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

On the death of Dr. Halton in July 1704, Mr. Smith’s friends proposed him as a candidate for the provostship, but this he declined, and employed his interest, which was very great, in behalf of his tutor, Dr. Lancaster, who was accordingly elected, and proved a considerable benefactor to the college. It was he who conducted the erection of the buildings on the south side, from the benefaction of

6000l. left by sir Joseph Williamson for that purpose, in procuring which Mr. Smith had been very instrumental. In return Dr. Lancaster, in 1705, presented Mr. Smith first to Kussel-court chapel, and then to the lectureship of Trinity chapel in Conduit-street, both at that time in his gift as vicar of St. Martin’s-in-the- Fields.

These promotions requiring a residence in London, Mr. Smith was soon after appointed chaplain to Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, then lord chamberlain, whom he had known at Ryswick, where his lordship was one of the plenipotentiaries. Lord Jersey now introduced him at court, and he preached several times before the' queen, and would have been otherwise promoted by his lordship’s interest had he lived. But he not only lost this patron by death, but another, William Henry Granviile, nephew to dean Granville, and the last earl of Bath of that family, who had a very high esteem for him.

In the mean time, having accumulated his degrees in divinity, Nov. 2, 1708, he was presented by his college to the rectory of Knights-Emham, and the donative of UptonGrey, both in the county of Southampton. Soon after he married Mis.s Mary Lowther, niece to the late provost, Dr. Halton, and of the noble family of Lonsdale, a very amiable lady, who had engaged his affections while resident with her uncle at Queen’s. In 1716, Dr. Smith exchanged Upton -Grey with Dr. Grandorge, prebendary of Canterbury, for t'ie rectory of St. Dionis Back-church, London, where he performed the duties of a parish priest with the utmost assiduity, and was much admired, and consulted for his advice in matters of conscience, and where he reclaimed several persons, some of distinction, from the errors of popery, and was a great benefactor to the repairs of the church, over which he presided for forty years. He likewise annually bought a great number of religious tracts, which he liberally distributed among his parishioners.

On the accession of George I. he was again introduced at court by the earl of Grantham, lord chamberlain to the prince of Wales (Afterward George II.) and was made chaplain to the princess, in which office he continued, until her highness came to the throne, to give attendance in his turn; but at that period, although he was still her majesty’s chaplain, he had no farther promotion at court. For this two reasons have been assigned, the one that he was negligent in making use of his interest, and offered no solicitation; the other, that his Tory principles were not at that time very acceptable. He used to be called the Hanover Tory; but he was in all respects a man of moderation, and sincerely attached to the present establishment. As some compensation for the loss of court-favour, his old fellowstudent, Dr. Gibson, when bishop of Lincoln, promoted him to the prebend of Dunholm in that church, and upon his translation to London gave him the donative of Paddington, near London. In this place, Dr. Smith built a house for himself, the parsonage-house having been lost by his predecessor’s neglect, and afterwards retired here with his family for the benefit of his health. He also established an afternoon lecture, at the request of the inhabitants, and procured two acts of parliament, to which he contributed a considerable part of the expence, for twice enlarging the church-yard. The same patron also promoted him to the prebend of St. Mary, Newington, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, which proved very advantageous to him; but, as he $ow held two benefices with cure of souls, namely, St. Dionisand Paddington, he gave the rectory of Newington, annexed to the prebend, to Dr. Ralph Thoresby, son to the celebrated antiquary. On the building of the new church of St. George’s, Hanover-square, he was chosen lecturer in March 1725, and was there, as every where else, much admired for his talents in the pulpit. He had before resigned the lectureship of Trinity chapel in Conduit-street, and in 1731 resigned also that of St. George’s, in consequence of having been, on Oct. 20, 1730, elected provost of Queen’s college, which owes much of its present splendor and prosperity to his zeal and liberality. We have already noticed that he had persuaded sir Joseph Williamson to alter his will in its favour, which had before been drawn up in favour of endowing a college in Dublin; and it was now to his interference that the college owed the valuable foundation of John Michel, esq. for eight master fellows, four bachelor scholars, and four undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners, besides livings, &c. Dr. Smith was also instrumental in, procuring queen Caroline’s donation of 1000l. lady Elizabeth Hastings’s exhibitions, and those of sir Francis Bridgman, which, without his perseverance, would have been entirely lost; and besides what he bequeathed himself, he procured a charter of mortmain, in May 1732, to secure these several benefactions to the college.

During his provostship, which lasted twenty-six years, he was sensible of the infirmities of age, and was a great sufferer by acute complaints, particularly the strangury, which he bore with great resignation, and was always cheerful, active, and liberal. He passed much of his time at a villa at Kidlington, where he had purchased a manor and estate, but went up to London for some part of the year, and officiated at St. Dionis church. He died in Queen’s college, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 1756, in the eighty-sixth year of his age, and was interred in the vault under the chapel. He published only two sermons, the one on the death of queen Anne, entitled “The duty of the living to the memory of the dead,” the other before the sons of the clergy; and in 1754, a pamphlet entitled “A clear and comprehensive view of the Being and Attributes of God, formed not only upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures, but the solid reasonings and testimonies of the best authors, both Heathen and Christian, which have writ upon that subject.” He also contributed much to the publication of bishop Beveridge’s works, when the Mss. were entrusted to his care in 1707, and gave an excellent character of that pious author in the preface.

Mrs. Smith died April 29, 1745, and was buried at Kidlington, where many of the family He. By her he had three children, Joseph, Anne, and William. The last died young, and was buried in St. Dionis church, London. Anne became the wife of the rev. William Lamplugh, some time fellow of New college, Oxford, who died in 1737, after which she married major James Hargrave, and survived her father, as did her brother, Joseph Smith, esq. LL. D. who inherited the estate at Kidlington.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1618, at Achurch, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, where his father possessed a small farm. In April 1636, he was admitted of Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he had the happiness of having Dr. Whichcote, then fellow of that college, afterwards provost of King’s, for his tutor. He took a bachelor of arts’ degree in 1640, and a master’s in 1644; and, the same year, was chosen a fellow of Queen’s college, the fellowships appropriated to his county in his own college being none of them vacant. Here he became an eminent tutor, and read a mathematical lecture for some years in the public schools. He died Aug. 7, 1652, and was interred in the chapel of the same college; at which time a sermon was preached by Simon Patrick, then fellow of Queen’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely, giving a short account of his life and death. In this he is represented as a man of great abilities, vast learning, and possessing also every grace and virtue which can improve and adorn human nature. His moral and spiritual perfections could be only known to his contemporaries; but his uncommon abilities and erudition appear manifestly in those treatises of his, which were published by Dr. John Worth in gton at Cambridge, in 1660, 4to, under the title of “Select Discourses,” consisting, 1. “Of the true Way or Method of attaining to Divine Knowledge.” 2. “Of Superstition.” 3. “Of Atheism.” 4. “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” 5. Of the Existence and Nature of God.“6.” Of Prophesy.“7.” Of the Difference between the Legal and the Evangelical Righteousness, the old and new Covenant, &c. 8. “Of the Shortness and Vanity of a Pharisaical Righteousness.” 9. “Of the Excellency and Nobleness of true Religion.” 10. “Of a Christian’s conflict with, and conquests over, Satan.”

These are not sermons, but treatises; and are less known than they deserve. They shew an uncommon reach of understanding and penetration, as well as an immense treasure of learning, in their author. A second edition of them, corrected, with the funeral sermon by Patrick annexed, was published at Cambridge, in 1673, 4to. The discourse “upon Prophesy,” was translated into Latin by Le Clerc, and prefixed to his “Commentary on the Prophets,” published in 173 1.

, pronounced by Mr. Walpole (since lord Orford) to be the best mezzotinter that has appeared, was certainly a genius of singular merit, who united softness with strength, and finishing with freedom. He flourished towards the end of king William’s reign, but of his life lit' tie is known, except that he served his time with one Tillet, a painter, in Moor-fields; and that as soon as he became his own master, he applied to Becket, and learned the secret of mezzotinto. Being further instructed by Vander Vaart, he was taken to work in the house of sir Godfrey Kneller; and, as he was to be the publisher of that master’s works, no doubt he received considerable hints from him, wh,tch he amply repaid. “To posterity, perhaps,” says lord Orford, “his prints will carry an idea of something burlesque; perukes of outrageous length flowing over suits of armour, compose wonderful habits. It is equally strange that fashion could introduce the one, and establish the practice of representing the other, when it was out of fashion. Smith excelled in exhibiting both, as he found them in the portraits of Kneller.” Lord Orford and Mr. Strutt have given a list of his best works, and the latter an instance of avarice not much to his credit.

, bishop of Gloucester, a very learned prelate, was born in the city of Hereford, and became, about the year 1568, a student in Corpus Christi college, Oxford; from which college he transferred himself to Brasen Nose, and took the degrees in arts, as a member of that house. He was afterwards made one of the chaplains, or petty canons of Christ-church, and was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, whilst he belonged to that royal foundation. In process of time he was raised to the dignity of canon residentiary of the cathedral church of Hereford: he was created doctor of divinity in 1594; and, at length, in 1612, advanced to tke see of Gloucester, and consecrated on the 20th of September in that year. His knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Oriental languages was so extraordinary, that, upon this account, he was described, by a learned bishop of the kingdom, as a, “very walking library.” He used to say of himself, that he was “covetous of nothing but books.” It was particularly for his exact and eminent skill in the Eastern tongues, that he was thought worthy, by king James the First, to be called to that great work, the last transiation by authority of our English Bible. In this undertaking he was esteemed one of the principal persons. He began with the first, and was the last man in the translation of the work: for after the task was finished by the whole number appointed to the business, who were somewhat above forty, the version was revised and improved by twelve selected from them; and, at length, was referred to the final examination of Bilson bishop of Winchester, and our Dr. Smith. When all was ended, he was commanded to write a preface, which being performed by him, it was made public, and is the same that is now extant in our Church Bible. The original is said to be preserved in the Bodleian library. It was for his good services in this translation, that Dr. Smith was appointed bishop of Gloucester, and had leave to hold in commendam with his bishopric his former livings, namely, the prebend of Hinton in the church of Hereford, the rectories of Upton-onSevern, Hartlebury in the diocese of Worcester, and the first portion of Ledbury, called Overhall. According to Willis he died October 20; but W r ood says, in the beginning of November, 1624, and was buried in his own cathedral. He was a strict Calvinist, and of course no friend to the proceedings of Dr. Laud. In 1632, a volume of sermons, transcribed from his original manuscripts, being fifteen in number, was published at London, in folio, and he was the editor of bishop Babington’s works, to which he prefixed a preface, and wrote some verses for his picture. One of bishop Smith’s own sermons was published in octavo, 1602, without his knowledge or consent, by Robert Burhill, under the title of “A learned and godly Sermon, preached at Worcester, at an assize, by the Rev. and learned Miles Smith, doctor of divinitie.”

, a learned popish divine, but of great fickleness in his principles, was born in Worcestershire in 1500, and educated at Oxford. In 1527 he was admitted a probationary fellow of Mer ton-college, took the degree of M. A. in 1530, and was elected registrar of the university the year following. He afterwards became rector of Cuxham in Oxfordshire, principal of St. Alban’shail, divinity-reader of Magdalen-college, regius professor of divinity, and took his doctor’s degree in that faculty. In 1537, he was made master of Wittington-college in London, of which he was deprived in the reign of Edward VI. In the first year of this reign, he recanted his opinions at St. Paul’s-cross, yet was obliged to resign his professorship at Oxford, in which he was succeeded by the celebrated reformer Peter Martyr, with whom he had afterwards a controversy. From Oxford he went first to St. Andrew’s in Scotland, and thenceto Paris, in 1550, and from Paris to Lovaine, where he was complimented with the professorship of theology.

On the accession of queen Mary, he returned to England, was restored to his professorship, made canon of Christ-church, and chaplain to her majesty. One of his principal appearances on record was at Oxford, where, when the bishops Ridley and Latimer were brought to the stake, he preached a sermon on the text, “If I give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” This discourse, which lasted only about a quarter of an hour, was replete with invectives against the two martyrs, and gross assertions, which they offered to refute on the spot, but were not permitted. He was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Cranmer, who had done him many acts of friendship in the preceding reign. For this conduct he was deprived of all his preferments when queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1559, and was committed to the custody of archbishop Parker, by whose persuasion he recanted part of what he had written in defence of the celibacy of the clergy. He then contrived to make his escape, and went to Doway in Flanders, where he obtained the deanery of St. Peter’s church, and a professorship. He died in 1563. He wrote about sixteen tracts in favour of popery, some of which were answered by Peter Martyr. A list of them may be seen in Dodd or Wood. They are partly in Latin and partly in English, the latter printed in London, and the former at Lovaine.

His character seems to have been a singular one: he suffered for popery, yet deserted it, and embraced it at last, after having expressly declared himself in error. His recantations, however, we should suppose insincere, and made only to save himself. Such conduct is never much respected, and Strype informs us, that being desirous to confer with one Hawks, the latter said, “To be short, I will know whether you will recant any more, ere I talk with you or believe you.”

, another Roman catholic champion, was born in Lincolnshire in 1566, and studied for some time at Trinity-college, Oxford; but afterwards went to llome, where he was a pupil of Bellarmin. Having concluded his studies in Spain, he took his doctor’s degree at Valladolid, and in 1603 arrived in England as a missionary. His proceedings here were not much different from those of other popish propagandists, except that he appears to have been frequently at variance with those of his own communion, and particularly with Parsons the celebrated Jesuit. In 1625, he was appointed bishop of Chalcedon. He happened at this time to be at Paris, but returned immediately to England “to take upon him the government of the English catholicks,” and remained unmolested until he had a quarrel with the regulars of his own church, which made his character known; and a reward being offered for apprehending him, he escaped to France, where he died March 18, 1655. He wrote various works in defence of popery, as well as of himself, in his dispute with the regulars. The former were answered by bishop Martin, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Daniel Featley, in whose works, as his name occurs, this brief sketch has been thought necessary.

, one of the earliest book-collectors upon record, and the Isaac Reed of his time, was the son of Richard Smith, a clergyman, and was born at Lillingston Dayrell, in Buckinghamshire, in 1590. He appears to have studied for some time at Oxford, but was removed thence by his parents, and placed as clferk with an attorney in London, where he spent all the time he could spare from business in reading. He became at length secondary of the Poultry counter, a place worth 700l. a year, which he enjoyed many years, and sold it in 1655, on the death of his son, to whom he intended to resign it. He now retired to private life, two thirds of which, at least, Wood says, he spent in his library. “He was a person,” adds the same author, “infinitely curious and inquisitive after books, and suffered nothing extraordinary to escape him that fell within the compass of his learning desiring to be master of no more than he knew how to use.” If in this last respect he differed from some modern collectors, he was equally indefatigable in his inquiries after libraries to be disposed of, and passed much of his time in Little Britain and other repositories of stall-books, by which means he accumulated a vast collection of curiosities relative to history, general and particular, politics, biography, with many curious Mss. all which he carefully collated, compared editions, wrote notes upon them, assigning the authors to anonymous works, and, in short, performing all the duties and all the drudgery of a genuine collector. He also occasionally took up his pen, wrote a life of Hugh Broughton, and had a short controversy with Dr. Hammond on the sense of that article in the creed “He descended into hell,” published in 1684. He also wrote some translations, but it does not very clearly appear from Wood, whether these were printed. He died March 26, 1675, and was buried in St. Giles’s Cripplegate, where a marble monument was soon afterwards erected to his memory. In 1682 his library was sold by Chiswell, the famous bookseller of St. Paul’s Church-yard, by a printed catalogue, “to the great reluctance,” says Wood, “of public-spirited men.” His “Obituary,” or “catalogue of all such persons as he knew in their life,” extending from 1606 to 1674, a very useful article, is printed by Peck in the second volume of his “Desiderata.”

