Leman, he died there in 1686. He was a member of the academy of the Ricovrati at Padua; of that of the Beaux Esprits, esublishevi Nismes by letters patent in 1682 and he would have b; an ornament to any society, being a man of great learnir, and integrity.

He was the author of many valuable and curious works, printed at Lyons, the principal of which are: 1. “Ilecherches des Antiquitez de Lyon,” I 674, 8vo. '2. “Ignotorum atque obscurorum Deorum arae,” 1677, 8vo. 3. “Voyage de la Grece & du Levant,” 1677, in 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “Histoire de la Vilie & de l'Etat de Geneva,” 1630, in 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Lettre an P. la Chaise sur I'Antiquite de la Religion,” in li'tno; answered by Mr. Arnaud, but often reprinted. 6. “Recherches curieuses d' Antiquite,” 16S3, 4to. 7. “Miscellanea erudite Antiquitatis,” 1679, and 1683, folio. Besides these, he published several works, not now in much repute, upon subjects relating to his own profession.

, a man of uncommon abilities and learning, was the sun of a counsellor and secretary to Jane d' Albert, queen of Navarre; and born at Maulcon de Soule in the country of Biscay in i He made a considerable progress in literature; and, when not more than twenty, began a commentary upon Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, winch was printed at Basil in 1583, fblie, with a dedication to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France. In this work, if there is not much noveky of critical discovery, there is more display of reading and learning than could have been expected in one so young. The same year, he printed an edition of Aristotle’s “Logic” at Basil, in Greek and Latin, with marginal notes. He abjured the reformed religion in 1593, and immediately published a declaration of his reasons, but does not appear to have enjoyed much comfort in his new communion. He left the court soon after his abjuration, and went to conceal himself in the mountains of Biscay; where he died March 18, 1595, and was buried at Bourdeaux. He is it-­presented as having spent this short life in much fatigue and misery.

, a younger brother of John de Sponde, was born Jan. 6, 1568, educated at Ortez where the reformed had a college, and where he distinguished himself early by his facility acquiring the Latin and Greek languages. Then he applied himself to the civil and canon law, and afterwards went to Tours, whither the parliament of Paris was transferred and here, his learning- and eloquence at the bar bringing him under the n Henry IV. then prince of

Beam, tie was made by him master of the requests at Navarre. In the mean time, he read with much eagerness the controversial works of Beiiarmine and Perron; and these made such an impression on him, that, after the example of his brother John, he embraced the popish religion, at Paris in 1505. In 1600, he went to Rome, where he took priest’s orders in 1606, and tiiat year returned to Paris; but some time after went again to Rome, and was employed in an official capacity by pope Paul V. who had a great esteem for him. The general respect indeed which he met with in Italy would have determined him to spend the remainder of his days there; but, in 1626, he was recalled into France, and made bishop of Pamiers by Louis XIII. He hesitated at first about accepting this bishopric; but pope Urban Viu. commanding him, he went and entered upon it in 1626. Soon after his installation, the duke of Rohan, who was commander of the protestants, took Pamiers, when Spondanus escaped by a breach in the walls; and the year after, when the town was retaken by the prince of Conde, received letters of congratulation upon his safety from Urban VIII. He quitted Pamiers in 1642, and went toToulonse; where he died May 16, 1643.

The knowledge he had of Baronius when he was in Italy, and the great friendship that always subsisted between them, suggested to him the design of abridging his “Annales Ecclesiastici.” This he did with Baronius’s consent; and not only abridged, but continued them from 1197, where Baronius left off, to 1640. Both the abridgment and continuation have been often reprinted. Spondanus published also, in folio, “Annaies Sacri a Mundi Creatione ad ejusdem Redemptionem;” and some other things of a small kind.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

In 1601, he attended Lodowick duke of Lenox as chaplain, in his embassy to the court of France, for confirm; the ancient amity between the two nations; and returned, in the ambassador’s retinue through England. In 1603, upon the accession of James to the throne of England, he was appointed, among other eminent persons, to attend his majesty into that kingdom; and, the same year, was advanced to the archbishopric of Glasgow, and made one of the privy council in Scotland. In 1610, he presided in the assembly at Glasgow and the same year, upon the king’s command, repaired to London about ecclesiastical affairs. He was so active in matters which concerned the recovery of the church of Scotland to episcopacy, that, during the course of his ministry, he is supposed to have made no less than fiftyjourneys to London, chiefly on thar. account. Having filled the see of Glasgow eleven years, he was translated in 1615 to that of St. Andrew’s; and thus

* His father, John Spotswood, one ers was one of the compiler;! of

of the reformers in Scotland, was born first “Boo':; of Discipline” and < i

how dangerous it was to profess them bishop, but without superiority of title,

openly, he went to England, and was or emolument. He died Dec.5, \5%^.

and fco-opcraU-il with the other reform- rev. Jamesr. ft gyo. became primate and metropolitan of all Scotland. The year following-, he presided in the assembly of Aberdeen: as he did likewise in other assemblies for restoring the ancient discipline, and bringing the church of Scotland to some degree of uniformity with that of England. He continued in high esteem with James I. during his whole reign; nor was he less valued by Charles I. who in 1633 was crowned by him in the abbey church of Holyrood-house. In 1635, he was made chancellor of Scotland; which post he had not held full four years, when the popular confusions obliged him to retire into England. Being broken with age and grief, and sickness, he went first to Newcastle; and continued there, till, by rest and the care of the physicians, he had recovered strength enough to travel to London; where he no sooner arrived, than he relapsed, and died in 1639. He was interred in Westminster abbey, and an inscription upon brass fixed over him. He married a daughter of David Lindsay, bishop of Ross; by whom he had several children. Sir Robert Spotsvvood, his second son, was eminent for his abilities and knowledge in the laws; was preferred by king James, and afterwards by king Charles; but was put to death for adhering to the marquis of Montrose. Clarendon calls him “a worthy, honest, loyal gentleman, and as wise a man as the Scottish nation had at that time.”

In 1655, was published at London, in folio, his “History of the Church of Scotland, beginning the year of our Lord 203, and continued to the end of the reign of king James VI.” In his dedication of this history to Charles I. dated Nov. 15, 1639, only eleven days before his death, he observes, that “there is not among men a greater help for the attaining unto wisdom, than is the reading of history. We call Experience a good mistress,” says he, “and so she is; but, as it is in our Scottish proverb, ‘ she seldom quits the cost.’ History is not so: it teacheth us at other men’s cost, and carrieth this advantage more, that in a few hours reading a man may gather more instructions out of the same, than twenty men living successively one after another can possibly learn by their own experience.” This history was begun at. the influence and command of king James, who, as already observed, had a high opinion of the author’s abilities. It is a work composed from scanty materials, but with great impartiality. There is throughout the whole an air of probity and candour, which is said to have been the peculiar character of the writer. Upon expressing a diffidence to king James about that part of it which relates to his mother, and which had been the stumbling-block of former historians, he replied, “Speak the truth, man, and spare not.” With regard to the archbishop’s political conduct and principles, historians have given very opposite accounts. We shall refer to two of the most recent and most candid.

, a German painter, was the son of a merchant, and born at Antwerp in 1546. He was brought up under variety of masters, and then went to Rome, where cardinal Farnese took him into his service, and afterwards recommended him to pope Pius V. He was employed at Belvidere, and spent thirty-eight months in drawing the picture of “The Day of Judgment;” which picture is said to be still ovtr that pope’s tomb. While he was working upon it, Vasari told his holiness that “whatever Sprangher did was so much time lost;” yet the pope commanded him to go on. After a great number of pictures done in several parts of Rome, he returned to Germany, and became chief painter to the emperor Maximilian II. and was so much respected by his successor Rodolphus, that he presented him with a gold chain and medal, allowed him a pension, honoured him and his posterity with the title of nobility, lodged him in his own palace, and would not suffer him to paint for any body but himself. After many years continuance in his court, he obtained leave to visit his own country; and accordingly went to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Haerlem, and several other places; and having had the satisfaction of seeing his own works highly admired, and his manner almost universally followed in all those parts, as well as in Germany, he returned to Prague, and died at a good old age, in 1623. Fuseli says that Sprangher may be considered as the head of that series of artists who, disgusted by the exility and minuteness of method then reigning in Germany, imported from the schools of Florence, Venice, and Lombardy, that mixed style which marks all the performances executed for the courts of Prague, Vienna, and Munich, bv himself, John ab Ach, Joseph Heinz, Christopher Schwartz, &c. Colour and breadth excepted, it was a style more conspicuous for Italian blemishes than beauties, and in design, expression, and composition, soon deviated to the most outrageous manner.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1636, at Tallaton in Devonshire, the son of a clergyman; and having been educated, as he tells of himself, not at Westminster or Eton, but at a little school by the church-yard side, became a commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, in 1651; and, being chosen scholar next year, proceeded through the usual academical course, and in 1657 became M. A. He obtained a fellowship, and commenced poet. In 1659, his poem on the death of Oliver was published, with those of Dryden and Waller. In his dedication to Dr. Wilkins he appears a very willing and liberal encomiast, both of the living and the dead. He implores his patron’s excuse of his verses, both as falling so “infinitely below the full and sublime genius of that excellent poet who made this way of writing free of our nation,” and being “so little equal and proportioned to the renown of the prince on whom they were written; such great actions and lives deserving to be the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies.” He proceeds “Having so long experienced your care and indulgence, and been formed, as it were, by your own hands, not to entitle you to any thing which my meanness produces, would be not only injustice but sacrilege.” He published the same year a poem on the “Plague of Athens;” a subject recommended to him doubtless by the great success of Lucretius in describing the same event. To these he added afterwards a poem on Cowley’s death. After the Restoration he took orders, and by Cowley’s recommendation was made chaplain to the witty and profligate duke of Buckingham, whom he is said to have helped in writing “The Rehearsal,” and who is said to have submitted all his works to his perusal . He was likewise chaplain to the king. As he was the favourite of Wilkins, at whose house began those philosophical conferences and inquiries which in time produced the royal society, he was consequently engaged in the same studies, and became one of the fellows and when, after their incorporation, something seemed necessary to reconcile the public to the new institution, he undertook to write its history, which he published in 1667. This is one of the few books which selection of sentiment and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory *. The “History of the Royal Society” is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat. They have certainly been since exhibited far better by Dr. Birch, and more recently by Dr. Thomson. In the next year he published “Observations on Sorbiere’s Voyage into England, in a letter to Mr. Wren.” This is a work not ill performed; but was rewarded with at least its full proportion of praise. In 1668 he published Cowley’s Latin poems, and prefixed in Latin the life of the author, which he afterwards amplified, and placed before Cowley’s English works, which were by will committed to his care. Ecclesiastical dignities now fell fast upon him. In 166S he became a prebendary of Westminster, and had afterwords the church o*f St. Margaret, adjoining to the abbey. He was in 1680 made canon of Windsor, in 1683 dean of Westminster, and in 1684 bishop of Rochester. The court having thus a claim to his diligence and gratitude, he was required to write the “History of the Rye-house Plot;” and in 1685 published “A true account and declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the present Government;” a performance which he thought convenient, after the revolution, to ex­* This work was attacked by Mr. ing betwixt H. and Dr. Merret;"