, the very learned successor of Bentley as master of Trinity college, Cambridge, was born in 1689, and educated at that college, where he took his degrees of A. B. in 1711, A.M. in 1715, L L. D. in 1723, and D. D. in 1739. Very little, we regret to say, is on record, respecting Dr. Smith, who has so well deserved of the learned world. He was mathematical preceptor to William duke of Cumberland, and master of mechanics to his majesty, George II. It appears that he was maternal cousin, of the celebrated Roger Cotes, whom he succeeded in 1716, as Plumian professor at Cambridge, and afterwards succeeded Bentley as master of Trinity. He published some of the works of his cousin Cotes, particularly his “Hydrostatical and Pneumatical Lectures,” 1737, 8vo also a collection of Cotes’s pieces from the Philosophical Transactions, &c. 1722, 4to. His own works, which sufficiently evince his scientific knowledge, were his “Complete systern of Optics,” 1728, 2 vols. 4to; and his “Harmonics, or the philosophy of Musical Sounds,” 1760. He died in 1768, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. The late Mr. Cumberland, who was under him at Trinity college, says. Dr. Smith was a strict examiner into the proficiency of the students, and led himself the life of a student, abstemious and recluse, his family consisting only of an unmarried sister advanced in years, and a niece. He was of a thin habit, the tone of his voice shrill and nasal, and his manner of speaking such as denoted forethought and deliberation.

, one of the most popular writers of pious tracts in the seventeenth century, and whose works are still in vogue, was the son of a clergyman, and born at or near Dudley, in Worcestershire, in 158S, and studied for some time at St. Mary Hall, Oxford. He left the university without taking a degree, and became beneficed at Vrittlewell, in Essex, and afterwards, as Wood says, in his own country, but,“according to Calamy, he had the perpetual curacy of Cressedge and Cound, in Shropshire. On the breaking out of the rebellion he came to London, sided with the presbyterians, and became a frequent and popular preacher. On his return to the country he was appointed an assistant to the commissioners for the ejection of those they were pleased to term” scandalous and ignorant ministers and schoolmasters.“At the restoration he was ejected from Cressedge, but neither Wood nor Calamy have ascertained when he died. The former says” he was living an aged man near Dudley in 1663.“His works are, J.” David’s blessed man; or a short exposition upon the first Psalm,“Lond. 8vo, of which the fifteenth edition, in 12mo, was printed in 1686. 2.” The Great Assize, or the Day of Jubilee,“12mo, which before 1681 went through thirty-one editions, and was often reprinted in the last century. 3.” A Fold for Christ’s Sheep,“printed thirty-two times. 4.” The Christian’s Guide," of which there were numerous editions. He published some other tracts and sermons, which also had a very numerous class of readers.

, a very learned writer and statesman, in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, was born ^larch 28, 1514, at Saffron-Walden in Essex. He was the son of John Smith, a gentleman of that place, who was much inclined to the principles of the reformation, which had then made but a very small progress. After attending a grammar-school, Thomas was sent about 1528 to Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he greatly distinguished himself, and had a king’s scholarship at the same time with the celebrated John Cheke. Queen’s college was one of those which favoured the opinions of Erasmus and Luther, and many of the members used to confer privately together about religion, in which they learned to detect the abuses of the schools, and the superstitions of popery. In such conferences Mr. Smith probably took his share, when of sufficient standing to be admitted, which was very soon, for in 1531 he was chosen a fellow of the college. In the mean time he had formed a strict friendship with Cheke, and they pursued their classical studies together, reading Cicero, Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristotle: and such was Smith’s proficiency, that about 1533 he was appointed Greek professor in the university.

About this time he and Cheke introduced a new mode of reading Greek, being dissatisfied with the corrupt and vicious pronunciation which then prevailed. As this was accounted an innovation of the most important, and even dangerous tendency, and exhibits a curious instance of the manners and sentiments of the times, we shall give a more particular account of it in the plain language of honest Strype. According to this biographer, it appears that “custom had established a very faulty manner of sounding several of the vowels and diphthongs; for, i, n 9 v, ei, 01, w, were all pronounced as lura;” nihil fere aliud,“says Smith,” haberet ad loquendum, nisi lugubrss sonos et illud flebile /wra.“He conferred therefore with Cheke upon this point, and they perceived that the vulgar method of pronouncing Greek was false; since it was absurd, that so many different letters and diphthongs should all have but one sound. They proceeded to search authors for the determination of this point: but the modern writers little availed them; they had not seen Erasmus’s book, in which he excepted against the common way of reading Greek. But though both of them saw these palpable errors, they could not agree among themselves, especially concerning the letters vna and i/4-jXov. Soon after, having procured Erasmus’s book, andTerentianus” de literis et syllabis,“they began to reform their pronunciation of Greek privately, and only communicated it to their most intimate friends. When they had sufficiently habituated themselves to this new method of pronunciation, with which they were highly pleased, on account of the fullness and sweetness of it, they resolved to make trial of it publicly; and it was agreed that Smith should begin. He read lectures at that time upon Aristotle” de Republic^,“in Greek, as he had done some years before: and, that the novelty of his pronunciation might give the less offence, he used this artifice, that in reading he would let fall a word only now and then, uttered in the new correct sound. At first no notice was taken of this; but, when he did it oftener, his auditors began to observe and listen more attentively; and, when he had often pronounced n and 01, as e and w, they, who three years before had heard him sound them after the old way, could not think it a slip of the tongue, but suspected something else, and laughed at the unusual souncks. He again, as though his tongue had slipped, would sometimes correct himself, and repeat the word after the old manner. But, when he did this daily, some of his friends came to him, and told him what they had remarked in his lectures: upon which he owned that he had been thinking of something privately, but that it was not yet sufficiently digested and prepared for the public. They, on the other hand, prayed him not to conceal it from them, but to acquaint them with it frankly; and accordingly he promised them that he would. Upon this rumour many resorted to him, whom he desired only to hear his reasons, and to have patience with him three or four days at most; until the sounds by use were made more familiar to their ears, and the prejudice against their novelty worn off. At this time he read lectures upon Homer’s” Odyssey,“in his own college; and there began more openly to shew and determine the difference of the sounds: Cheke likewise did the same in his college. After this, many came to them, in order to learn of them how to pronounce after the new method; and it is not to be expressed with what greediness and affection this was received among the youth. The following winter there was acted in St. John’s college, Aristophanes’ s” Plutus," in Greek, and one or two more of his comedies, without the least dislike or opposition from any who were esteemed learned men and masters of the Greek language. Ponet, a pupil of Smith, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, read Greek lectures publicly in the new pronunciation; as likewise did Roger Ascham, who read Isocrates, and at first was averse to this pronunciation, though he soon became a zealous advocate for it. Thus, in a few years, this new way of reading Greek, introduced by Smith, prevailed every where in the university; and was followed even by Redman, the professor of divinity.

"Afterwards, however, it met with great opposition for, about lo'tv, when Smith was going to travel, Cheke being appointed the king’s lecturer of the Greek language, began by explaining and enforcing the new pronunciation, but was opposed by one liateclitf, a scholar of the university; who, being exploded for his attempt, brought the dispute before bishop Gardiner, the chancellor. Upon this, the bishop interposed his authority; who, being averse to all innovations as well as those in religion, and observing these endeavours in Cambridge of introducing the new pronunciation of Greek to come from persons suspected to be no friends to the old papal superstitions, he made a solemn decree against it. Cheke was very earnest with the chancellor to supersede, or at least to connive at the neglect of this decree; but the chancellor continued indexible. But Smith, having waited upon him at Hampton Court, and discoursed with him upon the point, declared his readiness to comply with the decree; but upon his return, recollected his discourse with the bishop, and in a long and eloquent epistle in Latin, privately sent to him, and argued with much freedom the points in controversy between them. This epistle consisted of three parts. In the first he shewed what was to be called true and right in the whole method of pronunciation; and retrieved this from the common and present use, and out of the hands both of the ignorant and learned of that time, and placed it with the ancients, restoring to them their right and authority, propounding them as the best and only pattern to be imitated by all posterity *vith regard to the Greek tongue. In the second he compared the old and new pronunciation with that pattern, that the bishop might see whether of the two came nearer to it. In the third he gave an account of his whole conduct in this affair. This epistle was dated from Cambridge, August 12, 1542. He afterwards, while he was ambassador at Paris, caused it to be printed there by Robert Stephens, in 4to, in 1568, under the title of “De recta et emendata Linguae Graecse Pronunciatione,” together with another tract of his concerning the right pronunciation and writing English/'

In the mean time, Mr. Smith acquired great reputation by his Greek lectures, which were frequented by a vast concourse of students, and by men then or afterwards of great eminence, such as Redman, Cox, Cecil, Haddon, Ascharn, &c. In 1536 he was appointed university orator; and in 1539 set out on his travels, prosecuting his studies for some time in the universities of France and Italy. At Padua he took the degree of doctor of laws, and some time after his return, in 1542, was admitted ad eundem at Cambridge, and appointed regius professor of civil law. He was also appointed chancellor to the bishop of Ely; and in both situations appears to have exerted himself to promote the cause of the reformed religion, as well as of learning. At a commencement about 1546, both his disputations aod determinations were such, that the learned Haddon, in a letter to Dr. Cox, says that, “had he been there, he would have heard another Socrates, and that Smith caught the forward disputants as it were in a net with his questions, and that he concluded the profound causes of philosophy with great gravity and deep knowledge.”

Strype lias computed the value of Dr. Smith’s preferments at this time; according to which, his professorship of civil law brought him in 40l.; the chancellorship of Ely was worth 50l. and a benefice which he had in Cambridgeshire was worth 36l. so that the whole of his preferments amounted to 126l. a year. “And this,” says Strype, “was the port he lived in before his leaving Cambridge. He kept three servants, and three gun-;, and three winter geldings. And this stood him in 3o/. per annum, together with his own board.” A man of his talents and reputation, however, was not destined to continue in a college life. On the accession of Edward \ I. when he could avow his sentiments with freedom, he was invited into the family of the protector duke of Somerset, by whom he was employed in atiairs of state, probably such as concerned the reformation. The duke appointed him his master of requests, steward of the stannenes, provost oi Eton, and dean of Carlisl Strype says that he “was at least in deacon’s orders,” but of this fact we have no evidence, and Strype, in Granger’s opinion, seems to have hazarded the conjecture because he could not otherwise account for the spiritual preferments he enjoyed. We have just mentioned that he had a benefice in Cambridgeshire, which was the rectory of Leverington, and this was conferred on him in the time of Henry VIII.; but a rectory might have been held by any one who was a clerk at large; for though the law of the church was, that in such a case, he should take the order of priesthood within one year after his institution, yet that was frequently dispensed with.

While he lived in the duke of Somerset’s family, he married his first wife, Elizabeth Carkyke, daughter of a gentleman in London. Strype says, “She was a little woman, and one that affected not fine, gaudy clothes, for which she was taxed by some. And by this one might rather judge her to have been a woman of prudence and religion, and that affected retirement rather than the splendour of a court. For Dr. Smith allowed her what she pleased; and she was his cash-keeper. However, he used to wear goodly apparel, and went like a courtier himself. For which he said, that some might seem to have cause rather to accuse him to go too sumptuously, than her of going too meanly.” “This wife,” Strype adds, “he buried, having no issue by her; and married a second, named Philippa, the relict of sir John Hamden, who outlived him.”

In 1548, he received the honour of knighthood, and was appointed secretary of state; and in July the same year he was sent to Brussels, in the character of ambassador to the emperor. He also continued to be active in promoting the reformation, and likewise in the redress of base coin, on which last subject he wrote a letter to the duke of Somerset. But in 1549, that nobleman being involved in those troubles which brought him to the scaffold, sir Thomas, who was his faithful adherent, incurred some degree of suspicion, and was for a short time deprived of his office of secretary of state. When the duke fell into disgrace, there were only three who adhered to him, viz. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, sir William Paget, and our sir Thomas Smith; between whom and the lords at London there passed letters on this affair, carried by sir Philip Hoby. In this they ran no small risk; for the lords wrote to them, that it seemed strange that they should assist, or suffer the king’s person to remain in the guard of the duke’s men; and that strangers should be armed with the king’s own armour, and be nearest about his person; and those, to whom the ordinary charge was committed, to be sequestered away. And the lords sent them word likewise, that if any evil came, they must expect it would be imputed to them; and as the archbishop, Paget, and Smith, in their letter to the lords told them, that they knew more than they (the lords) knew, the lords took advantage of these words, and answered, that “if the matters, which came to their knowledge, and were hidden from them, were of such weight as they pretended, or if they touched or might touch his majesty or his state, they thought that they did not as they ought to do in not disclosing the same to them.” At last Smith, together with the archbishop and Paget, sent another letter from Windsor, where the king and ibey were, that they would not fail to endeavour themselves according to the contents of the lords’ letters, and that they would meet when and where their lordships should think proper. “This,” says Strype, “was a notable instance of Smith’s fidelity to the duke his old master, who stuck thus to him as long as he durst, and was then glad to comply as fairly as he could.”

In 1551, sir Thomas was appointed one of the ambassadors to the court of France, to treat concerning a match for the king with the eldest daughter of the king of France; but the king’s life was now at a close, and on the accession of Mary, sir Thomas was deprived of all his places, and was charged not to depart the kingdom; yet enjoyed uncommon privileges. He was allowed a pension of 100l. per annum; he was highly favoured by Gardiner and Bonner on account of the opinion they had of his learning; and enjoyed a particular indulgence from the pope, which was occasioned by the following circumstance. In 1.555, William Smythwick of the diocese of Bath, esq. obtained an indulgence from Pius IV. by which he and any five of his friends, whom he should nominate, were to enjoy extraordinary dispensations. The indulgence exempted them from all ecclesiastical censures upon whatever occasion or cause inflicted; and “from all and singular their sins whereof they are contrite and confessed, although they were such for which the apostolic see were to be consulted.” Smythwick chose Smith, for one of his five friends specified in the bull, to be partaker of those privileges; and this undoubtedly was a great security to him in those perilous times. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, sir Thomas Smith was again received at court, and employed in affairs both of church and state. He was also sent on various embassies. In 1562 he was sent ambassador to France, where, in conjunction with sir Nicholas Throgmorton, he concluded a peace between England and France in the beginning of 156*, but was still continued ambassador in France. In March 1565 he finished his treatise of “the Commonwealth of England,” and in the beginning of the year following returned to England. In 1567 he was again sent ambassador to France to demand the restitution of Calais; and upon his return from thence in 1568, he solicited for the place of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, but without success, it being given to sir Ralph Sadleir. In 1570 he was admitted into the privy council, and in 1572, he was again appointed secretary of state, and chancellor of the order of the garter.

Sir Thomas, with all his talents and good sense, was much of a projector, and about this time engaged in a foolish scheme for transmuting iron into copper. Into this project, says Strype, “he brought sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who had a philosophical genius, the earl of Leicester, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and others. The first occasion of this business was from one Medley, who had by vitriol changed iron into true copper at sir Thomas Smith’s house at London, and afterwards at his house in Essex. But this was too costly, as sir Thomas saw, to make any profit from. He propounded, therefore, to find out here in England the Primum Ens Vitrivli, by which to do the work at a cheaper rate. Upon this sir Thomas Smith, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and Medley, entered into a company under articles to find this out; that is, that Medley should be employed in this business at the charge of the other two, till by the profit he should reap from the thing found out he might bear his proportion. The place where this was to be attempted was in the Isle of Wight, or at Poole, or elsewhere. But at Winchelsea he had made the first trial, on account of the plenty of wood there. He received of sir Thomas and sir Humphrey an hundred and one pounds a piece, for the buying of vessels and necessaries. They removed to Poole, thinking the Ens of vitriol to be there, and took a lease of the land of the lady Mountjoy of three hundred pounds per annum, for the payment of which sir Thomas, with the other two, entered into a bond of a thousand pounds. While these things were in this state, sir Thomas was sent ambassador to France in 1572; and a quarrel happening between sir Humphrey and Medley, who went to Ireland, the business was discontinued for some time. But sir Thomas revived it at his return, and persuaded the lord treasurer Burghley and the earl of Leicester to enter into society about December 1574, who deposited each a hundred pounds towards carrying on the project. Medley was now removed to Anglesey, where the fuel, earth, and water were proper for his business; and the things which he undertook to perform, were these two; first, to make of raw iron good copper, and c,f the same weight and proportion, abating one part in six; so that six hundred tons of iron should by boiling make five hundred tons of perfect copper; secondly, that the liquor, wherein the iron was boiled, should make copperas and alum ready for the merchant; which, keeping the price they then bore, should of the liquor of five hundred tons of copper be ten thousand pounds, that is, for every ton two thousand pounds. After several trials the patent of the society was signed in January 1574, in which the society was styled” The Society of the new Art;“but at last the project proved abortive;” and I make no doubt,“says Strype,” sir Thomas smarted in his purse for his chymical covetousness, and Gilbert seems to have been impoverished by it; and Medley was beggared."

Another of his projects was the establishment of a colony in a land which he had purchased in Ireland, called The Ardes, a rich and pleasant country on the eastern coast of Ulster, and of considerable extent, lying well for trade by sea. Sir Thomas in 1571 had procured a patent from her majesty for it, the substance of which was, that he was to be lieutenant-general there for war, and for distribution of Jands, orders, and laws in the matters thereunto pertaining; in short, to obtain and govern the country to be won, following the instructions and orders to him to be directed from the queen and her council; and this for the first seven years. Afterwards the government of the country to return to such officers as the customs and laws of England did appoint, except the queen should think him worthy to be appointed the governor thereof, as being a frontier country, the right to remain only in him as to the inheritance; the authority to muster and call together his sol tiers throughout the same country, and to dispose of them upon the frontiers, as he should see cause for the better defence of the country. Sir Thomas sent his natural son, Thomas Smith, with a colony thither, who did good service there, but was at last intercepted and slain by a wild Irishman. The settlement of this colony cost sir Thomas ten thousand pounds; but after his death it seems to have been neglected for some time, and the Ardes were afterwards lost to his family, being given away by king James I. to some of the Scots nobility.

In 1575, we find sir Thomas better employed in procuring an act of parliament for the two universities and the two colleges of Eton and Winchester, ordering that a third part of the rent upon leases made by colleges should be reserved in corn, &c. Fuller observes, that “sir Thomas Smith was said by some to have surprized the house therein; where many could not conceive how this would be at all profitable to the colleges, but still the same on the point, whether they had it in money or wares. But the knight took the advantage of the present cheapness, knowing hereafter grain would grow dearer, mankind daily multiplying, and licence being lately given for transportation. So that at this day much emolument redoundeth to the colleges in each university by the passing of this act; and though their rents stand still, their revenues do increase.” In truth the present prosperity, we may almost say, existence of the universities, is owing to this wise and useful precaution.

About 1576, sir Thomas fell into a declining state of health, which put an end to his life, Aug. 12, 1577, in the sixty-third year of his age. He died at his favourite seat of Mounthall, or Mounthaut in Essex, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church of Theydon Mount, where is a monument to his memory. He died rich, and in his will are instances of his liberality. He gave all his Greek and Latin books to Queen’s college, Cambridge, except a few left as presents to some friends. His estates descended to sir William Smith, son of his brother George.

Sir Thomas Smith was of a fair, sanguine complexion, and of a calm, open, and ingenuous countenance. He was a man of extensive learning, well skilled in the Latin, Greek, French, and Italian languages, and esteemed for his eloquence. His biographer adds to all this his knowledge of the Platonic philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, physic, chemistry, &c. but in these he appears to have been but superficial. He had his credulities and his weaknesses in matters of science, but they were those of his age. He was a firm friend to the reformed religion, and, when he could, protected its professors from persecution At one time of his life his morals appear to have been less correct than in the after-part of it, as we read of his having a natural son.

His works are, 1. “De Republica Anglorum, or the Manner of government or police of the kingdom of England,” first printed in 4to, 1533 and 1584, and again with additions “Of the cheefe Courts in England,” 1589, 4to, and again in 1594. It was afterwards often reprinted both in English and Latin, and in the latter language forms one of the “Respublicae.” There is an English ms. of it in the Harleian collection. 2. “De recta et emendata lingua? Grcecie pronunciatione,” of which we have spoken already. 3. “A Treatise concerning the correct writing and true pronunciation of the English tongue,” which does sir Thomas less credit than the former. He even went so far in his whimsical reformation of our language, as to compose a new alphabet, consisting of twenty-nine letters, nineteen of which were Roman, four Greek, and six English or Saxon. An engraving of this novelty is given by Strype in his life of sir Thomas. 4. “Four Orations, for and against queen Elizabeth’s marriage,” also in Strype. 5. Several letters to lord Burleigh and sir Francis Walsingham, printed in the “Complete Ambassador,” and in other collections; and many in ms. are in the paper-office and other public repositories. 6. “Device for the alteration and reformation of Religion,” written in 155S, and printed among the records at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation," is attributed by Strype to sir Thomas Smith. Among the Harleian Mss. is a discourse written by our author to sir William Cecil, upon the value of the Roman foot soldiers 7 daily wages. It is comprised in 29 sections. Some of the tables are printed by Strype. Sir Thomas also left some English poetry. Warton informs us, that while a prisoner in the Tower (a circumstance, if we mistake not, overlooked by Strype, but which must have been the consequence of his attachment to the duke of Somerset) he translated eleven of the Psalms into English metre, and composed three English metrical prayers, with three English copies of verses besides. These are now in the British Museum Mss. Reg. 17 A. XVII.

, a learned English writer and divine, was born in the parish of Allhallows Barking, in London, June 3, 1638, and admitted of Queen’s college in Oxford at nineteen, where he took the degrees in arts. In 1663 he was made master of the free school joining to Magdalen college; and, in 1666, elected fellow of that college, being then famous for his skill in the oriental languages. In June 1668, he went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador to Constantinople; and returned thence in 1671. In 1676, he travelled into France; and, returning after a short stay, became chaplain to sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state. In 1679 he was designed to collate and publish the Alexandrian manuscript in St. James’s library, and to have for his reward (as Charles II. promised) a canonry of Windsor or Westminster; but that design was reserved for the industry and abilities of Mr. Woide, at a far distant period (1784). Mr. Smith published a great many works, and had an established reputation among the learned. So high an opinion was conceived of him, that he was solicited Ijr the bishops Pearson, Fell, and Lloyd, to return into the east, in order to collect ancient manuscripts of the Greek fathers. It was designed that be should visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was said to be extant a great number of Mss. reposited there before the decline of the Greek empire. He was then to proceed to ^Smyrna, Nice, Nicornedia, Ancyra, and at last to Egypt; and to employ two or three years in this voyage; but he could not prevail on himself to undertake it, both on account of the dangers inevitably to be encountered, and of the just expectations he had from his patron Williamson of preferment in the church. These expectations, however, were disappointed; for Wood says, that, after living several years with him, and performing a great deal of drudgery for him, he was at length dismissed without any reward. In 1683, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and, the year after, was nominated by his college to the rectory of Stanlake in the diocese of Oxford, but upon some dislike resigned it in a month. In 1687, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Heytesbury in Wilts. In August 3688, he was deprived of his fellowship by Dr. GilTard, the Popish president of Magdalen college, because he refused to live among the new Popish fellows of that college. He had before resisted the intrusion of Antony Farmer into the office of president, and presented a petition to the earl of Sunderland, beseeching the king either to leave the college to a free election, or recommend a qualified person. This being refused, he was for presenting a second address, before they proceeded to the election, and at last he and Mr. Chernock were the only two fellows that submitted to the authority of the royal commissioners, yet this did not avail him when he refused to associate with the new popish fellows under GilTard. He was, however, restored in Octoher following; but, afterwards refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, his fellowship was pronounced void, July 25, 1692. From this time he lived chiefly in sir John Cotton’s family. He died at London, May 11, 1710, and was buried in St. Anne’s church, Soho, privately, according to his desire.

His works, are, 1. “Diatriba de Chaldaicis Paraphrastis,” Oxon. 1662, 8vo. 2. “Syntagma de Druidum moribus ac institutis.” 3. “Remarks upon the Manners, Religion, and Government of the Turks; together with a Survey of the seven Churches of Asia, as they now lie in their Ruins; and a brief Description of Constantinople,” 1678, 8vo, originally published in Latin. 4. “De Grsecse Ecclesix hodierno statu Epistola;” which, with additions, he translated into English, and published with the following title: “An Account of the Greek Church, as to its Doctrines and Rites of Worship, with several Historical Remarks interspersed, relating thereto. To which is added, an Account of the State of the Greek Church under Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, with a Relation of his Sufferings and Death,” 1680, 8vo. 5. “De causis et rernediis dissidiorum,” &c. Ox. 1675, 4to, printed afterwards among his “Miscellanea,” and published by him in English, under the title of “A pacific Discourse or, the causes and remedies of the differences about religion, which distract the peace of Christendom,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 6. Two volumes of “Miscellanea” in Latin, on subjects chiefly of ecclesiastical history and biblical criticism, Lond. 1686, 8vo, and 1692, 4to. 7. A translation of the “Life of St. Mary Magdalen of Pazzi,” with a preface, ibid. 1687, 4to. 8. A Latin life of Camden, which was prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Epistolse,” in 1691, 4to. 9. “Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibl, Cottonianse,” Oxon. 1696, fol. with a life of sir Robert Cotton. 10. “Inscriptiones Grgecse. Palmyrenorum, cum scholiis Ed. Bernardi et Thotnse Smithi,” Utrecht, 1698, 8vo. 11. The lives of Dr. Robert Huntington, bishop of Raphoe, and of Dr. Edward Bernard, in Latin. 12. An edition of “Ignatii Epistolae,” Oxon. 1709, 4to. 13. A preface to sir Philip Warwick’s “Memoirs of the reign of Charles I.” prefixed to the edition of 1702, and of which there has lately been a republication (1813); and lastly, that very useful volume entitled “Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum & illustrium virorum,” 1707, 4to. In this collection are the lives of archbishop Usher, bishop Cosins, Mr. Henry Briggs, Mr. John Bainbridge, Mr. John Greaves, sir Patrick Young, preceptor to James I. Patrick Young, library-keeper to the same, and Dr. John Dee. Three papers by him are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “Historical Observations relating to Constantinople, No. 152, for Oct. 20, 1683.” 2. “An Account of the City of Prusia in Bithynia, No. 155, for Jan. 1633.” 3. “A Conjecture about an Under-current at the Streights-mouth, No. 158, for April 1684.” He left his Mss. to Hearne, with whom he was a frequent correspondent.

, bishop of Lincoln, and founder of Brasen-nosr college, Oxford, was the fourth son of Robert Smyth, of Peelhou^e in Widdows, or Widness, in the parish of Present, Lancashire. His grandfather was Henry Smyth, esq. of the adjoining township of Cuertiiy, where the family appears to have resided both. before and after the birth of the subject of this sketch, and extended its branches of the same name through various parts of the kingdom. Of his father we have no particular information, nor of the period of his birth, unless that it took place about the middle of the fifteenth century; which is, however, not very consistent with the report, that he was an undergraduate of Oxford so late as 1478.

The same obscurity envelopes his early years. Wood indeed says, that he was trained up in grammar-learning in his own country; but in what seminary, or whether his country at that time could boast of any institution deserving the name of a grammar-school, are subjects of conjecture. His late biographer, with equal acuteness and reason, has supposed him to have been educated in the household of Thomas, the first earl of Derby. The countess of Richmond, who was the second wife of this nobleman, according to a laudable custom in the houses of the nobility, provided in this manner for the instruction of young men of promising talents: and it is known, that she was an early patron of our founder.

At what time he removed to Oxford is uncertain, nor has any research discorered the college of which he was a member. Of his academical honours, all that we know with certainty is his degree of bachelor of law, which he had taken some time before 1492, when he was instituted to the rectory of Cheshuntin Hertfordshire. Wood asserts that he removed with other scholars from Oxford, dreading the pestilence which then raged, and went to Cambridge, where he became fellow, and afterwards master of Pembroke-hall. Browne Willis contradicts this only in part, by informing us that he became fellow, but not master. His late biographer, however, Mr. Churton, has decidedlyproved that he never belonged to Cambridge, and that the mistake of his former biographers originated in his being confounded with a. person of both his names, who was fellow of Pembroke-hall, and a contemporary.

To the course of learning usual in his time, and which was neither copious nor solid, he appears to. have added the study of the Latin classics of the purer ages, which was., then less frequent, although more liberally tolerated, aiifl more admired, than an acquaintance with the Greek language. In the fifteenth century the latter was scarcely known, unless to the enterprizing spirit of Grocyn, Linacre, and the other restorers of literature; and was so little relished, as to be sometimes a topic of ridicule, and sometimes as dangerous as heresy.

For his tirst advancement he is supposed to have been indebted to the earl of Derby, who was one ol those friends of Henry VII. whom that monarch rewarded, after the crown was established in security. Probably also by his interest Smyth was appointed, September 20, 14-85, to the office of the clerk of the hanaper, with an annual stipend of 40l. and an additional allowance of eighteen-pence per day during his attendance, in person, or by his deputy, on the lord chancellor. This salary is worthy of notice, as the sum exceeds that which was attached to it, not only on a subsequent appointment in this reign, but for a century afterwards. It was, therefore, probably given as a special remuneration to Smyth, whose influence appears to have been increasing. It is certain that, while in this office, he was solicited by the university of Oxford to interpose, on a very critical occasion, when they had incurred the king’s displeasure; and such was his influence, that his majesty was pleased to remove their fears, and confirm their privileges. This occurred in the second year of Henry’s reign. While Smyth held this office, we also find his name in a writ of privy-seal for the foundation of Norbridge’s chantry in the parish church of the Holy Trinity at Guildford, along with Elizabeth, consort of Henry VII., Margaret, countess of Richmond, his mother, Thomas Bourchier and Reginald Bray, knights.