royal society, and an apology against More relating unto Henry Sttibbe, physome of their cavils. With- a post- sician at Warwick.“script concerning the quarrel dependtenuate and excuse. The same year, being clerk of the closet to the king, he was made dean of the chapel-royal; and the year afterwards received the last proof of his master’s confidence, by being appointed one of the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs. On the critical day, when the Declaration distinguished the true sons of the church of England, he stood neuter, and permitted it to be read at Westminster, but pressed none to violate his conscience; and, when the bishop of London was brought before them, gave his voice in his favour. Thus far he suffered interest or obedience to carry him; but farther he refused to go. When he found that the powers of the ecclesiastical commission were to be exercised against those who had refused the Declaration, he wrote to the lords, and other commissioners, a formal profession of his unwillingness to exercise that authority any longer, and withdrew himself from them. After they had read his letter, they adjourned for six months, and scarcely ever met afterwards. When king James was frighted away, and a new government was to be settled, Sprat was otxe of those who considered, in a conference, the great question, whether the crown was vacant, and manfully spoke in favour of his old master. He complied, however, with the new establishment, and was left unmolested; but, in 1692, a strange attack was made upon him by one Robert Young and Stephen Blackhead, both men convicted of infamous crimes, and both, when the scheme was laul, prisoners in Newgate. These men drew up an Association, in which they whose names were subscribed, declared their resolution to restore king James; to seize the princess of Orange, dead or alive; and to be ready with thirty thousand men to meet kingJam.es when he should land. To this they put the name of Sancroft, Sprat, Marlborough, Salisbury, and others. The copy of Dr. Sprat’s name was obtained by a fictitious request, to which an answer” in his own hand“was desired. His hand was copied so well, that he confessed it might have deceived himself. Blackhead, who had carried the letter, being sent again with a plausible message, was very curious to see the house, and particularly importunate to be let into the study; where, as is supposed, he designed to leave the Association. This, however, was denied him, and he dropt it in a flower-pot in the parlour. Young now laid an information before the privy-council; an.d May 7, 16.92, the bishop was arrested, and kept at a 01 essenger’s, under a strict guard, eleven days. His house was searched, and directions were given that the flower-pots should he inspected. The messengers, however, missed the room in which the paper was left. Blackhead went therefore a third time; and, rinding his paper where he had left it, brought it away. The bishop, having been enlarged, was, on June the 10th and I 3th, examined again before the privy-council, and confronted with his accusers. Young persisted with the most obdurate impudence, against the strongest evidence; but the resolution of Blackhead bydegrees gave way. There remained at last no doubt of the bishop’s innocence, who, with great prudence and diligence, traced the progress, and detected the characters of the two informers, and published an account of his own examination and deliverance; which made such an impression upon him, that he commemorated it through lii'e by a yearly day or thanksgiving. With what hope, or what interest, the villains had contrived an accusation which they must know themselves utterly unable to prove, was never discovered. After this, the bishop passed his days in the quiet exercise of his function. When the cause of Sacheverell put the public in commotion, he honestly appeared among the friends of the church. He lived to his seventyninth year, and died May 20, 1713. Burnet is not very favourable to his memory; but he and Burnet were old rivals. On some public occasion they both preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days an indecent custom: when the preacher touched any favourite topic in a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the like animating hum but he stretched out his hand to the congregation, and cried,” Peacf, peace, I pray you, pet;ci -.“” This,“says Dr. Johnson,” I was told in my youth by an old man, who had been no careless observer of the passages of those times.“”Burnet’s sermon,“says Salmon,” was remarkable for sedition, and Sprat’s for loyalty. Burnet had the thanks of the house; Sprat had no thanks, but a good living from the King; which,“he said,” was of as much value as the thanks of the Commons.“Sprat was much admired in his day for the elegance of his prose style, but that is not to be measured by the standard of modern times. In his political sentiments he changed so often, and so easily accommodated himself to the varied circumstances of the times in which he lived, that the praise of consistency cannot be given. Yet we have seen that on some occasions he stood almost alone in vindication of conduct which did him honour. The works of Sprat, besides his few poems, are, 2.” The History of the Royal Society.“3.” The Life of Cowley.“4.” The Answer to Sorbiere.“5.” The History of the Rye-house Plot.“6.” The relation of his own Examination.“And, 7. a volume of” Sermons.“Dr. Johnson says,” I have heard it observed, with great justness, that every book is of a different kind, and that each has its distinct and characteristical excellence.“In his poems he considered Cowley as a model; and supposed that as he was imitated, perfection was approached. Nothing therefore but Pindaric liberty was to be expected. There is in his few productions no want of such conceits as he thought excellent; and of those our judgment may be settled by the first that appears in his praise of Cromwell, where he says that Cromwell’s” fame, like man, will grow white as it grows old.“According to Spence, in his Anecdotes, Pope used to call Sprat” a worse Cowley."

, a learned divine, was the son of an apothecary, and was born at War minster, in Wiltshire, in 1714. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and took his degrees of B. A. in 1733, and M. A. in 1737. Soon after, Dr. Wynn, bishop -of Bath and Wells, appointed him his chaplain, and in 1739 gave him the chancellorship and a canonry of Weils, and afterwards collated him to the archdeaconry of Bath. In 1748 he was presented by the king to the rectory of Topsfield, in Essex; and, in 1749, when the duke of Newcastle (to whom he was chaplain, and private secretary *, as chancellor of the university) was installed chancellor of Cambridge, he preached one of the commencement sermons, and took the degree of D. D. In

“Dr. Squirt, apothecary toAhni Ma- man of Angola.” 1750 he was presented by archbishop Herring to the rectory of St. Anne, Westminster (then vacant by the death of Dr. Felling), being his grace’s option on the see of London, and for which he resigned his living of Topsfield in favour of a relation of the archbishop. Soon after, Dr. Squire was presented by the king to the vicarage of Greenwich in Kent; and, on the establishment of the household of the prince of Wales (his present majesty), he was appointed his royal highness’s clerk of the closet. In 1760 he was presented to the deanry of Bristol; and on the fast day of Feb. 13, 1761, preached a sermon before the House of Commons; which appeared of course in print. In that year (on the death of Dr. Ellis) he was advanced to the bishopric of St. David’s, the revenues of which were considerably advanced by him. He died, after a short illness, occasioned by his anxiety concerning the health of one of his sons, May 6, 1766. As a parish minister, even after his advancement to the mitre, he was most conscientiously diligent in the duties of his function; and as a prelate, in his frequent visits to his see (though he held it but five years), he sought out and promoted the friendless and deserving, in preference, frequently, to powerful recommendations, and exercised the hospitality of a Christian bishop. In private life, as a parent, husband, friend, and master, no man was more beloved, or more lamented. He was a fellow of the royal and antiquary societies, and a constant attendant upon both. He married one of the daughters of Mrs. Ardesoif, a widow lady of fortune (his parishioner), in Soho Square. Some verses to tier *' on making a pinbasket,“by Dr. (afterwards sir James) Marriott, are in the fourth volume of Dodsley’s collection. By her the bishop left two sons and a daughter, but she did not long survive him. A sermon, entitled” Mutual Knowledge in a future State," &c. was dedicated to her, with a just eulogium on his patron, by the unfortunate Dr. Dodd *, in 1766. Besides several single sermons on public occasions, bishop

nock,“expressive of gr it tudc- *.> hi; Adv.mc'd and snr.e,” fee. friendly patron. < >: p i'qiiiic, Squire published the following pieces: l. “An enquiry into the nature of the English Constitution; or, an historical essay on the Anglo-Saxon Government, both in Germany and England.” 2. “The ancient History of the Hebrews vindicated; or, remarks on the third volume of the Moral Philosopher,” under the name of F'iu-opiia.ies Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, 1741. This, Leland says, contains many solid and ingenious remarks 3. “Two Assays, I. A defence of the ancient Greek Chronology; II. An enquiry into the origin of the Greek Language,” Cambridge, 1741. 4. “Plutarchi de Iside et Osirid, 1 liber, Graece et Anglice; Grseca recensuit, emendavit, Com.Tieni-ariis auxit, Versionem novam Anglicanam adjecit Samuel Squire, A.M. Archidiaconus Bathoniensis; acces.serunt Xylandri, Baxteri, Bentleii, Marklandi, Conjecturae et Emendationes,” Cantab. 1744. 5. “An Essay on the Balance of Civil Power in England,” 174, 8vo, which was added to the second edition of the Enquiry, &c. in 1753. 6. “Indifference for Religion inexcusable, or, a serious, impartial, and practical review of the certainty, importance, and harmony of natural and revealed Religion,” London, 1748, again in 1759, 12mo. 7. “Remarks upon Mr. Carte’s specimen of the General History of England, very proper to be read by all such as are contributors to that great work,” 1748, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of Religion made easy to young persons, in a short and familiar Catechism. Dedicated to the late Prince Frederick,” London, 1763. 9. “A Letter to the right hon. the earl of Halifax on the Peace,” 1763, 8vo, by Dr. Dodd, received great assistance from bishop Squire. He also left in ms. a Saxon Grammar compiled by himself. A just and welldrawn character of archbishop Herring, one of his early patrons, was prefixed by bishop Squire to the archbishop’s “Seven Sermons.”

, known first by the name of mademoiselle de Launai, was thedaughter of a painter of Paris, who being obliged to quit the kingdom, left her exposed to poverty while yet a child. Chance occasioned her receiving a distinguished education in the priory of St. Louis, at Rouen; but on the death of the superior of that monastery, who was her friend, she was again reduced to extreme indigence, and finding no other resource, engaged herself as a waiting-woman to the duchess of Maine. Unfit, however, for the duties of such an office, she lived in obscurity and sorrow, till a singular event, in which she seemed totally unconcerned, made her known much to her honour. A beautiful young lady of Paris., named Tetard, was persuaded by her mother to counterfeit being possessed. All Pans flocked to see this pretended wonder, not excepting the court; and this becoming the universal topic of conversation, mademoiselle de Launai wrote a very witty letter on the- occasion to M, de Fontenelle, which was universally admired. The duchess having discovered the writer in the person of her waiting-woman, employed he:­from that time in all the entertainments given at Sceaux, and made her her confidant. M. de Launai wrote verses for some of the pieces acted at Sceaux, drew up the plans of others, and was consulted in all. She soon also acquired the esteem of mess, de Fontenelie, de Tourreii, de Valincourt, de Chaulieu, de Malezieu, and other persons of merit, who frequented the court. This lady was involved in the duchess of Maine’s disgrace, during the regency of the duke of Orleans, and confined in the Bastile near two years; but being set at liberty, the duchess married her to M. de Staal, lieutenant of the Swiss guards, afterwards captain and marechal de camp. It is said she had refused to marry the celebrated M. Dacier. She died in 1750, and some “Memoirs of her Life,” written by herself, were soon after published in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain nothing very important, but are very amusing, and very well written, their style being pure and elegant. A fourth volume has since appeared, consisting of two pleasing plays, one entitled L'Engouement, the other La Mode, which were acted at Sceaux.

, a learned and laborious divine, was born in 1680, but in what part of the kingdom, or where educated, is not knoun. Somewhat late in life he added the degree of A. M. to his name, but he does not c ccur in the lists of the Oxford or Cambridge graduates, and his right to the degree must have proceeded either from Lambeth, or some of the northern universities. He was some time minister of the English church at Amsterdam, and afterwards successively curate at Richmond, Ealmg, and Finchley, in all which places he was much respected. In 1733 he was presented to the vicarage of Benham Valence, alias Beenham, in Berkshire, where he died Oct. 11, 1752, aged seventy-two, and was buried in the parish church. A neat tablet is inscribed to his memory, intimating the support he gave to the cause or the Christian faith, and referring to his numerous works for a testimony of his merit.