A few years after his being made clerk of the hanaper, he was promoted to the deanery of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, a dignity usually conferred on some favourite chaplain whom the king wished to have near his person. The precise time of his arriving at this preferment cannot be discovered, but it must have, been subsequent to July 28, 1480, when Henry Sharpe- occurs as dean. While, in this office he resided in Canon-row, and was honoured by his i?oyal master with a seat in the privy-council. From these preferments it may be inferred that Smyth’s talents and address had justified the hopes of his family and patrons. He must certainly have been a favourite with the king, and not less so with his mother, the countess of Richmond, who on June 14, 1492, presented him to the rectory of Cheshunt, which he quitted in 1494 for higher preferment. She conferred upon him another mark of her confidence, in appointing him one of the feoffees of those manors and estates, which were to answer the munificent purposes of her will. As to the reports of his former biographers, that he held, at one time, the archdeaconry of Surrey, and the prepositure of Wells, Mr. Churton has clearly proved that they have no foundation.

When the see of Lichfield and Coventry became vacant by the death of bishop Hales, Dec. 30, 1490, the king bestowed it on Smyth, by the style of “Our beloved and faithful Counsellor, Dean of our free chapel within our own palace at Westminster.” The time neither of his election nor consecration is upon record, but the latter is supposed to have taken place between the 12th and 29th of January 1492-3. The cause of so considerable an interval from the death of his predecessor must probably be sought in the capricious proceedings of the court of Rome on such occasions. His final settlement in this see was followed by a visitation of the clergy under his controul, and the performance of those other duties incumbent on his new station. His usual residences were at Beaudesert, and at Pipe, both near Lichfield, or at his palace in London, which stood on the site of Somerset-house.

His next promotion was of the civil kind, that of president of the prince’s council within the marches of Wales. The unsettled state of Wales had engaged the attention of Henry VII as soon as he came to the throne; and the wisest policy, in order to civilize and conciliate the inhabitants of that part of the kingdom, appeared to consist in delegating such a part of the executive power as might give dignity and stability to the laws, and ensure subjection to the sovereign. With this view various grants and commissions were issued in the first year of his reign; and about 1492, Arthur, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, was included in a commission of the peace for the county of Warwick, with archbishop Morton, Smyth, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and others. There was a renewal of this commission in the 17th Henry VII. of which our prelate, who had then been translated to the see of Lincoln, was again lord president. The prince’s court was held chiefly at Ludlow-castle, long the seat of the muses, honoured at this time with a train of learned men from the universities, and afterwards immortalized by Milton and Butler. Here bishop Smyth, although placed in an office that seemed likely to divert him from the business of his diocese, took special care that his absence should be compensated by a deputation of his power to vicars-general, and a suffragan bishop, in whom he could confide: and here he conceived some of fhose generous and liberal plans which have conferred honour on his name. The first instance of his becoming a public benefactor was in rebuilding and re-endowing the hospital of St. John in Lichfield, which had been suffered to go to ruin by the negligence of the friars who occupied it. Accordingly, in the third year of his episcopate, 1495, he rebuilt this hospital, and gave a new body of statutes for the use of the society. Of tiiis foundation it is only necessary to add here, that the school attached to it, and afterwards joined to the adjacent seminary of Edward VI. has produced bishops Smalridge and Newton, the chief justices Willes and Parker, and those illustrious scholars, Joseph Addison and Samuel Johnson.

Smyth had been bishop of Lichfield somewhat more than two years, when he was translated to Lincoln, November, 1495. In 1500 he performed a strict visitation of his cathedral, which his liberality had already enriched, and prescribed such matters of discipline and police as seemed calculated to preserve order, and correct that tendency to abuse, which rendered frequent visitations necessary. Nor was his care of his diocese at large less actively employed, in hearing and examining grievances, and promoting discipline and morals. “But perfection,” his biographer has well observe:!, “is not the attribute of man and we learn with less surprise than regret, that Smyth did not escape ;he common fault, of condemning heretics to the prison or the stake.” For this no apology can here be offered. The wonder is, that we are still solicited to a fellow-feeling with a religion which could warp the minds of such men as Smyth. It would have done enough to incur our aversion, had it done no more than to stain the memory of those benefactors, to whose liberality the learning of the present age is so deeply indebted.

In the last-mentioned year, Smyth was requested by the university of Oxford to accept the office of chancellor, then vacant by the death of archbishop Morton. How long he continued chancellor is not exactly known, but his resignation must have taken place abont 150'i, when we find Dr. Mayew held that office. In 1507-8, he concerted the plan of Brasen-nose college, along with iiis friend sir Richard Sutton, and lived to see it completed. Of his death we have few particulars, nor can his age be ascertained. After making a will in due form, characterized by the liberality which had distinguished his whole life, he expired at Buckden, Jan. 2, 1513-14, and was interred on the south side of the nave of Lincoln cathedral, under a marble grave stone, richly adorned with brass, which sir William Dugdale had leisure to describe just before it was destroyed by the republican soldiers or mob. A mural monument was recently put up, with a suitable inscription, by the rev. Ralph Cawley, D. D. and principal of Brasennose from 1770 to 1777.

The progress of this munificent work, Brasen-nose college, may be seen in our authorities. The charter of foundation granted to bishop Smyth and Richard Sutton, esq. is dated Jan. 15, 1511-12; and it is supposed that the society became a permanent corporation on the feast of St. Hugh, Nov. 17, 1512, or perhaps a little earlier. According tb the charter, the society was to consist of a principal and sixty scholars, to be instructed in the sciences of sophistry, logic, and philosophy, and afterwards in divinity, and they might possess lands, &c. to the yearly value of 1500l. beyond all burdens and repairs. The number of fellows, however, was not completed until their revenues, by being laid out on land, began to be certainly productive.

The estates which bishop Smyth bestowed on the college were chiefly two, Basset’s Fee, in the environs of Oxford, which formerly is supposed to have belonged to the Bassets, barons of Headington; and the entire property of the suppressed priory of Cold Norton, with its manors and estates in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, which had been sold to bishop Smyth by the convent of St. Stephen’s Westminster for eleven hundred and fifty marks.

, herald and antiquary, was born in Cheshire, and descended from the Smiths or Smyths of Oldhough. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college Wood has not ascertained, there being several of the same names about the latter part of the sixteenth century. When he left the university, we cannot trace his progress, but on his application at the Heralds’ college for the office of Rouge- Dragon, it was said that he had been a merchant and traveller. He was recommended by sir George Carey, knight marshal; and “The Society of Arms finding, by many, that he was honest, and of a quiet conversation, and well languaged,” joined in the supplication, which gained him this office. Anstis says, that he had long resided abroad, and had kept an inn, at Nuremburgh, in Germany, the sign at the door of which was the Goose. He wrote a description of Cheshire, which, with his historical collections made about 1590, or a copy of them, falling into the hands of sir Randolph Crew, knt. lord chief justice of the King’s bench, his grandson, sir Randolph Crew, gave them to the public. These materials, and the labours of William Webb, form the bulk of “King’s Vale-Royal,” published in fol. 1656. He made a great number of collections, relative to families in England and Germany. He wrote a description of this kingdom, embellishing it with drawings of its chief towns, Many of his books are in Philipot’s press, in the College at Arms. He composed an Alphabet of Arms, which the late respected Mr. Brooke supposed to have been the origin or basis of such kind of books. The original was lodged in King’s-college library, in Cambridge, to which it had been given by Dr. Richard Roderick. It was copied in 1744, by the rev. William Cole, M. A. of Milton, and is now with his other Mss. in the British Museum. The late rev. Samuel Peggye, the antiquary, had a manuscript copy, improved by him, of Derbyshire, as visited by Glover. This skilful and indefatigable officer at arms died, without farther promotion, Oct. 1, 1618. In the Bodleian library are two Mss. by Smith, the one “The Image of Heraldrye, &c.” a sort of introduction to the science, which forrrierly belonged to Anstis the other, “Genealogies of the different potentates of Europe, 1578,” formerly Peter Le Neve’s. A new edition, with additions, of the “Vale-Royal,” was published at Chester, 1778, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

, a historian, novelist, and poet of considerable reputation, was the grandson of sir James Smollett of Bonhill, a member of the Scotch parliament, and one of the commissioners for framing the treaty of union. He married Jane, daughter of sir Aulay Macauley, bart. of Ardincaple, by whom he had four sons and two daughters. The fourth son, Archibald, married without asking his father’s consent, Barbara Cunningham, daughter of Mr. Cunningham of Gilbertfield s in the 7ieighbourhood of Glasgow. His father, however, allowed him an income of about 300l. a-year. He unfortunately died, after the birth of two sons and a daughter, who, with their mother, were left dependent on the grandfather, and we do not find that he neglected them. Tobias, the subject of this memoir, and the youngest of those children, was born in the house of Dalquhnrn, near Renton in the parish of Cardross, in 1721, and christened Tobias George; but this latter name he does not appear to have used.

The scenery amidst which he passed his early years, and cultivated the muses, he has described, in Humphrey Clinker, with picturesque enthusiasm. He was first instructed in classical learning at the school of Dumbarton, by Mr. John Love, one of the ablest schoolmasters of that country, and to whom Mr. Chalmers has done ample justice in his life of lluddiman. While at this school, Smollett exhibited symptoms of what more or less predominated through life, a disposition to prove his superiority of understanding at the expence of those whose weaknesses and failings he thought he could turn'into ridicule with impunity. The verses which he wrote at this early age were principally satires on such of his schoolfellows as happened to displease him. He wrote also a poem to the memory of the celebrated Wallace, whose praises he found in the story-books and ballads of every cottage. From Dumbarton he was removed to Glasgow, where, after some hesitation, he determined in favour of the study of medicine, and, according to the usual practice, was bound apprentice to Mr. John Gordon, then a surgeon, and afterwards a physician of considerable eminence, whom he was unjustly accused of ridiculing under the name of Potion, in his novel of Roderic Random.

From his medical studies, which he cultivated with assiduity, he was occasionally seduced by a general love of polite literature, and seemed unconsciously to store his mind with that fund of extensive, though perhaps not profound knowledge, which enabled him afterwards to execute so many works in various branches. His satirical disposition also followed him to Glasgow, by which he made a few admirers, and many enemies. Dr. Moore has related, with suitable gravity, that he once threw a snowball with such dexterity that it g;ive both a blow and a repartee. But such frolics were probably not frequent, and his time was in general more profitably or at least more seriously employed. Before he had reached his eighteenth year, he began to feel the ambition of a dramatic poet, and wrote the tragedy of the “Regicide,” which was considered as an extraordinary production for a person of his years; but we do not read it as it was originally composed, nor was it made public until nearly ten vears after.

On the death of his grandfather, who had hitherto supported him in his studies, but left no permanent provision for the completion of them, he removed to London, in quest of employment in the army or navy, and strengthened his hopes by carrying his tragedy with him. The latter, however, was in all respects an unfortunate speculation. After being amused and cajoled by all the common and uncommon tricks of the theatrical managers, for nearly ten years, he was under the necessity of sending it to the press in vindication of his own importunities, and the opinions of his friends. His preface may yet be read with advantage by the candidates for stage favour, although modern managers are said to be less fastidious than their predecessors, and from the liberality of their admissions, leave it somewhat doubtful whether they have not lost the privilege of rejection. In this preface, Smollett was not sparing of his indignation, but he reserved more substantial revenge for a more favourable opportunity.

In the mean time, in 1741, he procured the situation of surgeon’s-mate on board a ship of the line, and sailed on the unfortunate expedition to Carthagena, which he described in his “Roderic Random,” and afterwards more historically in a “Compendium of Voyages,” published in 1756, in 7 vols. 12mo. The issue of that expedition could not be more humiliating to Smollett than his own situation, so averse to the disposition of a young man of his taste and vivacity. He accordingly quitted the service while his ship was in the West-Indies, and resided for some time in Jamaica, but in what capacity or how supported, his biographer has not informed us. Here, however, he first became acquainted with the lady whom he afterwards married. In 1746, he returned to London, and having heard many exaggerated accounts of the severities practised in suppressing the rebellion in Scotland, he gave vent to his feelings, and love for his country, in a beautiful and spirited poem, entitled “The Tears of Scotland.” The subject was doubtless attractive as a poet, but as he had been bred a Whig, he was rather inconsistent in his principles, and certainly very unfortunate in his predictions. His friends wished him to suppress this piece, as having a tendency to offend the Whigs, on whose patronage he had some reliance; and although his enthusiasm was at present rather too warm for advice, and he had from this time declared war against the whig-ministers under George II. yet it does not appear that it was published with his name for many years after.

In 1746 he first presented himself to the public as the author of “Advice, a Satire,” in which he endeavoured to excite indignation against certain public characters, by accusations which a man of delicacy would disdain to bring forward under any circumstances, and which are generally brought forward under the very worst. What this production contributed to his fame, we are not told; his friends, however, were alarmed and disgusted, and his enemies probably increased. About this time he wrote (for Coventgarden theatre), an opera called “Alceste,” which was never acted or printed, owing, it is said, to a dispute between the author and the manager. Sir John Hawkins, who, in all his writings, trusts too much to his memory, informs us, that Handel set this opera to music, and, that his labour might not be lost, afterwards adapted the airs to Dryden’s second ode on St. Cecilia’s day. But Handel composed that ode in 1739, according to Dr. Burney’s more accurate and scientific history of music. In 1747, our author published “Reproof, a Satire,” as a second part of “Advice,” and consisting of the same materials, with the addition of some severe lines on Rich, the manager of Covent-garden theatre, with whom he had just quarrelled.

In the same year he married miss Anne Lascelles, the lady whom he had courted in Jamaica, and with whom he had the promise of three thousand pounds. Of this sum, however, he obtained but a small part, and that after a very expensive law-suit. As he had, upon his marriage, hired a genteel house, aud lived in a more hospitable style than the possession of the whole of his wife’s fortune could have supported, he was again obliged to have recourse to his pen, and produced, in 1748, “The Adventures of Roderick Random,” in 2 vols. 12mo. This was the most successful of all his writings, and perhaps the most popular novel of the age, partly owing to the notion that it was in many respects a history of his own life, and partly to its intrinsic merit, as a delineation of real life, manners, and characters, given with a force of humour to which the publick had not been accustomed. If, indeed, we consider its moral tendency, there are few productions more unfit for perusal; yet such were his opinions of public decency that he seriously fancied he was writing to humour the taste, and correct the morals, of the age. That it contains a history of his own life was probably a surmise artfully circulated to excite curiosity, but that real characters are depicted was much more obvious. Independent of those whom he introduced out of revenge, as Lacy and Garrick for rejecting his tragedy, there are traits of many other persons more or less disguised, to the introduction of which he was incited merely by the recollection of foibles which deserved to be exposed. Every man who draws characters, whether to complete the fable of a novel, or to illustrate an essay, will be insensibly attracted by what he has seen in real life, and real life was Smollett’s object in all his novels. His only monster is count Fathom; but Smollett deals in none of those perfect beings who are the heroes of the more modern novel.

In 1749, his tragedy “The Regicide,” as already noticed, was published, very much to his emolument, but certainly without any injury to the judgment of the managers who had rejected it. Extraordinary as it might have appeared, if published as he wrote it at the age of eighteen, it seemed no prodigy in one of more advanced years, who had adopted every improvement which his critical friends could suggest. The preface has been mentioned as containing his complaints of delay and evasion, and he had now more effectually vented his rage on lord Lyttelton and Mr. Garrick in “Roderick Random.” With Garrick, however, he lived to be reconciled in a manner which did credit to their respective feelings.

In 1750, he took a trip to Paris, where he renewed his acquaintance with Dr. Moore, his biographer, who informs us that he indulged the common English prejudices against the French nation, and never attained the language so perfectly as to be able to mix familiarly with the inhabitants. His stay here was not long, for in 1751, he published his second most popular novel, “Peregrine Pickle,” in 4 vo!s. 12mo, which was received with great avidity. In the second edition, which was called for within a few months, he speaks with more craft than truth of certain booksellers and others who misrepresented the work, and calumniated the author. He could not, however, conceal, and all his biographers have told the shameless tale for him, that “he received a handsome reward” for inserting the profligate memoirs of lady Vane. It is only wonderful, that after this he could “flatter himself that he had expunged every adventure, phrase, and insinuation that could be construed by the most delicate readers into a trespass upon the rules of decorum.” In this work, as in “Roderick Random,” he indulged his unhappy propensity 'to personal satire and revenge, by introducing living characters. He again endeavoured to degrade those of Garrick and Quin, who, it is said, had expressed a more unfavourable opinion of the “Regicide” than even Garrick: and he was perhaps yet more unpardonable in holding up Dr. Akenside to ridicule.

Smollett had hitherto derived his chief support from his pen; but after the publication of “Peregrine Pickle,” he appears to have had a design of resuming his medical profession, and announced himself as having obtained the degree of doctor, but from what university has not been discovered. In this character, however, he endeavoured to establish himself at Bath, and published a tract on “The External Use of Water.” In this, his object was to prove, that pure water, both for warm and cold bathing, may be preferred to waters impregnated with minerals, except in certain cases where the vapour-bath is requisite. He enters also into a vindication of the plan of Mr. Cleland, a surgeon at Bath, for remedying the inconveniencies relating to the baths at that place. Whatever was thought of this pamphlet, he failed in his principal object. He had, indeed, obtained considerable fame, as his own complaints, and the contemporary journals plainly evince; but it was not of that kind which usually leads to medical practice.

Disappointed in this design, he determined to devote himself entirely to literary undertakings, for many of which he was undoubtedly better qualified by learning and genius than most of the authors by profession in his day. He now fixed his residence at Chelsea, on an establishment of which he has given the public a very just picture in his novel of “Humphrey Clinker.” Jf the picture be at the same time rather flattering, it must be recollected that it was Smollett’s peculiar misfortune to make enemies in every step of his progress, and to be obliged to say those handsome things of himself which no other man would say for him. Dr. Moore, however, assures us that his mode of living at Chelsea was genteel and hospitable, without being extravagant, and that what he says of his liberality is, not overcharged.

His first publication, in this retirement, if it may be so called, was the “Adventures of Ferdinand count Fathom,” in 1753. This novel, in the popular opinion, has been reckoned greatly inferior to his former productions, but merely perhaps because it is unlike them. There is such a perpetual flow of sentiment and expression in this production, as must give a very high idea of the fertility of his mind; but in the delineation of characters he departs too much from real life, and many of his incidents are highly improbable. Mr. Cumberland, in the Memoirs of his own life, lately published, takes credit to himself for the character of Abraham Adams, and of Sheva, in his comedy of the Jew, which are, however, correct transcripts of Smollett’s Jew, nor would it have greatly lessened the merit of his benevolent views towards that depressed nation, had Mr. Cumberland frankly made this acknowledgment.

In 1755, Smollett published, by subscription, a translation of “Don Quixote,” in two elegant quarto volumes. It is unnecessary to say much on a translation which has so long superseded every other. But since the appearance of lord Woodhouselee’s admirable “Essay on the principles of Translation,” a new edition of that by Jarvis has been published, and will serve to prove what his lordship has advanced, that Smollett’s was merely an improved edition of that forgotten work. Let not this, however, detract greatly from Smollett’s merit. Writing, as he did, for bread, dispatch was not only Ins primary object, as lord Woodhouselee has observed, but dispatch was probably re*­quired of him. He has excelled Jarvis while he avaHed himself of his labours; and such was his strong sense of ridicule, and ample fund of humour, that could he have fixed upon a proper subject, and found the requisite leisure, it is not too much to suppose that he might have been the rival of Cervantes himself.

After the publication of this translation he visited his relations in Scotland, and on his return to England, was engaged to undertake the management of the “Critical Review,” which was begun in 1756, in dependence, as has been asserted, upon the patronage of the Tories, and the high church party. It does not appear, however, that any extraordinary aid came from those quarters, and the mode in which it was long conducted proves that the success of the Monthly Review was the only motive, or, if that could not be rivalled, it was hoped that the public might support two publications of the kind. To this task Smollett brought many necessary qualifications: a considerable portion of general knowledge, a just taste in works of criticism, and a style, flowing, easy, and popular. He had also much acquaintance with the litr-mry history of his times, and could translate with readiness from some of the modern languages. But, on the other hanu, it was his misfortune here, as in every stage of his life, that the fair di>play of his talents, and perhaps the genuine sentiments of his heart, were perverted by the prejudices of friendship, or by the more inexcusable impulses of jealousy, revenge, and all that enters into the composition of an i ratable temper. He had already suffered by provoking unnecessary animosity, and was now in a situation where it would have been impossible to escape invidious imputation, had he practised the utmost candour and moderation. How much more dangerous such a situation, to one who was always too regardless of past experience, and who seems to have gladly embraced the opportunity which secrecy afforded, of dealing his blows around without discrimination, and without mercy. It is painful to read in the early volumes of this Review, the continual personal abuse he levelled at his rival, Mr. Griffiths, who very rarely took any notice of if, and the many vulgar and coarse sarcasms he directed against every author who presumed to doubt the infallibility of his opinions. It is no less painful to contemplate the self-sufficiency displayed on every occasion where he can introduce his own character and works.

Among others whom he provoked to retaliate, was the noted political quack, Dr. Shebbeare, Churchill, the poet, and Grainger. But the contest in which he vras involved with admiral Knowles terminated in a more honourable manner. That officer thought proper to prosecute the printer of the “Critical Review,” (the late Mr. Hamilton) for a paragraph in the Review reflecting on his character, declaring at the same time, that his only object was to discover the author, and if he proved to be a gentleman, to obtain the satisfaction of a gentleman from him. Smollett, by applying to persons acquainted with Knowles, endeavoured to avert the prosecution; but, finding that impossible, the moment sentence was about to be pronounced against the printer, he stept forth in open court, and avowed himself the author. After this spirited action, which yet, in Knowles’ s opinion, did not constitute him a. gentleman, he was prosecuted, and sentenced to pay 100l. and be imprisoned for three months.

Soon after the commencement of the Review he published, but without his name, the “Compendium of Voyages,” 7 vols. 12mo, already noticed, a work not eminently successful, and which has not since been reprinted. This was a species of compilation, however, for which he was well qualified. He knew how to retrench superfluities, and to bring forward the most pleasing parts of the narrative in an elegant style; and in drawing characters, when they fell in his way, he discovered much judgment and precision.

In 1757 he attempted the stage a second time, by a comedy, or rather farce, entitled “The Reprisals, or, the Tars of Old England,” which Garrick, notwithstanding their former animosity, accepted, and produced upon the stage, where it had a temporary success, Davies, in his life of Garrick, gives an account of the manager’s behaviour on this occasion, which reflects much honour on him, and so touched Smollett’s feelings that he embraced every opportunity of doing justice to the merits of that eminent actor, and of convincing him “that his gratitude was as warm as any other of his passions.”

Notwithstanding his numerous engagements, he produced a work in 1758, which is an extraordinary instance of literary industry. This was his “Complete History of England from the earliest times to the treaty of Aix-laChapelle, in 1748,” published in four quarto volumes. This he is said to have composed and finished for the press in the short space of fourteen months. It was immediately after reprinted in 8vo, in weekly numbers, of which an impression of ten thousand was bought up with avidity.

It would be superfluous to dwell long on the merits of a work so well known, and undoubtedly entitled to high praise as a compilation, but beyond this his warmest admirers cannot judiciously extend their encomiums. Although it may be allowed to excel the histories of Carte or Guthrie, and on account of its brevity to be preferable to Rapin, and far more to his continuator Tindal, yet it is impossible to place it on a level with the histories of Hume, Robertson, Gibbon, or Henry. In the “Critical Review” it was highly praised, as might be expected, but with an affectation of candour and moderation which Smollett could not long preserve. In the Review for September 1758, we have a piece of querulous declamation which is, far more fully characteristic of the man and of the author. It is here extracted as a general specimen of the indignation which he felt against any serious attack, and it may serve to explain the relative position in which he stood with his contemporaries. The cause of the following effusion was a pamphlet published by the Rev. T. Comber, in which he censures the characters given by Smollett of king William and queen Mary, &c.

"Tell me youi company and I‘ll describe your manners, is a proverbial apothegm among our neighbours, and the maxim will generally hold good; but we apprehend the adage might be more justly turned to this purpose, Name your enemies, and I ’11 guess your character. If the Complete History of England were to be judged in this manner, we imagine the author would gladly submit to the determination of the public. Let us tnen see who are the professed enemies of that production: the saye, the patriot, the sedate Dr. Shebbeare: the serene Griffiths and 'his spouse, proprietors and directors of the Monthly Review: the profound, the candid, the modest Dr. Hill: the wise, the learned, and the temperate Thomas Comber, A. B. whose performance we are at present to consider. This is indeed a formidable group of adversaries, enough to daunt the heart of any young adventurer in the worLi of letters; but the author of the Complete History.^ E.igland has been long familiar with such seas o<* troubl-. Tae assault, however, which he has sustained from some of these heroes was not altogether unprovoked. Shebbeare had been chastised in the Critical Review for his insolent and seditious appeals to the public. He took it for granted that the lash was exercised by the author of the Complete History of England, therefore he attacked that performance tooth and nail. He declared that there was neither grammar, meaning, composition, or reflection, either in the plan or the execution of the work itself. Griffiths was enraged against the same gentleman, because he was supposed to have set up the Critical Review, in opposition to the Monthly, of which he (Griffiths) was proprietor: accordingly he employed an obscure grub, who wrote in his garret, to bespatter the History of England. Hill, for these ten years, has by turns praised and abused Dr. Smollett, whom he did not know, without being able to vanquish that silent contempt in which this gentleman ever held him and all his productions: piqued at this indifference and disdain, the said Hill has, in a weekly paper, thrown out some dirty insinuations against the author of the Complete History of England. We cannot rank the proprietors of R n * and other histories, among the personal enemies of Dr. Smollett, because they were actuated by the dictates of self-interest to decry his performance. This, however, they have pursued in the most sordid, illiberal, and ridiculous manner: they have caballed: they have slandered: they have vilified: they have prejudiced, misrepresented, and used undue influence among their correspondents in different parts of the kingdom: they have spared neither calumny nor expence to prejudice the author and his work: they have had the effrontery to insinuate in a public advertisement that he was no better than an inaccurate plagiary from Rapin: and they have had the folly to declare that Rapin’s book was the most valuable performance, just immediately after they had taxed Dr. Smollett with having, by a specious plan, anticipated the judgment of the public. Finally, finding all their endeavours had proved abortive, we have reason to believe they hired the pen of the Rev. Thomas Comber of York, A. B. to stigmatize and blacken the character of the work which has been to them such a source of damage and vexation. Accordingly this their champion has earned his

*Most of the names in this passage are printed only with the initial and final letters, except that of Rapin which follows. This R a may mean Eobertcon, whose first history was then in the press. wages with surprising eagerness and resolution: he has dashed through thick and thin, without, fear of repulse, without dread of reputation. Indeed he writes with a degree of acrimony that seems to be personal perhaps, if the truth was known, hewould be found one of those obscure authors, who have occasionally received correction in some number of the Critical Review, and looks upon Dr. Smollett as the n.iministrator of that correction; but

paragraph if this review of Comber’s pamphlet, is not less characteristic of Smollett’s temper and style when he wished to be thought above all petty resentments.

Comber " very modestly says he hopes he has kept within the bounds of good breeding, and employed none of that virulence which the Critical Reviewers have exercised against the most respectable characters. One cart hardly refrain from laughing when he reads this declaration. Mr. Comber may always be assured that it is not in his power to excite the indignation of the Critical Reviewers: there are some objects too contemptible to excite resentment. We should be glad, however, to know what those most respectable characters are that we have treated with indecency. Those most respectable personages are Drs. Shebbeare and Hill, Griffiths and his spouse; a groupe to svhich the Rev. Mr. Comber will make a very proper addition. We think we see this formidable band, forgetting the distinctions of party, sitting in close divan, animated with double pots, encouraged with double pay

their attacks against the Complete History of England. We shall prophecy, however, that the author of that work will never deign to take any public notice of what may be advanced against him by writers of their class. He considers them as little inconsiderable curs barking at the moon. Nevertheless, in order to whet their spleen, we will inform the Rev. Mr. Comber that, notwithstanding the uncommon arts and great expence with which his nonest employers have puffed * and advertised his pamphlet, the Complete History of England continues to rise in the estimation of the public, and that above ten thousand numbers of the work are weekly purchased by the subjects of Great Britain, besides those that are sold in Ireland and the plantations."

During his confinement in the king’s bench for the libel on admiral Knowles, he amused himself in writing the “Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves,” a sort of English Quixote. This he gave in detached parts in the “British Magazine,” one of those periodical works in which he was induced to engage by the consideration of a regular supply. This novel was afterwards published in two volumes, 12mo, but had not the popularity of his former works of that kind, and as a composition, whether in point of fable, character, or humour, is indeed far inferior to any of them.

The success of his “History” encouraged him to write a continuation of it from 1748 to 1764. The volume for 1765, his biographer seems not to have known, was written by Guthrie, during Smollett’s absence on the Continent. By the History and Continuation he is said to have cleared 2000l. He is also supposed to have written the accounts of France, Italy, and Germany, for the Universal History, when published in octavo volumes. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine states that he received fifteen hundred guineas for preparing a new edition of the same history, but this must be a mistake, as he was dead some years before that edition was undertaken.

When lord Bute was promoted to the office of first minister, Smollett’s pen was engaged to support him against the popular clamour excited by Wilkes and his partizans. With this view our author commenced a weekly paper called “The Briton,” which was answered by Wilkes in his more celebrated “North Briton.” Had this been a contest of argument, wit, or even mere personal and political recrimination, Smollett would have had little to fear from the talents of Wilkes; but the public mind, inflamed by every species of misrepresentation, was on the side of Wilkes, and the “Briton” was discontinued, when lord Bute, its supposed patron, could no longer keep his seat. Before this short contest, Smollett had lived on terms of intimacy with Wilkes, who, having no animosities that were not absolutely necessary to serve a temporary interest, probably did not think the worse of Smollett for giving him an opportunity to triumph over the author of “The Complete History of England.” Smollett, however, was not disposed to view the matter with this complacency. He expected a reward for his services, and was disappointed, and his chagrin on this occasion he soon took an opportunity to express.

About the years 1763 and 1764, we find his name to a translation of Voltaire’s Works, and to a compilation entitled “The Present State of all Nations,” in 8 vols. 8vo, What he contributed besides his name to either of these undertakings, cannot now be ascertained. The translation of Voltaire is in all respects beneath his talents.

In the month of June, 1763, he went abroad, partly on account of his health, and partly to relieve his and Mrs. Smollett’s grief for the loss of their only child, an amiable young lady who died in her fifteenth year. He pursued his journey through France and Italy about two years, and soon after his return in 1766, gave the public the result of his observations, in two volumes 8vo, entitled “Travels through France and Italy.” This work, although it attained no high degree of popularity, was read with sympathetic interest, as exhibiting a melancholy picture of the author’s mind, “traduced,” as he informs us, “by malice, persecuted by faction, and overwhelmed by the sense of domestic calamity.” On this account, the natural and artificial objects which make travelling delightful, had no other effect on him than to excite his spleen, which he has often indulged in representations and opinions unworthy of his taste. These, however, are not unmixed with observations of another kind, acute, just, and useful. It is remarkable that in a subsequent publication, (“Humphrey Clinker”) he makes his principal character, Matthew Bramble, describe what he saw in England in the same unvaried language of spleen and ill humour.