The earliest of his publications, or at least the first which Brought him into notice was, l. “The miseries and great hardships of the Inferior Clergy in and about London; and a modest plea for their rights and better usage; in a letter to a right rev. prelate,” 1722, 8vo. 2. “Memoirs of' bishop Atterbury, from his birth to his banishment,” 1723, 8vo. 3. “A Funeral Sermon on the death of Dr. Brady,” 172G, 8vo. 4. “A complete body of Divinity,” 1729, folio. 5. “A fair state of the Controversy between Mr. Woolston: his adversaries containing the substance of what he asserts in his discourses against the literal sense of our blessed Saviour’s miracles; and what Bp. Gibson, Bp. Chandler, Bp. Smalbroke, Bp. Sherlock, Dr. Pearce, Mr. Ray, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Chandler, &c. have advanced against him,” 1730, 8vo. This, which Leland calls a <' clear account,“is not a mere; compilation, but shows the author intimately acquainted with the controversy, and fully able to strengthen the cause for which Woolston was opposed. As this work was soon out of print, he incorporated its principal contents in a larger volume, entitled, 6.” A Defence of the Christian Religion from the several objections or' Antiscripturists,“&c. 1731, 8vo. 7.” Reflections on the nature and property of Languages,“1731, 8vo. 8.” The Book-binder, Book-printer, and Book-seller confuted, or the Author’s vindication of himself from the calumnies in a paper industriously dispersed by one Edition. Together with some Observations on the History of the Bible, as it is at present published by the said Ediin. By the rev. Mr. Stackhouse, curate of Finchley,“17.'J2, 8vo. This v scarce pamphlet, of which but one copy is known (now in the curious collection of James Bindley, esq.) relates to a squabble Mr. Stackhouse had with Ediin (who appears to have been a mercenary bookseller of the lower order, and a petty tyrant over his poor authors), respecting Mr. Stackhouse’s” History of the Bible.“Stackhouse, however, engaged afterwards with more reputable men, and produced, 9. his” New History of the Bible, from the beginning of the world to the establishment of Christianity,“1732, 2 vols. folio. This has always been considered as a work of merit, and has been often reprinted the best edition is said to be that of 1752, of which the engravings are of a very superior cast to what are usually given in works published periodically. 10.” A Sermon on the 30th of January.“1736, 8vo. 11.” A Sermon on the Decalogue,“1743, 8vo. 12.” A new and practical Exposition oo the Creed,“1747, folio. 13.” Vana doctrinae emolumenta,“1752, 4to. This is a poem, and his last publication, in which he deplores his miserable condition in the language of disappointment and despair. Besides these, he had been, we know not at what period, the author of, 14.” An Abridgment of Burnet’s Own Times,“8vo. 15.” The art of Short- hand,“4to. 16.” A System of Practical Duties,“8vo. Long after his death, if they were not re-publications, appeared, under his name, a” Greek Grammar,“and” A general view of Ancient History, Chronology, and Geography, &c." 4to. There was a rev. Thomas Stackhouse, styled minister of St. Mary Magdalen at Bridgnorth in Shropshire, who communicated to the Royal Society som-e extracts from a topographical account of Bridgnorth (Phil. Trans, vol. XLIV.) but whether this was our author does not appear.

, a very eminent German chemist, was born in Franconia in 1660, and educated in the science of medicine, of which he was made professor in 1694, when the university of Hall was founded. His reputation, by means of his lectures, his publications, and the success of his practice, was soon very highly advanced: and in 1716 he was invited to Berlin, where he became physician to the king, and even a counsellor of state. He lived in great celebrity to the age of seventy-five, when he died, in 1734. As a chemist, Stahl was unrivalled in his day, and was the inventor of the doctrine of phlogiston, which, though it may yield to the newer theory of Lavoisier and the French chemists, was admitted by the best philosophers for nearly half a century. As a physician he bad some fancies, and was particularly remarkable for his doctrine of the absolute power of the soul over the body. He maintained that every muscular action, whether attended with consciousness or not, proceeds from a voluntary act of the mind. This theory he, as well as his folJowers, carried too far; but from it he derived many cautions of real importance to physicians, for attending to the state of the mind in every patient. His works are very numerous, but the principal of them are these, 1. “Experimenta et observationes Chemicae et Physicoe,” Berlin, 1731, 8vo. 2. “Dissertationes Medica,” Hall, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Theoria medica vera,“Hall, 1703, 4to. 4.” Opusculum chemico-physico-medicum,“Hall, 1715, 8vo. 5.” Thoughts on Sulphur,“Hall, 1718, 8vo, written in German. 6.” Negotium otiosum, seu skiamachia adversus positiones aliquas fundamentales Theorise verae Medicina?, a viro quodam celeberrimo intenta, sed enervata,“Hall, 1720, 4to. Here he chiefly defends his theory of the soul’s action on the body. 7.” Fundamenta chymiae,“Norimb. 1723, 4to. 8. A treatise in German,” On Salts,“Hall, 1723, 8vo. He was also deeply skilled in metallurgy, and wrote, 9.” Commentarium in Metallurgiam Beccheri,“1723, and 10.” Instructions on Metallurgy," in German, Leipsic, 1720, 8vo.

, a brave naval officer in the seventeenth century, was commander of a ship of war during the protectorate of Cromwell, and distinguished himself by some actions of singular gallantry. In 1G56, having three frigates under his command, he fell in with the Spanish flota, consisting of eight sail; notwithstanding the disproportion of numbers, he attacked them, and with such success, that in the space of a few hours he burnt one, sunk a second, captured two, and drove two others on shore. The treasure on board of his prizes amounted to 600,000l. sterling. The next year, in company with admiral Blake, who had the chief command, he attacked and destroyed the Spanish flota in the bay of Santa Cruz; “an act so miraculous,” says Clarendon, “that all who knew the place wondered how any men, with what courage soever endued, could have undertaken it; indeed, they could hardly persuade themselves to believe what they had done; whilst the Spaniards comforted themselves with the belief that they were devils, and not men, who had destroyed their ships.” For his share in this gallant exploit, captain Stainer was knighted by Cromwell at Whitehall, June 11, 1657; and soon afterwards made a vice-admiral. Sir Richard Stainer was one of the commanders who went with admiral Montague to bring over Charles II. He was knighted by the king, and made rear-admiral of the fleet, but did not long enjoy his honours, as his death took place in Nov. 1662. He was buried at Greenwich, where his lady died the preceding year. Leaving no issue, he bequeathed his large property to his brother, who, by involving himself in a law suit with the salt-company at Droitwich, lost the greater part of his fortune, and grew distressed. His son, the nephew and representative of the gallant sir Richard Stainer, was a few years ago in a workhouse at Birmingham.

, an eminent schoolmaster, was born at Heyford in Northamptonshire, probably about the middle of the fifteenth century, and was educated at Winchester-school. From this he was sent to New college, Oxford, and in 1481 admitted perpetual fellow. About 1486, being then B. A. he was appointed first usher of the free-school adjoining Magdalen college, and succeeded John Anwykyll, as chief master. As a teacher he became very eminent, and produced some scholars afterwards much celebrated in the world. He was yet more useful to future generations by the elementary books which he published, and which were soon introduced in most of the principal schools of that time, by which, says Wood, “the Latin tongue was much refined and amended.” His enthusiasm for the interests of his school seems to have got the better of prudential considerations, as, according to Wood, “when in his old age he should have withdrawn himself from his profession, and have lived upon what he had gotten in his younger years, he refused it, lived poor and bare to the last, yet with a juvenile and cheerful spirit.” His life extended beyond 1522, but the precise time of his death is not known.

, dean of Canterbury, a divine of eminent talents and personal worth, was born March 5, 1660, at Hertishorn in the county of Derby. Of this parish his father, the rev. Thomas Stanhope, was rector, as well as vicar of St. Margaret in the town of Leicester, and chaplain to the earls of Chesterfield and Clare. His mother, whose name was Allestree, was of an ancient family in Derbyshire. His grandfather, Dr. George Stanhope, precentor of York, and rector of Wheldrake in that county, was one of those persecuted ecclesiastics who, for their loyalty to Charles I. experienced the greatest distress; he was dispossessed of his preferments, and (as dean Stanhope told Mr. Walker himself) was driven to the doors with eleven children, and died in 1644.

Mr. Stanhope received the first rudiments of education at the school of Uppingham. in the county of Rutland, whence he was removed to that of Leicester, and again to that of Eton, from which he was elected on the foundation at King’s college in 1677. In his youth he had displayed the most promising abilities; and at the university he enriched his mind with that valuable stock of learning, which he afterwards so judiciously employed. Of the French, as well as of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, he acquired a critical knowledge. He took the degree of B. A. in 1681, and that of M. A. in 1685. He entered into holy orders, but did not immediately leave the university. He officiated first at the church of Quoi near Cambridge, and in 1688 was vice-proctor of the university. In the same year he was preferred to the rectory of Tewing in the county of Hertford; and in 1689 to the vicarage of Lewisham in Kent. The latter benefice he owed to the kindness of lord Dartmouth, to whom he was chaplain, and to whose son he had been tutor. He was soon after appointed chaplain in ordinary to king William and queen Mary; and he enjoyed the same honour under queen Anne.

In July 1697 he took the degree of D. D. the exercises for which he performed publicly, and with great applause. On the preceding Sunday he preached the commencement sermon, in which he stated the perfection, and argued the sufficiency, of Scripture, and gave an eminent display of his eloquence and talents. In 1701 he was appointed preacher at the lecture founded by the hon. Mr. Boyle, when he acquitted himself as an admirable defender of the cause which the benefactor intended to promote, by asserting, in sixteen sermons, the “Truth and Excellency of the Christian Religion against Jews, Infidels, and Heretics.” In 1703, he was presented to the vicarage of Deptford in Kent, on which he relinquished the rectory of Tewing, and held Lewisham and Deptford by dispensation. In this year also he was promoted, on the translation of bishop Hooper to the see of Bath and Wells, to the deanery of Canterbury; in which he was installed March 23, 1704. He was now also Tuesday lecturer at the church of St. Lawrence Jewry; in which appointment, as well as in the deanery, he was no mean successor to Tillotson and Sharp. This lecture, indeed, had long been supplied by eminent divines; and was considered as a very honourable appointment. He continued to maintain its reputation, and advance his own, till 1708, when he resigned the office, and was succeeded by Dr, Moss.

At the convocation of the clergy in October 1705, he preached the Latin sermon in St. Paul’s cathedral, and was at the same time proposed, with Dr. Binckes, to fill the prolocutor’s chair; but the majority declared for the latter. In Feb. 1713-14, however, he was elected to that office, and was twice afterwards re-chosen. In 1717, when the fierce spirit of controversy raged in the convocation, he checked the Bangorian champion, archdeacon Edward Tenison, in his observations, by reading the schedule of prorogation. The archdeacon, however, not content only to protest against the proceedings of the House, entered into a controversy with the prolocutor himself. In the following year a correspondence commenced between the dean and his diocesan bishop Atterbury, on the increasing neglect of public baptisms; from which it appears, that Stanhope had “long discouraged private baptisms,” and that the prelate expressed himself obliged to him for his attention in this respect, as also for his constant choice of worthy curates. After having lived an example, even from his youth upwards, of cheerful and unaffected piety, he died, universally lamented, at Bath, March 18, 1728, aged sixty-eight.