Soon after his arrival from the continent, his health still decaying, he undertook a journey to Scotland, and renewed his attachment to his relations and friends. During this journey, Dr. Moore informs us that “he was greatly tormented with rheumatic pains, and afflicted besides with an ulcer on his arm, which had been neglected on its first appearance. These disorders confined him much to his chamber, but did not prevent his conversation from being highly entertaining, when the misery of which they were productive permitted him to associate with his friends.” From Scotland he went to Bath, and about the beginning of 1767 had recovered his health and spirits in a very considerable degree. His next production, which appeared in 1769, proved that br had not forgotten the neglect with which he was treated by that ministry in whose favour he wrote “The Briton.” This was entitled the “Adventures of an Atom.” Under fictitious names, of Japanese structure, he reviews the conduct of the eminent politicians who had conducted or opposed the measures of government from the year 1754, and retracts the opinion he ha i given of some of those statesmen in his history, particularly of the earl of Chatham and lord Bute. His biographer allows that many of the characters are grossly misrepresented, for which no other reason can be assigned than his own disappointment. The whole proves what has often been seen since his time, that the measures which are right and proper when a reward is in view, are wrong and abominable when that reward is withheld.

The publication of this work, while it proclaimed that his sincerity as a political writer was not much to be depended on, afforded another instance of that imprudence which his biographer has ingeniously carried over to the account of independence. His health again requiring the genial influences of a milder climate, the expence of which he was unable to bear, his friends solicited the very persons whom he had just satirized, to obtain for him the office of consul at Nice, Naples, or Leghorn. Dr. Moore informs us, with more acrimony than truth, that “these applications were fruitless. Dr. Smollett had never spanitlled ministers; he could not endure the insolence of office, or stoop to cultivate the favour of any person merely on account of his power, and besides, he was a man of genius.”

He set out, however, for Italy early in 1770, with a debilitated body, and a mind probably irritated by his recent disappointment, but not without much of the ease which argues firmness, since, during this journey he could so pleasantly divert his sorrows by writing “The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker.” This novel, if it may be so called, for it has no regular fable, in point of genuine humour, knowledge of life and manners, and delineation of character, is inferior only to his “Roderick Random” and “Peregrine Pickle.” It has already been noticed that Matthew Bramble, the principal character, displays the cynical temper and humane feelings of the author on his tour on the continent; and it may now be added that he has given another sketch of himself in the character of Serle in the first volume. This account of the ingratitude of Paunceford to Smollett is strictly true, and as his biographers seem unacquainted with the circumstances, the following may not be uninteresting, as related to the writer of this article by the late intimate friend of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton, the printer and proprietor of the Critical Review.

"Paunceford was a John C 1, who was fed by Smollett when he had not bread to eat, nor clothes to cover him. He was taken out to India as private secretary to a celebrated governor-general, and as essayist; and after only three years absence, returned with forty thousand pounds. From India he sent several letters to Smollett, professing that he was coming over to lay his fortune at the feet of his benefactor. But on his arrival he treated Smollett, Hamilton, and others who had befriended him, with the most ungrateful contempt. The person who taught him the art of essaying became reduced in circumstances, and is now (1792), or lately was, collector of the toll on

Such kindness and such ingratitude ought not to be concealed, but it is less necessary to point out the very flattering account he has given of his hospitality and patronage of inferior authors, while he resided at Chelsea. While full credit is given for these virtues, it cannot be a disrespectful wish that he had found another panegyrist than himself. There are few instances of men of Dr. Smollett’s rank in the literary world taking so many opportunities to sound their own praises, and that without any of the disguises which are employed by men who wish to acquire a factitious character. At this time, perhaps, he was desirous of recovering the reputation which envy and malice had suppressed or darkened, and might not be without hopes that, as he was now approaching the close of life, his enemies would relent, and admit his evidence.

In the neighbourhood of Leghorn, he lingered through the summer of 1771, in the full possession of his faculties, and died on the 21st of October, in the fifty-first year of his age. Dr. Armstrong, who visited him at Leghorn, honoured his remains with a Latin inscription, elegantly noticing his genius and virtues, and severely reflecting on the “times, in which hardly any literary merit, but such as was in the most false or futile taste, received any encouragement from the mock Maecenases of Britain.” In 1774, a column was erected to his memory on the banks of the Leven, near the house in which he was born. The inscription on this was the joint production of lord Kames, professor George Stuart, and John Ramsay, esq. and was revised by Dr. Johnson. It ig elegant, affecting, and modest.

“The person of Smollett was stout and well-proportioned, his countenance engaging, his manner reserved, with a certain air of dignity that seemed to indicate that he was not unconscious of his own powers. He was of a disposition so humane and generous, that he was ever ready to serve the unfortunate, and on some occasions to assist them beyond what his circumstances could justify. Though few could penetrate with more acuteness into character, yet none was more apt to overlook misconduct when attended with misfortune.

“He lived in an hospitable manner, but he despised that hospitality which is founded on ostentation, which entertains only those whose situation in life flatters the vanity of the entertainer, or such as can make returns of the same kind, that hospitality which keeps a debtor and creditor account of dinners. Smollett invited to his plain but plentiful table, the persons whose characters he esteemed, in whose conversation he delighted, and many for no other reason than because they stood in need of his countenance and protection.

“Free from vanity, Smollett had a considerable share of pride, and great sensibility; his passions were easily moved, and too impetuous when roused; he could not conceal his contempt of folly, his detestation of fraud, nor refrain from proclaiming his indignation against every instaace of oppression.

“Though Smollett possessed a versatility of style in writing, which he could accommodate to every character, he had no suppleness in his conduct. His learning, diligence, and natural acuteness, would have rendered him eminent in the science of medicine, had he persevered in that profession; other parts of his character were ill suited for aug:nenting ins practice. He could neither stoop to impost on credulity, nor humour caprice.

“He was of an intrepid, independent, imprudent disposition, equally incapable of deceit and adulation, and more disposed to cultivate the acquaintance of those he could serve, than of those who could serve him What wonder that a man of his character was not, what is called, successful in life”

How far this character agrees with the facts detailed in this narrative, and winch are principally taken from Dr. Moore, may be now safely left to the determination of the reader.

As an author, Dr. Smollett is universally allowed the praise of original genius displayed with an ease and variety which are rarely found. Yet this character belongs chiefly to his m.vels. In correct delineation of life and manners, and in drawing characters of the humourous class, he has few equals. But when this praise is bestowed, every critic who vu; nos what is more important than genius itself, the interest of moralsuid decency, must surely stop. It can be of no use to analyze each individual scene, incident, or character in works, which, after all, must be pronounced unfit to be read. But if the morals of the reader were in no danger, his taste can hardly escape being insulted or perverted. Smollett’s humour is of so low a cast, and his practical jokes so frequently end in what is vulgar, mean, and filthy, that it would be impossible to acquire a relish for them, without injury done to the chaster feelings, and to the just respect due to genuine wit. No novel-writer seems to take more delight in assembling images and incidents that are gross and disgusting; nor has he scrupled to introduce, with more than slight notice, those vices which are not fit even to be named. If this be a just representation of his most favourite novels, it is in vain to oppose it by pointing out passages which do credit to his genius, and jnore vain to attempt to prove that virtue and taste are not directly injured by such productions. As a historian, Smollett’s reputation has certainly not been preserved. When he published his History, something of the kind was wanted, and it was executed in a manner not unworthy of his talents. But the writings of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon have introduced a taste for a higher species of historical composition; and, if we are not mistaken, there has been no complete edition of Smollett’s history but that which he published. Had he been allowed the proper time for revision and reflection, it cannot be doubted that he might have produced a work deserving of more lasting fame. His history, even as we have it, when we advert to the short time he took fur its completion, is a very extraordinary efTort, and instead of blaming him for occasionally following his authorities too servilely, the wonder ought to be that he found leisure to depart from them so frequently, and to assign reasons, which are not those of a superficial thinker. It is impossible, however, to quit this subject without adverting to the mode of publication which dispersed the work among a class of persons, the purchasers of sixpenny numbers, whom Smollett too easily took for the learned and discerning part of the public. This fallacious encouragement afforded fuel to his irritable temper, by inciting him, not only to the arts of puffing, by which the literary character is degraded, but to those vulgar and splenetic recriminations, of which a specimen has been given, and which must have lowered him yet more, in the opinion of the eminent characters of his day.

Smollett was not successful in his dramatic attempts. Those who judged from the ease and vivacity of his pictures of life and manners in his novels, no doubt thought themselves justified in encouraging him in this species of composition. But all experience shews that the talents necessary for the prose epic, and those for the regular drama, are essentially different, and have rarely met in one man. Fielding, a novelist greatly superior, and who after the trials of more than half a century, may be pronounced inimitable, was yet foiled in his dramatic attempts, although he returned to the charge with fresh courage and skill.

As a poet, although Smollett’s pieces are few, they must be allowed to confer a very high rank. It is, indeed, greatly to be lamented that he did not cultivate his poetical talents more frequently and more extensively. The “Tears of Scotland” and the “Ode to Independence,” particularly the latter, are equal to the highest efforts in the pathetic and sublime. In the “Ode to Independence” there is evidently the inspiration of real genius, free from all artificial aid, or meretricious ornament. It may be questioned whether there are many compositions in our language which more forcibly charm by all the enchantments of taste, expression, and sentiment. Some observations on this ode, and usually printed with it, are the production oi professor Richardson. It may be necessary to add, that this ode was left in manuscript by Smollett, and published at Glasgow and London in 1773. “Advice and Reproof” have already been noticed, and are more remarkable for their satirical aim, than for poetical beauties. His songs and other small pieces were introduced principally in his novels and in the “Reprisal.”

, a learned divine, was the son of Andrew Snape, serjeant-farrier to Charles II. and author of “The Anatomy of a Horse,” which has been several times printed in folio, with a considerable number of copperplates and a portrait. It is said that one or other of the family of Snape had been serjeant-farrier to the king for three centuries. The subject of this article was born at Hampton-court, and admitted into Eton college in 1683, and of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1689. After taking his degrees, of B. A. in 1693, and M. A. in 1697, he obtained a fellowship, and went to London, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was elected lecturer of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and afterwards held the rectory of St. Mary-at-Hill. He was created D. D. in 1705, and represented the university of Cambridge, in that faculty, at the Jubilee atFrancfortin 1707, when the university of Francfort intending to celebrate the jubilee of its foundation by the house of Brandenburgh in 1507, sent a formal invitation to Cambridge to be present at it, or to depute some of the members to represent it. This was accordingly complied with, by sending over Dr. Snape, for divinity, Dr. Peurice for law, Dr. Plumptre for medicine, and William Grigg, M. A. and John Wyvill, M. A. as regent and nonregent masters. These representatives were received with the greatest kindness, the king of Prussia himself assisting at the ceremony. While Dr. Snape was in Germany, he took an opportunity to pay his duty to the princess Sophia of Hanover, and preached a sermon before her, which he afterwards printed under the title of “The just prerogative of Human Nature.”

In 1717, on the breaking out of the Bangorian controversy, he took a zealous part against Hoadly, in a “Letter to the bishop of Bangor,” which was so extremely popular as to pass through seventeen editions in a year; but Hoadly’s interest at court prevailed, and in so extraordinary a degree, that in the same year, 1717, Dr. Snape, as well as Dr. Sherlock, were removed from the office of chaplain to his majesty. Atterbury, in a letter to bishop Trelawny, on this occasion, says; “These are very extraordinary steps; the effects of wisdom, no doubt; but of so deep a wisdom, that I, for my part, am not able to fathom it.”

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

, a Dutch philosopher, was born at Oudewarde in 1547, and in his youth studied the learned languages and medicine at various seminaries, at Cologne, Heidelberg, Marpurg, Pisa, and Rome. He afterwards taught mathematics at Leyden for thirty-four years, and had entered about a year on the professorship of Hebrew, when he died in 1613. ix. His works are, 1. “Commentarius in dialecticam Petri Rami.; 2.” De praxi logica,“1595, 4to. 3.” Ethica methodo Ramea conscripta,“1597, 8vo. 4.” Rameae philosophise syntagma,“1596, 8vo. 5.” Explicationes in arithmeticam Rami,“1596, 8vo. 6.” Prelectiones in geometriam Ran“8vo. 7.” Apollonius Batavus, seu resuscitata Apoilonii Pergei geometria,“Leyden, 1597, 4to. 8. Commentarius in rhetoricam Talsei,” 1617, 8vo. 9. “Annotationes in ethicam, physicam, sphaeram Cornelii Valerii,” 1596, 8vo.

, son of the preceding, and an excellent mathematician, was born at Leyden in 1591, where he succeeded his father in the mathematical chair in 1613, and where he died in 1626, at only thirty-five years of age. He was author of several ingenious works and discoveries, and was the first who discovered the true law of the refraction of the rays of light; a discovery which he made before it was announced by Des Cartes, as Huygens assures us. Though the work which Snell prepared upon this subject, and upon optics in general, was never published, yet the discovery was very well known to belong to him, by several authors about his time, who had seen it in his manuscripts. He undertook also to measure the earth. This he effected by measuring a space between Alcmaer and Bergen-op-zoom, the difference of latitude between these places being 1° 1′ 30″. He also measured another distance between the parallels of Alcmaer and Leyden; and from the mean of both these measurements, he made a degree to consist of 55,021 French toises or fathoms. These measures were afterwards repeated and corrected by Musschenbroek, who found the degree to contain 57,033 toises. He was author of a great many learned mathematical works, the principal of which are, 1. “Apollonius Batavus;” being the restoration of some lost pieces of Apollonius, concerning Determinate Section, with the Section of a Ratio and Space, in 1608, 4to, published in his seventeenth year; but on the best authority this work is attributed to his father. The present might perhaps be a second edition. 2. “Eratosthenes Batavus,” in 1617, 4to; being the work in which he gives an account of his operations in measuring the earth. 3. A translation out of the Dutch language, into Latin, of Ludolph van Collen’s book “De Circulo & Adscriptis,” &c. in 1619, 4to. 4. “Cyclometricus, De Circuli Dimensione,” &c. 1621, 4to. In this work, the author gives several ingenious approximations to the measure of the circle, both arithmetical and geometrical. 5. “Tiphis Batavus;” being a treatise on Navigation and naval affairs, in 1624, 4to. 6. A posthumous treatise, being four books “Doctrinæ Triangulorum Canonicæ,” in 1627, 8vo: in which are contained the canon of secants; and in which the construction of sines, tangents, and secants, with the dimension or calculation of triangles, both plane and spherical, are briefly and clearly treated. 7. Hessian and Bohemian Observations; with his own notes. 8. “Libra Astronomica & Philosophica;” in which he undertakes the examination of the principles of Galileo concerning comets, 9. “Concerning the Comet which appeared in 1618, &c.”

, an Islandic author, of a noble and ancient family, was minister of state to one king of Sweden, and three kings of Norway. Being obliged by an insurrection to take refuge in Iceland, of which he was governor, he remained there till 1241, when his enemy Gyssums drove him from his castle, and put him to death. He wrote, 1. “Chromcim Regum Norwegorum,” an useful work for the history of that country. 2. “Edda Islandica,” which is a history of the Islandic philosophy. (See Saemumd). This has been translated by M. Mallet, and prefixed to his history of Denmark.

, a Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp in 1579, and bred up under his countryman Henry Van Balen. His genius first displayed itself only in painting fruit. He afterwards attempted animals, hunting, fish, &c. in which kind of study he succeeded so greatly, as to surpass all that went before him. Snyders’s inclination led him to visit Italy, where he stayed some time, and improved himself considerably. Upon his return to Flanders, he fixed his abode at Brussels: he was made painter to Ferdinand and Isabella, archduke and duchess, and became attached to the house of the cardinal Infant of Spain. The grand compositions of battles and huntings, which he executed for the king of Spain, and the arch-duke Leopold William, deserve the highest commendation: and besides hunting-pieces, he painted kitchens, &c. and gave dignity to subjects that seemed incapable of it; but his works, sir Joshua Reynolds observes, “from their subjects, their size, and we may add, their being so common, seem to be better suited to a hall or ante-room, than any other place.” He died in 1657. Rubens used to co-operate with this painter, and took a pleasure in assisting him, when his pictures required large figures. Snyders has engraved a book of animals of sixteen leaves, great and small.

, son of Matthew Soanen, attorney to the presidial of Riom in Auvergne, and Gilberte Sirmond, niece of the learned Jesuit James Sirmond, was born January 6, 1647, at Riom, and entered the congregation of the Oratory at Paris, 1661, where he chose father Quesnel for his confessor. On quitting that establishment, he taught ethics and rhetoric in several provincial towns, and devoted himself afterwards to the pulpit, for which he had great talents. Having preached at Lyons, Orleans, and Pans, with applause, he was invited to court, preached there during Lent in 1686 and 1688, and being appointed bishop of Senez soon after, acquired great veneration in his diocese by his regular conduct, charity to the poor, and abstemious life. At length, having appealed from the bull Unigenitus to a future council, and refused to listen to any terms of accommodation on the subject, he published a “Pastoral Instruction,” giving an account to his diocesans of his conduct respecting the bull. This “Instruction” gave great offence, and occasioned the famous council of Embrun held 1727, in which M. de Tencin procured it to be condemned as rash, scandalous, &cf, and M. the bishop of Senez to be suspended from all episcopal jurisdiction, and all sacerdotal functions. After this council M. Soanen was banished to la Chaise Dieu, where he died, December 25, 1740, leaving “Pastoral Instructions,” “Mandates,” and “Letters.” The “Letters” have been printed with his Life, 6 vols. 4to. or 8 vols. 12mo. his “Sermons,” 1767, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a man of great learning and abilities, was the third son of Marianus Socinus, an eminent civilian at Bologna, and has by some been reckoned the founder of the Socinian sect, as having been in reality the author of all those principles and opinions, which Faustus Socinus afterwards propagated with more boldness. He was born at Sienna in 1525, and designed by his father for the study of the civil law. With this he combined the perusal of the scriptures; thinking that the foundations of the civil law must necessarily be laid in the word of God, and therefore would be deduced in the best manner from it. To qualify himself for this inquiry, he studied the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic tongues. What light he derived from this respecting the civil law is not known, but he is said to have soon discovered, that the church of Rome taught many tilings plainly contrary to scripture. About 1546 he became a member of a secret society, consisting of about forty persons, who held their meetings, at. different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at. Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and particularly endeavoured to establish the doctrines afterwards publicly adopted by the Socinians; but being discovered, and some of them punished, they dispersed into other countries; and our Socinus, in 1547, began his travels, and spent four years in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland; and then settled at Zurich. He contracted a familiarity, and even an intimacy, with the learned wherever he went and Calvin, Melancthon, Builinger, Beza, and others of the same class, were amongst. the number of his friends. But having soon discovered, by the doubts he proposed to them, that he had adopted sentiments the most obnoxious to these reformers, he became an object of suspicion and Calvin, in particular, wrote to him an admonitory letter, of which the following is a part; “Don't expect,” says he, “that I should answer all your preposterous questions. If you chuse to soar amidst such lofty speculations, suffer me, an humble disciple of Jesus Christ, to meditate upon such things as conduce to my edification; as indeed I shall endeavour by my silence to prevent your being troublesome to me hereafter. In the mean time, I cannot but lament, that you should continue to employ those excellent talents with which God has blessed you, not only to no purpose, but to a very bad one. Let me beg of you seriously, as I have often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble.” It would appear that Socinus took this advice in part, as he continued to live among these orthodox divines for a considerable time, without molestation. He found means, however, to communicate his notions to such as were disposed to receive them, and even lectured to Italians, who wandered up and down in Germany and Poland. He also sent writings to his relations, who lived at Sienna. He took a journey into Poland about 1558; and obtained from the king some letters of recommendation to the doge of Venice and the duke of Florence, that he might be safe at Venice, while his affairs required his residence there. He afterwards returned to Switzerland, and died at Zurich in 1562, in his thirty-seventh year. Being naturally timorous and irresolute, he professed to die in the communion of the reformed church, but certainly had contributed much to the foundation of the sect called from his, or his nephew’s name, for he collected the materials that Faustus afterwards digested and employed with such dexterity and success. He secretly and imperceptibly excited doubts and scruples in the minds of many, concerning several doctrines generally received among Christians, and, by several arguments against the divinity of Christ, which he left behind him in writing, he so far seduced, even after his death, the Arians in Poland, that they embraced the communion and sentiments of those who looked upon Christ as a mere man, created immediately, like Adam, by God himself. There are few writings of Laelius exta.it, and of those that bear his name, some undoubtedly belong to others.

, nephew of the preceding, and commonly esteemed the head of the sect of Socinians, was born at Vienna in 1539. He is supposed to have studied little in his youth, and to have acquired hut a moderate share of classical learning and the civil law. He was scarcely twenty when his uncle died at Zurich, and Faustus immediately set out from Lyons, where he then happened to be, to take possession of all his papers. Lrelius had. conceived great hopes of his nephew, imparted to him the whole of his opinions; and used to say that what he had inculcated but faintly and obscurely to the world at large, would be divulged in a more strong and perspicuous manner by Faustus. But, although this was ultimately the case, Faustus did not begin to propagate his uncle’s principles immediately upon his return to Italy from Zurich; but suffered himself to be diverted, by large promises of favour and honourable employments already bestowed upon him, to the court of Francis de Medicis, grand duke of Tuscany. Here he spent twelve years, and had almost forgot his uncle’s doctrines and papers, for which some have censured him as taking upon him the character of a reformer, without due preparation of study: while his followers have endeavoured to display it as an advantage that he studied the world, rather than scholastic learning.

In 1574, he left the court of Florence, and went into Germany; whence he could never be prevailed with to return, though frequently importuned by letters and messengers from the grand duke himself. He studied divinity at Basil for three years; and now began to propagate his uncle’s principles, but with considerable alterations and additions of his own. About that time the churches of Transylvania were disturbed by the doctrine of Francis David, concerning the honours and the power of the son of God. Blandrata, a man of great authority in those churches and at court, sent for Socinus from Basil, as a man very well qualified to compose these differences, and procured him to be lodged in the same bouse with Francis David, that he might have a better opportunity of drawing him from his errors. David, however, would not be convinced, but remained obstinate and determined to propagate his errors; on which he was cast into prison by order of the^mnce, where he died soon after. This left an imputation upon Socinus, as if he had been the contriver of kis imprisonment, and the occasion of his death; which, saysLe Clerc, if it be true (though he endeavoured to deny it), should moderate the indignation of his followers against Calvin in the case of Servetus, for nothing can be said against that reformer, which will not bear as hard upon their own patriarch.

In 1579, Socinus retired into Poland, and desired to be admitted into the communion of the Unitarians, or United Brethren; but was refused, on account of his doctrines, to which they did not assent. Afterwards, he wrote a book against James Paheologus; of which complaint was made to Stephen, then king of Poland, as containing seditious opinions; yet this seems without foundation, for Socinus was such a friend to absolute submission, that he even condemned with severity the resistance of the people of the Netherlands against the tyranny of Spain. He found it, however, expedient to leave Cracow, after he had been there four years; and to take sanctuary in the house of a Polish lord, with whom he lived some years; and married his daughter with his consent. In this retreat he wrote many books, which raised innumerable enemies against him. He lost Ins wife in 1587, at which he was inconsolable for many months; and was, about the same time, deprived, by the death of the duke of Tuscany, of a noble pension, which had been settled on him by the generosity that prince. In 1598, he returned again to Cracow, where he became so obnoxious, that the scholars of that place raised a mob of the lower order, who broke into his house, dragged him into the streets, and were with difficulty prevented from murdering him. They plundered his house, however, and burnt some manuscripts which he particularly lamented, and said he would have redeemed at price of his blood. To avoid these dangers for the future. he retired to the house of a Polish gentleman, at a village about nine miles distant from Cracow; where he spent the remainder of his life, and died in 1604-, aged sixtyfive.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

, the most celebrated of the ancient philosophers, was born at Alopece, a small village of Attica, in the fourth year of the seventy-seventh olympiad, or about 469 years B. C. His parents were far from illustrious, Sophroniscns iiis father being a statuary of no great note, and Phtenareta his mother a midwife; who yet is represented by Plato as a woman of a bold and generous spirit, and Socrates often took occasion to mention both his parents with respect. Sophroniscus brought him up to his own trade, which, on his father’s death, he was obliged to continue for subsistence, and was not unsuccessful. He is said to have made statues of the habited graces, which were allowed a place in the citadel of Athens. But, as he was naturally averse to this profession, he only followed it while necessity compelled him and employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy and this being observed by Crito, a rich philosopher of Athens, he took him under his patronage, and entrusted him with the instruction of his children and having now opportunities- of hearing the lectures of the most eminent philosophers, Socrates entirely relinquished the business of a statuary.

His first masters were Anaxagoras, and Archelaus: by which last he was much beloved, and travelled with him to Samos, to Pytho, and to the Isthmus. He was scholar likewise of Damo, whom Plato calls a most pleasing teacher of music, and of all other things that he himself would teach to young men. He heard also Prochcus the sophist, to whom must he added Diorima and Aspasia, women of great renown for learning. By listening to all these, he became master of every kind of knowledge which the age in which he lived could afford. With these uncommon endowments Socrates appeared in Athens, under the character of a good citizen, and a true philosopher. Being called upon by his country to take arms in the long and severe struggle between Athens and Sparta, he signalized himself at the siege of Potidaea, both by his valour, and by the hardiness with which he endured fatigue. During the severity of a Thracian winter, whilst others were clad in furs, he wore only his usual clothing, and walked barefoot upon the ice. In an engagement in which he saw Alcibiades (a young man of noble rank whom he accompanied during this expedition) falling down wounded, he advanced to defend him, and saved both him and his arms; and though the prize of valour was, on this occasion, unquestionably due to Socrates, he generously gave his vote that it might be bestowed upon Alcibiades, to encourage his rising merit. Several years afterwards, Socrates voluntarily entered upon a military expedition against the Bo3otians, during which, in an unsuccessful engagement at Delium, he retired with great coolness from the field; when, observing Xenophon lying wounded upon the ground, he took him upon his shoulders, and bore him out of the reach of the enemy. Soon afterwards he went out a third time in a military capacity, in the expedition for the purpose of reducing Amphipolis; but this proving unsuccessful, he returned to Athens, and remained there till his death.

It was not till Socrates was upwards of sixty years of age that he undertook to serve his country in any civil office. At that age he was chosen to represent his own district, in the senate of five hundred. In this office, though he at first exposed himself to some degree of ridicule from want of experience in the forms of business, he soon convinced his colleagues that he was superior to them all in wisdom and integrity. Whilst they, intimidated by the clamours of the populace, passed an unjust sentence of condemnation upon the commanders, who, after the engagement at the Arginusian islands, had been prevented by a storm from paying funeral honours to the dead, Socrates stood forth singly in their defence, and, to the last, refused to give his suffrage against them, declaring that no force should compel him to act contrary to justice and the laws. Under the subsequent tyranny he never ceased to condemn the oppressive and cruel proceedings of the thirty tyrants; and when his boldness provoked their resentment, he still continued to support, with undaunted firmness, the rights of his fellow-citizens. The tyrants, probably that they might create some new ground of complaint against Socrates, sent an oruer to him, with several other persons, to apprehend a wealthy citizen of Salarnis: the rest executed the com mission; but Socrates refused, sayijig, that he would rather himself suffer death than be instrumental in inflicting it unjustly upon another. But whatever character he thus established as a good citizen, it is as a philosopher and moral teacher that he is chiefly renowned, and that by the concurring evidence of all antiquity.

That Socrates had himself a proper school, which has been denied, may perhaps be proved from Aristophanes, who derides some particulars in it, an-d calls it his “phrontisterium.” Plato mentions the Academy, Lyceum, and a. pleasant meadow without the city on the side of the river Jlissus, as places frequented by him and his auditors. Xenophon affirms that he was continually abroad; that in the morning tie visited the places of public walking and exercise; when it was full, the Forum; and that the rest of the day he sought out (he most populous meetings, where he disputed openly for every one to hear that would; and Plutarch relates, that he did not only teach, when the benches were prepared, and himself in the chair, or in stated hours of reading and discourse, or at appointments in walking with his friends; but even when he played, or eat, or drank, or >vas in the camp or market, or finally when he was in prison; making every place a school of instruction.

The method of teaching which Socrates chiefly made use of, was, to propose a series of questions to the person with whom he conversed, in order to lead him to some unforeseen conclusion. He first gained the consent of his respondent to some obvious truths, and then obliged him to admit othtrs, from their relation, or resemblance, to those to which they had already assented. Without making use of any direct argument or persuasion, he chose to lead the person he meant to instruct, to deduce the truths of which he wished to convince him, as a necessary consequence from his own concessions, and commonly conducted these conference* with such address, as to conceal his design till the respondent had advanced too far to recede. On some occasions, he made use of ironical language, that vain men might be caught in their own replies, and be obliged to confess their ignorance. He never asMimed the air of a morose and rigid preceptor, but communicated useful instruction with all the ease and pleasantry. of polite conversation.