The mild and friendly temper of dean Stanhope rendered him the delight of all. To the misfortunes of others he was remarkably attentive, and that concern which he expressed, conveyed at once consolation to the heart, and improvement to the understanding. His care as a parish priest, and as a dean, was exemplary. That advice which he gave to others, was the rule of his own practice. In an excellent letter from him to a young clergyman, printed in the Gent. Mag. 1792, he says, “You will do well to demean yourself in all the offices of your function, that people may think you are in very good earnest, and so to order your whole conversation *, that they may be sure you are so.” While he benefited mankind, as a writer, he was no less edifying as a preacher. To a plain and clear style he added the most becoming action, and his manner was peculiarly his own. In his will, among other benevolent legacies, he left the sum of 250l. to found an exhibition for a king’s scholar of Canterbury school. He had been twice married, first to Olivia, daughter of Charles Cotton of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. by whom he had one sun and five daughters; and secondly to Miss Parker, half-sister of sir Charles Wager, who survived him, dying in 1730, aged about fifty-four. He was buried in the church of Lewisham, where is a memorial on a grave-stone, within the rails of the communion-table.

Dean Stanhope’s literary labours succeeded each other in the following order: 1. His translation of“Thomas a Kempis De Imitatione Christi,” 1696, 8vo. Dean Stanhope was himself somewhat of an ascetic. 2. A translation

4< Connoisseur,“informs us that,” in repeated the words bottle and glass, inhis younger days, when he was chap- stead of the usual expletives of God,

together, after they had been very regiment has escaped all his biograin this kind of rhetoric so na- phers. of “Charron on Wisdom,” 1697, 3 vols. 8vo*. 3. “The Meditations of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,” translated, with Dacier’s notes and Life of the emperor, 1699, 4to. 4. “Sermons upon several occasions,” fifteen in number, with a scheme, in the preface, of the author’s general design, 1700, 8vo. 5. In the same year, a translation of “Epictetus,” with the commentary of Simplicius, 8vo. 6. “Paraphrase on the Epistles and Gospels,” 1705, 4 vols. 8vo. This is the work by which his memory is- still preserved. 7. “The truth and excellence of the Christian Religion asserted, against Jews, infidels, and heretics; in sixteen sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures,” 1706, 4to, repnblished in 1739, folio. 8. “Rochefoucault’s Maxims,” translated, 1706, 8vo. 9. An edition, being the fourth, of “Parsons’s Christian Directory,” 1716, 8vo, put into more modern language. 10. “St. Augustin’s Meditations,” a free version, executed with spirit and success, 1720, 8vo. 11. “A Funeral Sermon on Mr. Richard Sayer, bookseller,” 1724, 4to. This was so highly approved, that it went through two editions within the year. 12. “Twelve Sermons, on several occasions,” 1727, 8vo. 13. “The grounds and principles of the Christian Religion,” translated by Wanley from Ostervald, and revised by Dr. Stanhope. 14. Several Sermons on particular occasions between 1692 and 1724. 15. “A posthumous work, being a translation from the Greek devotions of Dr, Lancelot Andrews,” 1730, athin 8vo. Bishop Andrews was, in some degree, the model which he chose to imitate.

, was descended from an ancient and honourable family of that name, which flourished for many ages in the county of Nottingham, and was son of Alexander Stanhope, esq. by Catharine his wife, daughter of Arnold Bnrghill, of Thinge-hill Parva, Herefordshire, esq. He was born in 1673. His father, who was very instrumental in the revolution in 1688, being in the beginning of king William’s reign sent envoy extraordinary to the court of Spain, Mr. Stanhope accompanied

strange,“says Dr. Warton in his notes Rocbefoucault.” him thither; which gave him an opportunity of gaining an accurate knowledge of the laws and customs of that country. He continued there some years, and thence made a tour to France, Italy, and other parts, where he made it his study to become acquainted with the laws and the constitutions, as well as the languages, of those places. He afterwards went into the confederate army in Flanders, where he served as a volunteer; and at the famous siege of Namur in 1695 distinguished himself to such advantage, that king William gave him a company of foot, and soon after a colonel’s commission. Though he was but young, being then about two and twenty years old, he had free access to that king, for whom he had always the highest reverence. In the first parliament of queen Anne he was chosen representative for the borough of Cockermouth in Cumberland, as he was likewise in the succeeding parliament, summoned to meet at Westminster June the 14th, 1705; in the beginning of which year he was promoted to the rank of brigadier- general, and gained great reputation in Spain under the earl of Peterborough at the siege of Barcelona, which surrendered to the allies October the 9tb, 1705. Immediately after the reduction of that place, the earl dispatched captain Norris express to England, on board the Canterbury man of war; in which ship brigadier Stanhope and the lord Shannon embarked likewise, and on the 22d of November 1705 arrived at St. Helen’s. Soon after brigadier Stanhope waited on her majesty, and delivered to her several letters, particularly one from the king of Spain, now emperor of Germany, which has this passage “I owe the same justice to your brigadier-general Stanhope upon account of his great zeal, attention, and most prudent conduct, of which he has given me proofs on all manner of occasions.” Towards the close of the first session of the new parliament he returned to Spain, and his presence was extremely acceptable to his catholic majesty. In the beginning of 1708, when a French invasion in favour of the Pretender was expected, brigadier Stanhope moved to bring in a bill to dissolve the clans in Scotland, and was seconded by sir David Dalrymple, and the bill was ordered to be brought in accordingly; but the enemy not landing at that time, the bill was laid aside. About this time he, with brigadier Cadogan and others, was advanced to the rank of major-general, and soon after appointed by her majesty envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to king Charles III. of Spain, and commander in chief of the British forces in that kingdom. He arrived at Barcelona May the 29th, 1708, and the same year reduced Port Mahon and the whole island of Minorca. In the first British parliament which met after the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, he was re-chosen member for Cockermouth. He was also advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general; and in 1710 was one of the managers of the House of Commons at the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, against whose doctrines he made an able speech. In the latter end of May that year he went to Spain, and on July 27, obtained a signal victory over the enemy near Almenara, as he did likewise on Aug. 20 near Saragossa; but Dec. 9 following he was taken prisoner at Brihuega.

Upon the change of administration, a new parliament being called, he was proposed candidate for the City of Westminster, together with sir Henry Dutton-Colt, but being unsuccessful, was chosen again for Cockermouth. He continued prisoner in Spain till 1712, when his imperial majesty made an exchange for the duke of Escalone, formerly viceroy of Naples; and in July the general set out on his return home by the way of France, and on the 16th of August arrived in England. In parliament he now opposed vigorously the measures of the court, and particularly the Bill of Commerce between Great Britain and France. Upon the calling a new parliament in 1713, he lost his election at Cockermouth by a small majority, but was soon after chosen unanimously for Wendover in Bucks; and opposed the Schism-bill with great spirit. Upon the arrival of king George I. in England, he was received by his majesty with particular marks of favour; and on the 27th of September 1714, appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and October the 1st sworn one of the privy- council. On the 20th of the same month, the day of his majesty’s coronation, he, with the lord Cobham, set out with a private commission to the emperor’s court; where having succeeded in his negotiations, he returned to England in the latter end of December. A new parliament being summoned to meet at Westminster on the 17th of March 1714-15, he was unanimously chosen for Cockermouth, as he was likewise for Aldborough in Yorkshire. In July 1716 he attended his majesty to Germany, and was principally concerned in the alliance concluded at that time with France and the States-general, by which the Pretender was removed beyond the Alps, and Dunkirk and Mardyke demolished. He returned with his majesty in 1716, and the following year was appointed first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer. He was afterwards created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of baron Stanhope of Elvaston, in the county of Derby, and viscount Stanhope of Mahon in the island of Minorca. In March 1718, he was appointed principal secretary of state, in the room of the earl of Sunderland, who succeeded lord Stanhope in the Treasury: and soon after was created earl Stanhope. The Spanish power growing more formidable, an alliance was set on foot between his Britannic majesty, the emperor, and the king of France, for which purpose earl Stanhope set out in June for Paris, and thence to Madrid, but finding nothing could be done with that court, he returned to England in September. In December following, he introduced a bill into the House of Lords “for strengthening the protestant interest in these kingdoms,” in which he proposed a repeal of the occasional-conformity bill, and the schism bill, and it passed by a majority of eighteen.

In May 1719 he was appointed one of the lords justices, during the king’s absence, and attended his majesty to Hanover; and upon his return to England April the 1st, 1720, he had the honour of composing some domestic differences in the royal family. On the llth of June the same year, he was again appointed one of the lords justices during the absence of his majesty to Hanover, and returned to England on the llth of November following. On the 4th of February 1720-1 his lordship was suddenly seized in the House of Lords with a complaint in the head, of which he died on the following day *. The news of his death being brought to his majesty in the evening, he was so sensibly touched with it, that he left the supper-room, and retired for two hours into his closet to lament the death of a person, in whom he reposed so high a confidence. His lordship’s body was interred on the 17th of February at his seat of Chevening in Kent; and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory in Westminster-abbey. He married Lucy, daughter of Thomas Pitt, esq. some

* This was occasioned by a sudden Stanhope’s was by an abusive speech

James, earl Stanhope, was, as a politician, possessed of great abilities, integrity, and disinterestedness; as a military man, he was thought to possess the duke of Mariborough’s talents, without his weaknesses. In private life he was very amiable. He is said to have been learned, and a curious inquirer into ancient history. About 1718 or 1719, he sent a set of queries to the abbe Vertot, respecting the constitution of the Roman senate, which the abbe answered, and both the letter and the answer were published in 1721, and long after animadverted upon by Mr. Hooke in the collection of treatises he published on that subject in 1758.

, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was born in London, on the 22d of September 1694. He was the son of Philip third earl of Chesterfield by his wife lady Elizabeth Savile, daughter of George marquis of Halifax. He received his first instructions from private tutors, under the care of his grandmother, lady Halifax and, at the age of eighteen, was sent to Trinity- hall, Cambridge. $ere he studied assiduously, and became, according to his own account, an absolute pedant. “When I talked my best,” he says, “I talked Horace; when I aimed at being facetious, I quoted Martial; and when I had a mind to be a fine gentleman, I talked Ovid. I was convinced that none but the ancients had common sense; that the classics contained every thing that was either necessary, or useful, or ornamental to men: and I was not without thoughts of wearing the toga virilis of the Romans, instead of the vulgar and illiberal dress of the moderns.” He was, however, only two years exposed to this danger, for in the spring of 1714, lord Stanhope left the university for the tour of Europe, but without a governor. He passed the summer of that year at the Hague, among friends who quickly laughed him out of his scholastic habits, but taught him one far more disgraceful and pernicious, as he himself laments, which was that of gaming. Still his leading object was that of becoming an eminent statesman, and of this, among all his dissipations, he never lost sight. From the Hague he went to Paris, where, he informs us, he received his final polish, under the tuition of the belles of that place.

On the accession of George I. general Stanhope, (afterwards earl Stanhope,) his great uncle, being appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, young lord Stanhope was sent for, and though he had intended passing the carnival at Venice, returned early in 1715, and was appointed one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber to the prince of Wales. In the first parliament of this reign he was elected for the borough of St. Germain’s in Cornwall; and soon became distinguished as a speaker. His ambition would not let him rest till he obtained this object; and Re tells his son, in one of his letters, that from the day he was elected, to the day that he spoke, which was a month after, he thought and dreamt of nothing but speaking. He formed about this time a friendship with lord Lumley, afterwards earl of Scarborough, which no conflicts of parties ever could impair. When he made his first speech in parliament, which was a violent one, he was actually under age, and receiving a hint of this from one of the opposite party, thought proper to give up his attendance for a time, and return to Paris. His biographer surmises that he might there be engaged in political services, as well as in pleasure, which was his apparent object. Having returned to England in 1716, he spoke in favour of the septennial bill, and from time to time came forward on other occasions. The division between the court and the prince of Wales soon after threw lord Stanhope, who was attached to the latter, into opposition, from which all the influence and offers of the general, now in the height of power and favour, could not recall him. The second borough for which he sat, was Lestwithiel in Cornwall; but in January 1726, the death of his father removed him into the House of Lords.

He was soon distinguished in this house, as he had been in the lower, by his talent for speaking, which indeed he exerted with more success as a peer than as a commoner. “Lord Chesterfield’s eloquence,” says Dr. Maty, “though the fruit of study and imitation, was in great measure his own. Equal to most of his contemporaries in elegance and perspicuity, perhaps surpassed by some in extensiveness and strength, he could have no competitors in choice of imagery, taste, urbanity, and graceful irony. This turn might originally have arisen from the delicacy of his frame, which, as on one hand it deprived him of the power of working forcibly upon the passions of his hearers, enabled him, on the other, to affect their finer sensations, by nice touches of raillery and humour. His strokes, however poignant, were always nnd r the controui of decency and good sense. He reasoned best when he appeared most witty; and while he gained the affections of his hearers, he turned the laugh on his opposers, and often forced them to join in it. It might, in some degree, be owing to this particular turn that he was not heard with so much applause in the lower, as in the upper house.” Besides being eminent as a speaker in parliament, lord Chesterfield had the credit of being intimate with all the wits of his time. The friendship of Pope in particular, with whom he passed much time at Twickenham, led to the very best society which could then be enjoyed. He was known also to Algarotti, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, when they visited England, and with the latter he formed a friendship, and established a correspondence.

On the accession of George II. in 1727, whom he had served with steadiness for thirteen years, lord Chesterfield seemed to have a right to expect particular favour. In this he was disappointed, owing to his having paid his court to the king’s mistress lady Suffolk, instead of applying to the queen, which her majesty, as well as the king, who always preserved a high respect for the queen, resented; but in 1728 he was appointed ambassador to Holland, in which station he was determined to distinguish himself, and his efforts were perfectly successful. Mr. Slingeland, then the grand pensionary of Holland, conceived a friendship for him, and much advanced his diplomatic education. Having by his address preserved Hanover from a war, he received high marks of his majesty’s favour in being made high steward of the household, and knight of the garter. He came over in the summer of 1730, to be installed at Windsor, and then returned to his embassy. He was recalled in 1732, on the plea of health; and when he recovered, began again to distinguish himself in the House of Lords; and in the same year, on the occasion of the excise-bill, went into strong opposition against sir Robert Walpole. He was immediately obliged to resign his office of high steward, and so ill received at court that he desisted from attending it; He continued in opposition, not only to the end of sir Robert’s ministry in 1742, but even against the men with whom he had acted in the minority. It was not till the coalition of parties in 1744, by what was called “the broad-bottomed treaty,” that he was admitted into the cabinet, and then very much against the will of the king, who now had long considered him as a personal enemy. In the course of this long opposition he had frequently distinguished himself by his speeches; but particularly on the occasion of the bill for putting the theatres under the authority of a licenser, which he opposed in a speech of great animation, still extant in his works. During the same period we find him engaging in marriage with Melosina de Schulenburg, countess of Walsingham, to whom he was united in September 1733; but still constantly attentive to the education of his natural son by a former connection at the Hague. By his wife he had no children. In 1741 and 1742 he was obliged to pay temporary visits to the continent on account of his health, at which time it appears that he wrote regularly to his son, then only ten years old.

On the llth of January, 1745, he was again sent ambassador and plenipotentiary to Holland, and succeeded in the purposes of his embassy, beyond the hopes of those who had employed him. He took his leave of the statesgeneral eight days after the battle of Fontenoy, and hastened to his office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to which he had been nominated before he went to Holland. That he filled this difficult office at a very critical time, with the greatest dignity and ability, is well known, and few viceroys have succeeded so completely in conciliating the esteem and confidence of the Irish nation. He left it, however, in April 1746. His services there and in Holland had succeeded in removing the prejudices of the king, at whose express desire he accepted the place of principal secretary of state in November the same year, and returned no more to Ireland. He retired from this office on the 6th. of January 1748, even more to the regret of the king, whom he had conciliated by his manners as well as his services, than he had entered at first into administration. He was, however, determined to the step, by finding that he could not carry measures in the cabinet, which appeared to him of the highest political importance. His health also had greatly declined, he was troubled by frequent attacks of vertigo, and appears from this time to have determined to preserve himself free from the fatigues of office. His retirement was amused and dignified by literature and other elegant pursuits; and the chief part of his miscellaneous works bear date after this period. Deafness corning upon him, in addition to his other complaints, he did not often take an active part in the business of the House of Lords, but in the debates concerning the alteration of the style, which took place in February 1751, he distinguished himself by an eloquent speech in favour of the measure. Of this he speaks with modesty in one of his letters to his son. Every one complimented him, and said that he had made the whole very clear to them, “when, God knows,” says he, “I had not even attempted it. I could as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well. Lord Macclesfield,” he adds, “who had the greatest share in forming the bill, and is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but as his words, his periods, and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me.”

Anxious to support a literary character, lord Chesterfield wished also to be considered as a patron of literature, but, occupied by other cares, and not willing to make any great sacrifices for that object, he managed his advances to Dr. Johnson on the subject of his Dictionary so ill, that they procured for him only a rebuff, accompanied by that letter of dignified severity, which, though he affected to despise, he could not but feel at the time. It must be owned, however, that the two papers which he published on the occasion, in the World (No. 100 and 101), gave an honourable and useful recommendation to the work. In November, 1768, he lost that son whose education and advancement had been, for many years, the principal objects of his care; and, his own infirmities increasing very fast upon him, the remainder of his life wore a cast of melancholy and almost of despondency. He represents himself, in some letters at that period, as “totally unconnected with the world, detached from life, bearing the burthen of it with patience, from instinct rather than reason, and, from that principle alone, taking all proper methods to preserve it.” This, indeed, was not uniform; his natural vivacity still occasionally displayed itself; but in his moments of seriousness he presents a melancholy picture, of a mind destitute of the only effectual supports under natural decay and pain. He lived, with increasing infirmities, to the 24th of March 1773. His character is thus briefly summed up by Dr. Maty. “A nobleman unequalled in his time for variety of talents, brilliancy of wit, politeness, and elegance of conversation. At once a man of pleasure ancl of business; yet never suffering the former to encroach upon the latter. His embassy in Holland marks his skill, dexterity, and address as an able negotiator. His administration in Ireland, where his name is still revered by all ranks and orders of men, indicates his integrity, vigilance, and sound policy as a statesman. His speeches in parliament fix his reputation as a distinguished orator, in a refined and uncommon species of eloquence. His conduct in public life was upright, conscientious, and steady: in private, friendly and affectionate; in both, pleasant, amiable, and conciliating.” He adds, “these were his excellencies; let those who surpass him speak of his defects.” This friendly artifice to close the mouths of objectors, ought not, however, to prevent an impartial biographer from saying, for the benefit of mankind at large, that the picture he has exhibited of himself in hisLetters to his Son,“proves him to have been a man in whose mind the applause of the world was the great, and almost the sole governing principle. No attack of an enemy could have degraded his character so much as the publication of these letters; which, if they do not quite deserve the severe reprehension of Johnson, that they” inculcate the morals of a strumpet, with the manners of a dancing-master," certainly display a relaxation of principle, for which no talents can make amends.

These letters appeared in two vols. 4to. in 1774. His “Miscellaneous works,” also in two vols. 4to. were published in 1777. They consist of papers supplied to Fog’s Journal, to a periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “The World;” all evincing considerable vivacity and skill in writing. Some of his speeches, and other state papers, conclude the first volume. The second contains an ample collection of his Letters, digested into three books. Many of these are written in French, of which language he was, for a foreigner, a very complete master. In 1778 a third volume of “Miscellaneous works” was published, but, as the former had not been eminently successful, this, which appeared in a dubious shape, attracted very little attention, and few copies are supposed to have got abroad. Lord Chesterfield’s entrance into the world, says lord Orford, was announced by his bon-mots, and his closing lips dropped repartees that sparkled with his juvenile fire. Of these witticisms, several are currently repeated in conversation, though on what authority is now uncertain. He appears, by a few specimens, to have possessed considerable talents for the lighter kinds of poetry; some proofs of which appear in the first volume of Dodsley’s collection; but it has been said that he often assumed to himself the credit of verses not his own. As a patron he was distinguished by his steady protection of the elegant, but unfortunate, Hammond; whose poems he published after the author’s death, in 1743, with a preface, but without an avowal of himself as the editor. Encomiums upon him, as the friend of merit and letters, may be found in the writings of this poet, of Pope, and many others; but some of the most elegant compliments to him appear in the third volume of Dodsley’s collection, and proceeded from the pen of Philip Fletcher, dean of Kildare. Applause was his favourite object, and few men have enjoyed it in a greater abundance.

, an accomplished scholar and poet, connected, though in an oblique line, with the illustrious family of Derby, was the descendant of a natural son, Thomas Stanley, of Edward earl of Derby. His father was sir Thomas Stanley of Laytonstone, in Essex, and Cumberlow, in Hertfordshire, knight, by his second wife, Mary, daughter of sir William Hammond, of St. Alban’s-court in the parish of Nonington between Canterbury and Deal. He was born in 1625, and was educated in his father’s house, under the tuition of William Fairfax, son of Edward Fairfax, of Newhall, in the parish of Ottley, in Yorkshire, the celebrated translator of Tasso. From thence he was sent in 1639 as a fellow-commoner to Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself by his proficiency in polite learning; having still, as he had in more advanced years, the advantage of Mr. Fairfax’s society, as the director of his studies. In 1641, the degree of M. A. was conferred on him per gratiam, along with prince Charles, George duke of Buckingham, and others of the nobility.

Mr. Stanley died at his lodgings, in Suffolk-street, in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, April 12, 167S, and was buried in the church there. He married Dorothy daughter and co-heir of sir James Enyon, of Flower, in Northamptonshire, bart. By this lady he had a son of both his own names, who was educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, and, when very young (Aubrey says at fourteen), translated Ælian’s “Various Histories,” which he dedicated to his aunt, the lady Newton, wife of sir Henry Puckering Newton, knt. and bart. to whom his father had dedicated his jÆschylus.

But the work to which Mr. Stanley deservedly owed his high reputation as a scholar, was his “History of Philosophy, containing the Lives, Opinions, Actions, and Discourses of the Philosophers of every Sect.” This he dedicated to his uncle John Marsham, esq. the well-known author of the “Canon Chronicus,” who first suggested the design; and in the dedication Mr. Stanley mentions the learned Gassendus as his precedent; “whom,” he adds, “nevertheless I have not followed in his partiality. For h<? though limited to a single person, yet giveth himself liberty of enlargement; and taketh occasion, from this subject, to make the world acquainted with many excellent disquisitions of his own. Our scope, being of a greater latitude, affords less opportunity to favour any particular, while there is due to every one the commendation of their own deserts.” This very elaborate and useful work has gone through four editions in English, the first in parts, 1655 1660, the second in 1687, the last and best in 1743, 4to. It was also translated into Latin, and published at Leipsic in 1711, by Fritch, in quarto, with considerable additions and corrections. The account of the Oriental learning and philosophy, with which it concludes, appeared so valuable to Le Clerc, that he published a Latin translation of it in 1690, 8vo, with a dedication to bishop Burnet, and placed it at the end of the second volume of his “Opera Philosophic*.”

When Stanley had finished this work, which was when in his thirtieth year, he undertook to publish “Æschylus,” the most obscure and intricate of all the Greek poets; and after employing much pains in restoring his text and illustrating his meaning, produced an accurate and beautiful edition of that author, under the title of “Æschyli Tragrediae Septem, &c. Versione et Commentario Thorn ae JStanleii,” 1663 and 1664, two dates, but the same edition, folio. Dedicated to sir Henry Puckering Newton, baronet. The merits of this celebrated edition are sufficiently known. Morhoff, Fabricius, and Harles, have all stated its excellencies; and the labours of every preceding commentator, the fragments of the lost dramas, with the entire Greek scholia, are embodied in it. De Bure observes, that when Pauw gave out his proposals for printing an edition of Æschylus, the work of Stanley sunk in value but when Pauw’s edition actually appeared, the learned were disappointed, and Stanley’s edition rose in price and value. Good copies are now very rare. Besides these monuments of his learning, which are published, there were many other proofs of his unwearied application, remaining in manuscript after his death, in the library of More, bishop of Ely, and now in the public library at Cambridge; namely, his large “Commentaries on JEschylus,” in 8 vols. folio; his “Adversaria, or Miscellaneous Remarks,” on several passages in Sophocles, Euripides, Callimachus, Hesychius, Juvenal, Persius, and other authors of antiquity ' Copious Prelections on Theophrastus’s Characters;“and” A Critical Essay on the First-fruits and Tenths of the Spoil,", said in the epistle to the Hebrews to be given by Abraham to Melchisedeck.

, an historian, poet, and divine of the sixteenth century, was born in Dublii^ probably about 1545 or 1546. His father James Stanyhurst was a lawyer, recorder of Dublin, and speaker of the House of Commons in several parliaments. He published; in Latin, “Piae Orationes” “Ad Corsagiensem Decanum Epistoke,” and three speeches, in English, which he delivered as speaker, at the beginning of the parliaments of the 3d and 4th Philip and Mary, and the 2d and llth of Elizabeth. He died Dec. 27, 1573, leaving two sons, Walter and Richard. Of Walter our only information is, that he translated “Innocentins de contemptu Mundi.”

Richard had some classical education at Dublin, under Peter White, a celebrated school-master, whence he was sent to Oxford in 1563, and admitted of University-college. After taking one degree in arts, he left Oxford, and undertook the study of the law with diligence, first at FurnivaPsnn, and then at Lincoln’s-inn, where he resided for some time. He then returned to Ireland, married, and turned Roman Catholic. Removing afterwards to the continent, he is said by A. Wood to have become famous for his learning in France, and the Low Countries. Losing his wife, while he was abroad, he entered into orders, and was made chaplain, at Brussels, to Albert archduke of Austria, who was then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. At this place he died in 1618, being universally esteemed as an excellent scholar in the learned languages, a good divine, philosopher, historian, and poet. He kept up a constant correspondence with Usher, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, who was his sister’s son. They were allied, says Dodd, “in their studies as well as blood; being both very curious in searching after the writings of the primitive ages. But their reading had not the same effect. The uncle became a catholic, and took no small pains to bring over the nephew.” Stanyhurst published several works, tke first of which was written when he had been only two years at Oxford, and published about five years after. Ic was a learned commentary on Porphyry, and raised the greatest expectations of his powers, being mentioned with particular praise, as the work of so young a man, by Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, then a siudent of St. John’seollege. It is entitled “Harmonia, seu catena dialectics in Porphyrium,” Lond. 1570, folio. 2. “De rebus in Hibernia gestis, lib, iv.” Antwerp, 1584, 4to. According t*v Keating, this work abounds, not only in errors, but misrepresentations, which Stanyhurst afterwards acknowledged. 3. “Descriptio Hiberniac,” inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle. 4. “De vita S. Patricii, Hiberniae Apostoli, lib. ii.” Antw. 1587, 12mo. 5. “Hebdotnada Mariana,” Antw. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Hebdomacla Euclmristiea,” Douay, 1614, 8vo. 7. “Brevis prsemonitio pro futura concertatione cum Jacobo Usserio,” Douay, 1615, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of the Catholic Religion.” 9. “The four first books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English Hexameters,” 1583, small 8vo, black letter. To these are subjoined the four first Psalms the first in English Iambics, though he confesses, that “the lambical quantitie relisheth somwhat unsavorly in our language, being, in truth, not al togeather the toothsomest in the Latine.” The second is in elegiac verse, or English hexameter or pentameter. The third is a short specimen of the asclepiac verse; thus “Lord, my dirye foes, why do they multiply.” The fourth is in sapphics, with a prayer to the Trinity in the same measure. Then follow, “certayne poetical conceites,” in Latin and English: and after these some epitaphs. The English throughout is in Roman measures. The preface, in which he assigns his reasons for translating after Phaer, is a curious specimen of quaintness and pedantry. Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, seems not to have attended to these reasons, such as they are; but thus speaks of the attempt of Stanyhurst: “After the associated labours of Phaier end Twyne, it is hard to say what could induce Robert [Richard] Stanyhurst, a native of Dublin, to translate the four first books of the Æneid into English hexameters, which he printed at London, in 15S3, and dedicated to his brother Peter Plunket, the learned baron of Dusanay [Dunsanye], in Ireland. Stanyhurst was at that time living at Leyden, having left England for some time, on account of the [his] change of religion. In the choice of his measure he is more unfortunate than his predecessors, and in other respects succeeded worse. Thomas Naishe, in his Apology of Pierce Pennilesse, printed in 1593, observes, that * jltany hurst, the otherwise learned, trod a foul, lumbring, boistrcus, wallowing measure, in his translation of Virgil. He had never been praised by Gabriel Harvey for his labour, it therein he had not been so famously absurd.' Harvey, Spenser’s friend, was one of the chief patrons, if not the inventor of the English hexameter here used by Stanyhurst.” His translation, opens thus:

It is observable, that he lengthens tht into thee, and to into too, for the sake of his verse. Mr. Warton cites the beginning of the second book, and then adds, “with all this foolish pedantry, Stanyhnrst was certainly a scholar. But in this translation he calls Chorcebus, one of the Trojan chiefs, a Bedlamite; he says, that old Priam girded on his sword Morglay, the name of a sword in the Gothic romances; that Dido would have been glad to have been, brought to bed, even of a cockney, a Dandiprat hop - thumb and that Jupiter, in kissing her daughter, bust his pretty prating parrot.” Stanyhurst is styled by Camden, “Eruditissimus iile nobilis Richardus Stanihurstus.”

, founder of Exeter college, and of Hart-hall, Oxford, was so named from Stapledon t: in the parish of Cookberry, the ancient residence of the family. Prince thinks he was born at Annery, in the parish of Monklegh, near Great Torrington, in Devonshire. All we have of his history begins with his advancement to the bishopric in 1307. He is said to have been of “great parentage,” and his installation was graced by ceremonies of magnificent solemnity. On his arrival at Exeter, he alighted from his horse at Eastgate, and walked on foot, the or nnd being smoothed and covered with black cloth,

to the cathedral; on each hand he was accompanied by a person of distinction, while sir Hugh Courtney, who claimed the honour of being steward on this occasion, walked before him. At Broadgate he was received by the chapter and choir. After the accustomed ceremonies, a grand feast was given, of such expence as the revenues of the bishopric, according to Godwin’s estimation, would not have been sufficient to defray, yet in Henry IVth’s time it was valued at 7000l. per annum, a sum scarcely credible, as the expence of an entertainment.

All the steps of his political life were marked with honours. He was chosen one of the privy-council to Edward II. appointed lord treasurer, and employed in embassies, and other weighty affairs of state, in which his abilities and integrity would have been acknowledged, had he not lived in a period of remarkable turbulence and injustice. In 1325 he accompanied the queen to France in order to negociate a peace, but her intentions to depose her husband were no longer to be concealed, and the bishop, whose integrity her machinations could not corrupt, continued to attach himself to the cause of his unfortunate sovereign, and fell an early sacrifice to popular fury. In 1326 he was appointed guardian of the city of London during the king’s absence in the west, and while he was taking measures to preserve the loyalty of the metropolis, the populace attacked him, Oct. 15, as he was walking the streets, and beheaded him near the north door of St. Paul’s, together with sir Richard Stapledon, his brother. Godwin informs us that they buried the bishop in a heap of sand at the back of his house, without Temple-l>ar. Walsingham says they threw it into the river; but the former account seems most consistent with popular malevolence and contempt. Exeter house was founded by him as a town residence for the bishops of the diocese, and is said to have been very magnificent. It was afterwards alienated from the see, and by a change of owners, became first Leicester, and then Essex house, a name which the scite still retains. It appears that the queen soon after ordered the body of the murdered bishop to be removed and interred, with that of his brother, in Exeter cathedral. In the 3d Edward III. 1330, a synod was held at London before Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, to make inquiry into bishop Stapledon’s death; and his murderers, and all who were any way privy or consenting to the crime, were executed. His monument, in the north aile of Exeter cathedral, was erected by the rector and fellows of Exeter college. Among the mu,niments of the dean and chapter of Exeter, there is an account of the administration of his goods, by Richard Braylegh, dean of Exeter, and one of his executors; by which it appears that he left a great many legacies to poor scholars, and several sums of money, from twenty to sixty shillings, for the repairing of bridges in the county, and towards building Pilton churc.i, &c.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

, a dramatic poet, was the third son of Richard Stapleton, esq. of Carleton, in Yorkshire, and uncle to sir Miles Stapleton, and Dr. Stapleton, a Benedictine monk. As his family were zealous Roman catholics, he was educated in the same religion in the college of the English Benedictines at Douay: hut, being born with a poetical turn, and too volatile to be confined within the walls of a cloister, he threw off the restraint of his education, quitted a recluse life, came over to England, and turned protestant. Having good interest, which was perhaps also promoted by the change of his religion, he was made gentleman-usher of the privy-chamber to the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. We find him constantly adhering to, the interest of his royal master; for when his majesty was driven out of London by the threatenings and tumults of the discontented, he followed him, and, in 1642, received the honour of knighthood. After the battle of Edgehill, when his majesty was obliged to retire to Oxford, our author then attended hi.n, and was created doctor of the civil laws. When the royal cause declined, Stapleton thought proper to retire and apply himself to study; and, as he was not amongst the most conspicuous of the royalists, he was suffered to enjoy his solitude unmolested. At the restoration he was again promoted in the service of Charles II. and held a place in that monarch’s esteem till his death, July 11, 1C69. He was interred near the vestry door in Westminster-abbey. Langbaine says that his writings have “made him not only known, but admired, throughout all England, and while Musæus and Juvenal are in esteem with the learned, sir Robert’s fame will still survive the translation of these two authors having placed his name in the temple of immortality.” “The Loves of Hero and Leander, from the Greek of Musaeus, with notes,” was published, Lond. 1647, 8vo, and such was Stapleton’s regard for Musseus, that he afterwards reduced the story into a dramatic poem. His “Juvenal” was published in 1647, 8vo, and was thought to be preferable to Holyday’s, but they are both too literal. In 1650 he published a translation of Strada’s “History of the Belgic War,” fol. His dramatic pieces are, l.“The Slighted Maid”, 1663. 2. “The Step-mother,” 1664. 3. “Hero and Leander,” 1669 and, according to the books of the stationers’ company, 4. “The Royal Choice.”

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

, an ancient Roman poet who flourished in the first century, was born at Naples, and descended of a good family by his father’s side. His father was a rhetorician, a man of probity and learning, and also a poet, although none of his works are now extant. Our author discovered an early inclination for poetry, which was so much improved by his father’s instructions, that he soon was introduced to the first geniuses of the age, and afterwards to the emperor himself, by his friend Paris, the player, at that time one of the chief court-favourites. His literary merit gained him so large a share of the emperor’s esteem, that he was permitted to sit at table with him among his ministers and courtiers of the highest quality, and was often crowned for his verses, which were publicly recited in the theatre. And, although he once lost the prize in the capitol, the frequent determination of the judges in his favour created him the envy of Martial; who piqued himself much on his extempore productions, and has therefore never mentioned Statius in his account of the poets, his contemporaries. The “Thebaid,” finished at Naples, and dedicated to Domitian, was received at Rome with the greatest applause, as Juvenal has told us in a celebrated passage, which, however, is thought bv some to have been nothing more than a sneer. In this passage, which begins

“Curritur ad vocem jucundatn et carmen amicie, c.” Dr. Warton thinks it cannot be doubted that Juvenal meant to be satirical, and to insinuate obliquely that Statius was the favourite poet with the vulgar, who are easily captivated with a wild and inartificial tale, and an empty magnificence of numbers. Statius had, however, no sooner finished his “Thebaid,” than he formed the plan of his “Achilleid,” a work, in which he intended to take in the whole life of Achilles, and not one single action, as Homer has done in the Iliad. This he left imperfect, dying at Naples, about A. D. 96, before he had well finished two books of it.

When he was young, he fell in love with, and married a widow, daughter of Claudius Apollinaris, a musician of Naples. He describes her in his poems, as a very beautiful, learned, ingenious, and virtuous woman, and a great proficient in his own favourite study of poesy. Her society was a solace to him in his heavy hours, and her judgment of no small use in his poem, as he himself has confessed to us in his “Sylvas.” He inscribed several of his verses to her, and as a mark of his affection behaved with singular tenderness to a daughter which she had by a former husband. During his absence at Naples for the space of twenty years, she behaved with the strictest fidelity, and at length followed him, and died there. He had no children by her; and therefore adopted a son, whose death he bewails in a very pathetic manner. It appears that he sold a tragedy called “A<;ave” to Paris, already mentioned, and that what he got by this and Domitian’s bounty had set him above want. He informs us that h'e had a small country seat in Tuscany, where Alba formerly stood. With regard to his moral character, from what we can collect, he appears to have been religious almost to superstition, an affectionate husband, a loyal subject, and good citizen. Some critics, however, have not scrupled to accuse him of gross flattery to Domitian: and that he paid his court to him with a view to interest, cannot be denied, yet his advocates are willing to believe that his patron had not arrived to that pitch of wickedness and impiety at the time he wrote his poem, which he showed afterwards. Envx made no part of his composition. That he acknowledged merit, wherever he found it, his Genethliacon of Lucan, and Encomia on Virgil, bear ample testimony. He carried his reverence for the memory of the latter almost to adoration, constantly visiting his tomb, and celebrating his birthday with great solemnity. His tragedy of “Agave” excepted, we have all his works, consisting of his “Sylvae,” or miscellaneous pieces, in five books, his “Tbebaid” in twelve, and his “Achilleid” in two.

Statins, by the general verdict of modern critics, is ranked among those authors, who, by their forced conceits, violent metaphors, swelling epithets, and want of just decorum, have a strong tendency to dazzle, and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity, and nature. Dr. Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” who trarislatec part of the “Thebaid,” has many just remarks on authors of this cast, but allows that Statius has passages of true sublimity, and had undoubtedly invention, ability, and spirit. We must not confound Publius Papinius Statius, as some have done, with another Statius, whose surname was Surculus; or, as Suetonius calls him, Ursulus. This latter was, indeed, a poet, as '.veil as the other; but he lived at Tolosa in Gaul, and taught rhetoric in the reign of Nero.

, an eminent lawyer in the sixteenth century, was the son of William Staunford, of London, mercer, and the grandson of Richard Staunford of Rowley in Staffordshire. He was born in 1509, at Hadley in Middlesex, where his father had purchased some property, and had married a London lady of the name of Gedney. After studying for some time at Oxford, he applied to municipal law in Gray’s Inn, and soon acquired reputation for knowledge of his profession. In 1545, he was chosen autumn-reader to this society, but did not read until Lent following, owing, as Wood says, to the plague: the year after he was appointed attorney-general. In 1551 he was double Lent reader at Gray’s-inn, made serjeant at law the next year, and queen’s serjeant in 1553, when Mary came to the throne, as he was a zealous adherent to her religion. In 1554 he became a judge of the common-pleas, and the same year received the honour of knighthood. He died Aug. 28, 1553, and was buried in Hadley church. While both at the bar and on the bench, he was much esteemed, and obtained no small fame by his writings, which still perpetuate his name. They are 1. “Placita coronac,” in French, 4to, 1557, and often reprinted from that time to 1607. 2. “Exposition of the King’s prerogative,” printed with the former. He left also many Mss. His “Placita corona;” were published in an epitomized form, by Walter Young, Lond. 1660, 8vo. and 1663.

, secretary and historian of an embassy to China, was son of a gentleman of small fortune in the county of Galway, in Ireland; and sent early to study physic at Montpelier, where he proceeded M. D. On his return to London, he translated Dr. Stb'rck’s treatise on hemlock, and drew up for the “Journal Etranger” in France a comparison between the literature of England and France. About the year 1762, Dr. Staunton embarked for the West Indies, as we find from a farewell letter written to him by Dr. Johnson, given by Mr. Boswell in his life of that great man. This epistle is replete with excellent advice, and does equal credit to the writer, and the person to whom it is addressed. Dr. Staunton resided, for several years, in the West Indies, where he acquired some addition to his fortune by the practice of physic purchased an estate in Grenada which he cultivated; and had the good fortune to obtain the friendship of the late lord Macartney, governor of that island, to whom he acted as secretary, and continued in that capacity until the capture of it by the French, when they both embarked for Europe. Having studied the law, while in Grenada, Dr. Staunton filled the office of attorney-general of the island. Soon after lord Macartney’s arrival in England, he was appointed governor of Madras, and took Mr. Staunton with him (for he seems now to have lost the appellation of doctor) as his secretary. In this capacity, Mr. Staunton had several opportunities of displaying his abilities and intrepidity, particularly as one of the commissioners sent to treat of peace with Tippoo Sultaun, and in the seizure of general Stuart, who seemed to have been preparing to act by lord Macartney as had been before done by the unfortunate lord Pigot. The secretary was sent with a small party of seapoys to arrest the general, which he effected with great spirit and prudence, and without bloodshed. On his return to England, the India Company, as a reward for his services, settled on him a pension of 500l. per annum; the king soon after created him a baronet of Ireland, and the University of Oxford conferred on him the degree of LL.D. It having been resolved to send an embassy to China, lord Macartney was selected for that purpose, and he took his old friend and countryman along with him, who was not only appointed secretary of legation, but had also the title of envoy-extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary bestowed on him, in order to be able to supply the place of the ambassador in case of auy unfortunate accident. The events of this embassy, which, on the whole, proved rather unpropitious, are well known, and were given to the public in two quarto volumes, written by sir George. This account is rather to be considered as a proof of learning and observation than of genius and reflection. The subject itself was highly interesting, but it is certainly not rendered very much so in the relation. However, it is on the whole a valuable work, and creditable to his character for knowledge and diligence. And when we consider the short time he took to compile these volumes^ added to the severe illness he actually laboured under, and with which he was attacked soon after his return, we cannot withhold our praise and approbation. As a proof of tha esteem in which the India Company held sir George Staunton, they appointed his son, who accompanied him in the former voyage, a writer to China; and had the father’s health permitted, he would, probably, again have attended lord Macartney in some honourable and confidential station to his government at the Cape of Good Hope. The memoirs of sir George, if drawn up at full length, would exhibit many instances of a strong and ardent mind, labouring occasionally under difficulties, and surmounting dangers by patience, talents, and intrepidity. His conduct in the seizure of general Stuart, demonstrated his resolution and presence of mind; and when treating with Tippoo, he had the address to induce M. Suffrein to suspend hostilities, even before he had received advice from his court of the treaty of peace being signed between Great Britain and France.

Sir George died^t his house in Devonshire-street, Portland-place, Jan. 12, 1801, and was succeeded in his title by his only son, now sir Thomas Staunton, by his wife Jane Collins, one of the daughters of Benjamin Collins, esq. banker at Salisbury, whom sir George married in 1771.

a learned gentleman, of Cussington, Leicestershire, after having completed his academical education at Peter- house, Cambridge, was admitted of the Inner Temple, July 2, 1647, and called to the bar June 12, 1654. In 1656, he married Mary the youngest daughter of John Onebye, esq. of Hinckley, and steward of the records at Leicester, and succeeded his father-in-law in that office in 1672. In 1674, when the court espoused the cause of popery, and the presumptive heir to the crown openly professed himself a Catholic, Mr. Staveley displayed the enormous exactions of the court of Rome, by publishing in 1674, “The Romish Horseleech.” This work was reprinted in 1769. Some years before his death, which happened in 1683, he retired to Belgrave near Leicester, and passing the latter part of life in the study of English history, acquired a melancholy habit, but was esteemed a diligent, judicious, and faithful antiquary. His “History of Churches in England: wherein is shown, the time, means, and manner of founding, building, and endowing of Churches, both, cathedral and rural, with their furniture and appendages,” was first published in 1712, and reprinted 1773. It is a work of considerable research and learning, the result of having carefully examined many books and records; and contains a complete account of the sacred furniture of churches from the earliest origin. In one respect, however, he has too hastily adopted the notion that the Saxons had no stone buildings among them, while he is forced to acknowledge that Bede’s Candida casa was one of them. Besides this work, Mr. Staveley left a curious historical pedigree of his own family, drawn up in 1682, the year before he died, which is preserved at large in the work which furnishes this article; and also some valuable collections towards the “History and Antiquities of Leicester,” to which he had more particularly applied his researches. These papers, which Dr. Farmer, the late learned master of Emanuei-college, Cambridge, intended once to publish, were, by that gentleman’s permission, put into the hands of Mr. Nichols, who gave them to the world in the “Bibliotheca Topographia Britannica,” and since in his more elaborate “History of Leicestershire.” The younger Mr. S. Carte (an able antiquary, and an eminent solicitor), who had a copy of Mr. Staveley’s papers, says of them, in a ms letter to Dr. Ducarel, March 7, 1751: “His account of the earls of Leicester, and of the great abbey, appears to have been taken from Dugdale’s” Baronage,“and” Monasticon;“but as to his sentiments in respect to the borough, I differ with him in some instances. By the charter for erecting and establishing the court of records at Leicester, the election of the steward is granted to the mayor and court of aldermen, who likewise have thereby a similar power, in respect to a bailiff” for executing their writs. But afterwards, viz. Dec. 20, 7 Jac. I. the great earl of Huntingdon bavins: been a considerable benefactor to Leicester, the corporation came to a resolution of granting to him and his heirs a right of nominating alternately to the office of steward and bailiff, and executed a bond under their common seal, in the penalty of one thousand pounds, for enforcing the execution of their grant. And as John Major, esq. was elected by the court of aldermen to succeed Mr. Staveley, in December, 1684, I infer that Staveley was nominated by the earl of Huntingdon, and confirmed by the aldermen, in pursuance of the grant above-mentioned.

, the first of a class of writers called the British Essayists, which is peculiar to this country, was born at Dublin in 1671. Mis family, of English extraction, was genteel. His father, who was a counsellor at law, and private secretary to James, the first duke of Ormond, sent his son, then very young, to London, where he was placed in the Charter-house by the duke, who was one of the governors of that seminary. From thence he was removed to Merton college, Oxford, and admitted a postmaster in 1691. In 1695 he wrote a poem on the funeral of queen Mary, entitled the “Procession.” His inclination leading him to the army, he rode for some time privately in the guards. He became an author first, as he tells us himself, when an ensign of the guards, a way of life exposed to much irregularity; and, emg thoroughly convinced of many things, of which he often repented, and which he more often repeated, he wrote for his own private use a little book called “The Christian Hero,” with a design principally to fix upon his own mind a strong impression of virtue and religion, in opposition to a stronger propensity towards unwarrantable pleasures. This secret admonition was too weak; and therefore, in 1701, he printed the book with his name, in hopes that a standing testimony against himself, and the eyes of the world upon him in a new light, might curb his desires, and make him ashamed of understanding and seeming to feel what was virtuous, and yet of living so contrary a life. This, he tells us, had no other effect, but that, from being thought a good companion, he was soou reckoned a disagreeable fellow. One or two of his acquaintance thought fit to misuse him, and try their valour upon him; and every body, he knew, measured the least levity in his words or actions with the character of “The Christian Hero.” Thus he found himself slighted, instead of being encouraged, for his declarations as to religion; so that he thought it incumbent upon him to enliven his character. For this purpose he wrote the comedy, called u The Funeral, or Grief a- la- Mode,“which was acted in 1702; and as nothing at that time made a man more a favourite with the public than a successful play, this, with some other particulars enlarged upon to -advantage, obtained the notice of the king; and his name, to be proTided for, was, he says, in the last table-book ever worn by the glorious and immortal William the Third. He had before this obtained a captain’s commission in lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, by the interest of lord Cutts, to whom he had dedicated his” Christian Hero,“and who likewise appointed him his secretary. His next appearance as a writer, as he himself informs us, was in the office of Gazetteer; where he worked faithfully, according to order, without ever erring, he says, against the rule observed by all ministries, to keep that paper very innocent and very insipid. He received this appointment in consequence of being introduced by Addison to the acquaintance of the earls of Halifax and Sunderland. With Addison he had become acquainted at the Charter-house. His next productions were comedies;” The Tender Husband“being acted in 1703, and” The Lying Lover“in 1704. In 1709 he began” The Taller;“the first number of which was published April 12, 1709, and the last Jan. 2, 1711. This paper greatly increased his reputation and interest; and he was soon after made one of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Upon laying down” The Tatler,“he b'egan, in concert with Addison,” The Spectator,“which began to be published March 1, 1711 after that,” The Guardian,“the first paper of which came out March 12, 1713; and then,” The Englishman,“the first number of which appeared Oct. 6, the same year. Besides these works, he wrote several political pieces, which were afterwards collected, and published under the title of” Political Writings," 1715, 12mo. Oneofthes6 will require to be mentioned particularly, because it was attended with remarkable consequences relating to himself.

Having a design to serve in the last parliament of queen Anne, he resigned his place of commissioner of the Stampoffice, in June 1713; and was chosen member for the borough of Stockbridge in Hampshire; but he did not sit long in the House of Commons, before he was expelled for writing “The Englishman,” being the close of a paper so called, and “The Crisis.” This last is one of his political writings, and the title at full length runs thus "The Crisis, or a Discourse representing, from the most authentic records, the just causes of the late happy Revolution, and the several settlements of the crown of England and Scotland on her majesty; and, on the demise of her majesty without issue, upon the most illustrious princess Sophia, electress and duchess-dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants, by previous acts

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

Soon after the accession of George I. he was appointed surveyor of the royal stables at Hampton-court, and governor of the royal company of comedians; and was put into the commission of the peace for Middlesex; and, April 1715, was knighted upon the presenting of an address to Ins majesty by the lieutenancy*. In the first parliament, he was chosen member for Boroughbrigg in Yorkshire; and, after the suppression of the rebellion in the North, was appointed one of the commissioners of the forfeited estates in Scotland. The same year, 1715, he published in 8vo, “An Account of the state of the Roman Catholic Religion throughout the world. Written for the use of pope Innocent XI. and now translated from the Italian. To which is added, a Discourse concerning the state of Religion in England: written in French in the time of king Charles I. and now first translated. With a large dedication to the present pope, giving him a very particular account of the state of religion among protestants, and of several other matters of importance relating to Great Britain,” 12mo. The dedication is supposed to have been written by Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. The same year still, he published “A Letter from the earl of Mar to the king before his majesty’s arrival in England;” and the year following, a second volume of “The Englishman.” In 1718, came out “An Account of his Fish pool:” he had obtained a patent for bringing fish to market alive; for, Steele was a projector, and that was one circumstance, among many, xvhich kept him always poor. In 1719, he published “The Spinster,” a pamphlet; and “A Letter to the earl of Oxford, concerning the bill of peerage,” which bill he opposed in the House of Commons. In 1720, he wrote two pieces against the South Sea scheme; one called “The Crisis of Property,” the other “A Nation a Family.”

In Jan. 1720, he began a paper under the name of sir John Edgar, called “The Theatre;” which he continued every Tuesday and Saturday, till the 5th of April following. During the course of this paper, viz. on the 23d of January, his patent of governor of the roynl company of comedians was revoked by the king: upon which, he drew up and published, " A State of the Case between the lord

pointed for concerts, speeches, poems, to dance country-dances, which was

champa gn, &u. and was ushered in by Horace was set to music and sung upon

himself, which was very merry and Mrs. Younger spoke the prologue, and

which, a large table, that was in the sir Richard’s way, was extremely diarea of the concert-house, was t-iken verting." Weekly- Miscellany, May

away, to make room for the company 28, 17tJ. chamberlain of his majesty’s household and the governor of the royal company of comedians.“He tells us, in this pamphlet, that a noble lord, without any cause assigned, sends a message, directed to sir Richard Steele, Mr. Wilks, and Mr. Booth, to dismiss Mr. Gibber, who for some time submitted to a disability of appearing on the stage, during the pleasure of one who had nothing to do 'with it; and that, when this lawless will and pleasure was changed, a very frank declaration was made, that all the mortification put upon Mr. Gibber was intended only as a prelude to remote evils, by which the patentee was to be affected. Upon this, sir Richard wrote to two of the ministers of state, and likewise delivered a petition to the king, in the presence of the lord chamberlain: but these had no effect, for his patent was revoked, though it does not appear for what reason; and the loss he sustained upon this occasion is computed by himself at almost 10,000l. In 1722, his comedy, called” The Conscious Lovers," was acted with great success; and published with a dedication to the king, for which his majesty made him a present of 500l.

Some years before his death, he retired to his seat at Llangunnor, near Caermarthen, in Wales, with a view to (economise for the benefit of his creditors. Here he was seized with a paralytic disorder, of which he died Sept. I, 1729, and was privately interred according to his own desire. He had been twice married: his first wife was a lady of Barbadoes, with whom he had a valuable plantation upon the death of her brother; his second was the daughter of Jonathan Scurlock, of Llangunnor, esq. by whom he had one daughter and two sons; the latter both died young, but the daughter, Elizabeth, was in 1732 married to the hon. John Trevor, afterwards baron Trevor of Bromham. Steele was a man of quick and excellent parts, accomplished in all branches of polite literature; -and would have passed for a better writer than he does, though he is allowed to be a very good one, if he had not been so connected in literary productions, as well as in friendship, with Addison. He speaks himself of their friendship in the following terms: “There never was a more strict friendship than between these gentlemen; nor had they ever any difference, but what proceeded from their different way of pursuing the same thing. The one with patience, foresight, and temperate address, always waited and stemmed the torrent f while the other often plunged himself into it, and was as often taken out by the temper of him who stood weeping on the bank for his safety, whom he could not dissuade from leaping into it. Thus these two men lived for some years last past, shunning each other, but still preserving the most passionate concern for their mutual welfare. But when they met, they were as unreserved as boys, and talked of the greatest affairs; upon which they saw where they differed, without pressing (what they knew impossible) to convert each other.”

, an eminent painter, was born at Leyden, in 1636, and was successively the disciple of Knufter, Brower, and Van Goyen, who had such a high opinion of him, that he thought he disposed of his daughter prudently when he gave her in marriage to Jan Steen. Jan Steen, however, was not prudent, for, although he had many opportunities of enriching himself, by other occupations as well as by his profession, he frequently was reduced, by an idle, intemperate, and dissipated course of life, to work for the subsistence of himself and his family. He had a strong manly style of painting, which might become even the design of Raphael, and he showed the greatest skill in composition, and management of light and shadow, as well as great truth in the expression and character of his figures. One of his capital pictures is a mountebank attended by a number of spectators, in which the countenances are wonderfully striking, full of humour, and uncommon variety. Houbraken mentions another remarkable picture painted by this master, representing a wedding, consisting of the old parents, the bride, the bridegroom, and a lawyer or notary. The notary is described as thoroughly engaged in attending to the words which he was to write down; the bridegroom appears in a violent agitation, as if dissatisfied with the match; and the bride seems to be in tears every character evidencing the ready and humorous invention of the artist. Houbraken also mentions a third picture, equally excellent, representing the funeral of a quaker; in which each face is distinguished by a peculiarly humorous cast of features, and the whole has a wonderful air of nature and probability. In designing his figures he preserved a proper distinction of the ranks and conditions of the persons introduced in his subject, by their forms, their attitudes, their air of expression; and in this respect appears worthy of being studied by other painters. His works did not bear an extraordinary price during his life, as he painted only when he was necessitous, and sold his pictures to answer his immediate demands. But after his death they rose amazingly in their value, and are rarely to be purchased, few paintings bearing a higher price, as well on account of their excellence as of their scarcity. He died in 1689, aged fifty-three, but Houbraken fixes his death in 1678, aged forty-two, eleven years earlier than other writers.

, a celebrated commentator on the works of Shakspeare, was the only son of George Steevens, esq. of Stepney, many years an East India captain, and afterwards a director of the East India company, who died in 1768. He was born at Stepney, May 10, 1736, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, about 1751 or 1752. He seems to have left the university without taking a degree, although not without accumulating a considerable degree of classical knowledge, and exhibiting that general acuteness and taste which he afterwards more fully displayed, particularly on subjects of ancient English literature. His attention, probably very early in life, was by some means attracted to the works of our great dramatic bard Shakspeare, who furnished Mr. Steevens throughout the whole of his life with constant employment. Shakspeare was the property which he thought himself bound to cultivate, improve, protect, and display to the best advantage; and it must be allowed that in illustrating this author, he stands unrivalled. His first appearance as an editor of Shakspeare was in 1766, when he was about thirty years old. At this time he published twenty of Shakspeare’s plays in 4 vols. 8vo, about a year after Dr. Johnson’s edition of the whole works had appeared. In this edition Mr. Steevens performed chiefly the office of a collator of these twenty plays with the quarto and subsequent editions; but about the same time he published, in the newspapers, and probably otherwise, a circular address, announcing his intention of an edition of all the plays with notes and illustrations. In this address, which we believe is not now generally known, he requests assistance from the public, which he says “is not desired with a lucrative view to the editor, but to engage the attention of the literary world. He will no more trust to his own single judgment in the choice of the notes he shall admit or reject, than he would undertake the work in confidence of his own abilities. These shall in their turn be subjected to other eyes and other opinions; and he has reason to hope, from such precautions, that he shall bici fairer for success than from any single reliance. He is happy to have permission, to enumerate Mr. Garrick among those who will take such a trouble on themselves; and is no less desirous to see him attempt to transmit some part of that knowledge of Shakspeare to posterity, without which, he can be his best commentator no longer than he lives.”