Xenophon represents him as excelling in all kinds of learning. He instances only in arithmetic, geometry, and astrology, but Plato mentions natural philosophy; lilomeneus, rhetoric; and Laertius, medicine. Cicero affirms, that by the testimony of all the learned, anu toe judgment of all Greece, he was, in respect to wisdom, acuteness, politeness, and subtilty, in eloquence, variety, and richness, and in whatever he applied himself to, beyond comparison the first man of his age. As to his philosophy, it may be necessary to observe, that having searched into all kinds of science, he first discovered that it was wrong to neglect those things which concern human life, for the sake of inquiring into those things which do not; secondly, that the things men have usually made the objects of their inquiries, ure above the reach of human understanding, and the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions, which have prevailed in the uorld; and, thirdly, that such divine mysteries cannot be made subservient to the uses of human life. Thus, esteeming speculative knowledge so far only as it conduces to practice, be decried in all the sciences what he conceived to be useless, and exchanged speculation for action, and theory for practice: and thus, says Cicero, “first called philosophy down from heaven, and from things involved by. nature in impenetrable secrecy, which yet had employed all the philosophers till his time, and brought her to common life, to inquireafter virtue and vice, good and evil.” That Socrates had an attendant spirit, genius, or daemon, which guarded him from dangers, is asserted by Plato and Antisthenes, who were his contemporaries, and repeated by innumerable authors of antiquity; but what this attendant spirit, genius, or daemon was, or what we are to understand by it, neither antient nor modern writers have in general been able to determine. There is some disagreement concerning the name, and more concerning the nature of it: only it is by most writers agreed, that the advice it gave him was always dissuasive; “never impelling,” says Cicero, “but often restraining him.” It is commonly named his daemon, by which title he himself is supposed to have owned it. Plato sometimes calls it his guardian, and Apuleius his god; because the namv of daemon, as St. Austin tells us, at last grew odious. As for the sign or manner, in which this daemon or genius foretold, and by foretelling, guarded him against evils to come, nothing certain can be collected about it. Plutarch, who rejects some popular absurdities upon the subject, conjectures, first, that it iiiigtit be an apparition; but at last concludes, that it was his observation of some inarticulate unaccustomed sound or voi-e, conveyed to him in an extraordinary way, as happens in dreams. Others confine this foreknowledge of evils within the soul of Socrates himself; and when he said that “his enius advised him,” think that he only meant that “his mind foreboded and so inclined him.” But this is inconsistent with the description which Socrates himself gives of a voice and signs from without. Lastly, some conceive it to be one of those spirits that have a particular care of men; which Maxhmis Tyrius and Apuletus describe in such a manner, that they want only the name of a good angel; and this Laciantius has suppl ed; for, after proving that God sends angels to guard mankind, he adds, “and Socrates affirmed that there was a daemon constantly near him, which had kept him company from a child, and by whose beck and instruction he uidecl his life.” Such are the varieties of opinion entertained unon this singular subject, winch, however, have arisen chiefly out of the prevalence of Platonic ideas, and the desire of exalting Socrates beyond all reason. The account given by Xeriophon, the strictest and truest Socratic, and confirmed by some passages in Plutarch’s treatise “De Genio Socratis,” is perhaps clear and reasonable. It is plainly this, that, believing in the gods of his country, and the divinations commonly in use, Socrates, when he took an omen, said that he proceeded by divine intimation. This he did out of piety, thinking it more respectful to the gods to refer the suggestion to them, than to the voice or other intermediate sign by which they conveyed it. His phrase on this occasion was, To dai/wviov auna ay/Aa'iveiv, which being in some degree ambiguous, as foufumotnignt mean either the divine power abstractedly, 01 -Omh- parricular deity, his e-iemies took advantage of it to accuse him of introducing new deities; and his friends to indulge the vanity of boasting that he had an attendant daemon. This account may be seen at full length, supported by many arguments and proofs from the original authors, in a little tract on this subject, published in 1782*.

In the days of this philosopher, the Sophists were the great and leading men the masters of languages, as Cicero calls them, who arrogantly pretended to teach every thing, and persuaded the youth to resort only to them. With these Socrates carried on perpetual warfare: he attacked them constantly with his usual interrogatories; and, by his skill and subtilty in disputation, exposed their sophistry, and refuted their principles. He took all opportunities’of proving that they had gained a much greater portion of esteem than they had a right to claim; that they were only vain affecters of words; that they had no knowledge of the things they professed to teach; and that, instead of taking money of others for teaching, they should themselves give money to be taught. The Athenians were pleased to see the Sophists thus checked; were brought at length to deride them; and, at the instigation of Socrates, withdrew their children from them, and excited them to the study of solid virtue under better masters.

try, and was not five from the super- J say that the voice of the divinity gives

analogous to the omens of his age and name the omens as the foretellers of

ever it was, by means of which he sup- the dirinity, and herein speak more

posed intimations to be communicated truly and respectfully than they who

to him, a daemon or divinity. This attribute to birds the power which beexplanation of the matter is favoured longs to the gods.“The altercations that Socrates had with the Sophists therefore gained him respect, and made him popular with the Athenians; hut he had a private quarrel with one Anytus, which, after many years continuance, was the occasion of his death. Anytus was an orator by profession, a sordid and avaricious man, who was privately maintained and enriched by leather-sellers. He had placed two of his sons under Socrates, to be taught; but, because they had not acquired such knowledge from him as to enable them to get their living by pleading, he took them away, and put them to the trade of leather-selling. Socrates, displeased with this illiberal treatment of the young men, whose ruin he presaged at the same time, reproached, and exposed Anytus in his discourses to his scholars. Anytus, hurt by this, studied all means of revenge but feared the Athenians, who highly reverenced Socrates, as well on account of his great wisdom and virtue, as for the particular opposition which he had made to those vain babblers the Sophists. He therefore advised with Melitus, a young orator; from whose counsel he began, by making trial in smaller things, to sound how the Athenians would entertain a charge against his life. He suborned the comic poet Aristophanes, to ridicule him and his doctrines in his celebrated comedy called” The Clouds.“Socrates, who seldom went to the theatre, except when Euripides, whom he admired, contested with any new tragedian, was present at the acting of” The Clouds;“and stood up all the while in the most conspicuous part of the theatre. One that was present asked him if he was not vexed at seeing himself brought upon the stage?” Not at all,“answered he:” I am only a host at a public festival, where I provide a large company with entertainment."

Many years having passed from the first disagreement between Socrates and Anytus, at length Anytus, observing a fit conjuncture, procured Melitus to prefer a bill against him to the senate in these terms: “Melitus, son of Melitus, a Pythean, accuses Socrates, son oi Sophroniscus, an Alopecian. Socrates violates the law, not believing the deities which this city believes, but introducing other new gods He violates the Ihw likewise in corrupting youth: the punishment death.” This bill being preferred upon oath, Crito became bound to the judges for his appearance at the day of trial; till which Socrates employed himself in his usual philosophical exercises, taking no care to provide any defence. On the day appointed, Anytus, Lyco, and Metitus, accused him, and Socrates made his own defence, witu.tut procuring an advocate, as the cu*t>m was, to plead for him. He did not defen-i himself with the tone and language of a suppliant or guilty person, but with the freedom, frrmnfiSS, and spirit, of conscious innocence and superior merit. Many of his friends spoke also inus betialf; and, lastly, Plato, then a young iuan, en Jeavoured to plead, but while attempting to apologize for his youth, was ordered by the court to sit down. The court then proceeding to vote, they found Socrates guilty by two hundred and eighty-one voices. It uas the custom of Athens, as Cicero informs us, when any one was cast, if the fault were not capital, to impose a pecuniary mulct, and the guilty person was asked the highest ratf at which he estimated his offence. This was proposed to Socrates, who told the judges, that to pay a penalty was to own an offence; and that, instead of being condemned for what he stood accused, he deserved to be maintained at the public charge out of the Prytanacum. This being the greatest honour the Athenians could confer, the answer so exasperated the judges, that they condemned him to dea h by eighty votes more.

The sentence being passed, he was sent to prison; which, says Seneca, he entered with the same resolution and firmness with which he had opposed the thirty tyrants; and took away all ignominy from the place, which, adds Seneca, could not be a prison while he was there. On the day of condemnation, it happened thdt the ship, which was employed to carry a customary animal offering to the island of Delos, set sail. It was contrary to the law of Athens, that, during this voyage, any capital punishment should be inflicted within the city. This circumstance delayed the execution of the sentence against Socrates for thirty days, during which he was constantly visited by Crito, Plato, and other friends, with whom he passed the time in his usual manner. He was often solicited by them to escape, which he not only refused but derided; asking, “if they knew any place out of Attica, whither death would not come.” The manner of his death is related by Plato, who was an eye-witness of it; and, as there is not, perhaps, a more afft cling picture to be found in antiquity, we will exhibit it here in his own words. Socrates, the day he was to die, had been discoursing to his friends upon the immortallty of thfe soul: and, “when he had made an end of speaking, Crito asked him, if he had any directions to give concerning his sons, or other things, in which they could serve him ‘ I desire no more of you,’ said Socrates, ‘than what I have always told you: if you take care of yourselves, whatsoever you do will be acceptable to me and mine, though you promise nothing; if you neglect yourselves and virtue, you can do n (thing acceptable to us, though you promise ever so much.’ ‘ That,’ answered Crito, ‘we will observe; but how will you be buried?’ ‘ As you think good,’ says he, ‘ if you can catch me, and I do not give you the slip.’ Then, with a smile, applying himself to us, ‘ I cannot persuade Crito,’ says he, ‘ that I am that Socrates who was haranguing just now, or anything more than the carcass you will presently behold; and therefore he is taking all this care of my interment. It seems, that what I just now explained in a long discourse has made no impression at all upon him; namely, that as soon as I shall have drunk the poison, I shall not remain longer with you, but depart immediately to the seats of the blessed. These things, with which I have been endeavouring to comfort you and myself, have been said to no purpose. As, therefore, Crito was bound to the judges for my appearance, so you must now be bound to Crito for my departure; and when he sees my body burnt or buried, let him not say, that Socrates suffers any thing, or is any way concerned: for know, dear Crito, such a mistake were a wrong to my soul. I tell you, that my body is only buried; and let that be done as you shall think fit, or as shall be most agreeable to the laws and customs of the country.’ This said, he arose and retired to an inner room; taking Crito with him, and leaving us, who, like orphans, were to be deprived of so dear a father, to discourse upon our own misery. After his bathing, came his wife, and the other women of the family, with his sons, two of them children, one of them a youth; and, when he had given proper directions about his domestic affairs, he dismissed them, and came out to us. It was now near sun-set, for he had staid long within; when coming out he sat down, and did not speak much after. Then entered an officer, and approaching him, said, ' Socrates, I am persuaded, that I shall have no reason to blame you, for what I have been accustomed to blame in others, who have been angry at me, and loaded me with curses, for only doing what the magistrate commands, when I have presented the poison to them. But I know you to be the most generous, the most mild, the best of all men, that ever entered this place; and am certain, that, if you entertain any resentment upon this occasion, it will not be at me, but at the real authors of your misfortune. You know the message I bring; farewell: and endeavour to bear with patience what must be borne.‘ `And,’ said Socrates to the officer, who went out weeping, `fare thee well I will. How civil is this man I have found him the same all the time of my imprisonment he would often visit me, sometimes discourse with me, always used me kindly and now see, how generously he weeps for me. But come, Crito let us do as he bids us if the poison be ready, let it be brought in if not, let somebody prepare it.‘ `The sun is yet among the mountains, and not set,’ says Crito: `I myself have seen others drink it later, who have even eat and drunk freely with their friends after the sign has been given be not in haste, there is time enough.‘ `Why, yes,’ says Socrates, `they who do so think they gain something; but what shall I gain by drinking it late? Nothing, but to be laughed at, for appearing too desirous of life: pray, let it be as I say.‘ Then Crito sent one of the attendants, who immediately returned, and with him the man, who was to administer the poison, bringing a cup in his hand: to whom Socrates said, `Prithee, my good friend, for thou art versed in these things, what must I do?’ `Nothing,‘ said the man, `but walk about as soon as you shall have drunk, till you perceive your legs to fail; and then sit down.’ Then he presented the cup, which Socrates took without the least change of countenance, or any emotion whatever, but looking with his usual intrepidity upon the man. He then demanded, `Whether he might spill any of it in libation?‘ The man answered, `he had only prepared just what was sufficient.’ `Yes,‘ says Socrates, `I may pray to the gods, and will, that my passage hence may be happy, which I do beseech them to grant:’ and that instant swallowed the draught with the greatest ease. Many of us, who till then had refrained from tears, when we saw him put the cup to his mouth, and drink off the poison, were not able to refrain longer, but gave vent to our grief: which Socrates observing, `Friends,' said he, `what mean you? I sent away the women for no other reason, but that they might not disturb us with this: for I have heard that we should die with gratulation and applause: be quiet then, and behave yourselves like men.‘ These words made us wiih shame suppress our tears. When he had walked a while, and perceived his legs to fail, he lay down on his back, as the executioner directed: who, in a little time, looking upon his feet, and pinching them pretty hard, asked him, `If he perceived it?’ Socrates said, `No.‘ Then he did the same by his legs and shewing us, how every part successively grew cold and stiff, observed, that when that dullness reached his heart, he would die. Not long after, Socrates, removing the garment with which he was covered, said, ’ I owe a cock to Æsculapius; pay it, neglect it not.‘ `It shall be done,’ says Crito ‘would you have any thing else?’ He made no answer, but, after lying a while, stretched himself forth: when the executioner uncovering him found his eyes fixed, which were closed by Crito.” This,“says Plato,” was the end of the best, the wisest, and the justest of men" and this account of it by Plato, Cicero professes, that he could never read without tears.

He died, according to Plato, when he was more than seventy, 396 B. C. He was buried with many tears and much solemnity by his friends, among whom the excessive grief of Plato is noticed by Plutarch: yet, as soon as they performed that last service, fearing the cruelty of the thirty tyrants, they stole out of the city, the greater part to Euclid at Megara, who received them kindly; the rest to other places. Soon after, however, the Athenians were recalled to a sense of the injustice they had committed against Socrates; and became so exasperated, as to insist that the authors of it should be put to death. Melitus accordingly suffered, and Anytus was banished. In farther testimony of their penitence, they called home his friends to their former liberty of meeting; they forbade public spectacles of games and wrestlings for a time; they caused his statue, made in brass by Lysippus, to be set up in the Pompeium; and a plague ensuing, which they imputed to this unjust act, they made an order, that no man should mention Socrates publicly and on the theatre, in order to forget the sooner what they had done.

As to his person, he was very homely; was bald, had a dark complexion, a flat nose, eyes projecting, and a severe down-cast look. His countenance, indeed, was such, that Zopyrus, a physiognomist, pronounced him incident to various passions, and given to many vices: which when Alcibiades and others that were present derided, knowing him to be free from every thing of that kind, Socrates justified the skill of Zopyrus by owning, that “he was by nature prone to those vices, but had suppressed his inclination by reason.” The defects of his person were amply compensated by the virtues and accomplishments of his mind. The oracle at Delphi declared him the wisest of all men, for professing only to know that he knew nothing: Apollo, as Cicero says, conceiving the only wisdom of mankind to consist in not thinking themselves to know those things of which they are ignorant. He was a man of all virtues, and so remarkably frugal, that, how little soever he had, it was always enough: and, when he was amidst a great variety of rich and expensive objects, he would often say to himself, “How many things are here which I do not want!”

He had two wives, one of which was the noted Xantippe, whom Aulus Gellius describes as an arrant scold, and several instances are recorded of her impatience and his longsuffering. One day, before some of his friends, she fell into the usual extravagances of her passion; when he, without answering a word, went abroad with them: but was no sooner out of the door, than she, running up into the chamber, threw water down upon his head: upon which, turning to his friends, “Did' I not tell you,” says he, “that after so much thunder we should have rain.” She appears, however, to have had a great affection for him, and was a faithful wife.

Socrates left behind him nothing in writing; but his illustrious pupils, Xenophon and Plato, have, in some measure, supplied this defect. The “Memoirs of Socrates,” however, written by Xenophon, afford a much more accurate idea of the opinions of Socrates, and of his manner of teaching, than the Dialogues of Plato, who every where mixes his own conceptions and diction, and those of other philosophers, with the ideas and language of his master. It is related, that when Socrates heard Plato recite his “Lysis,” he said, “How much does this young man make me say which I never conceived!” Xenophon denies that Socrates ever taught natural philosophy, or any mathematical science, and charges with misrepresentation and falsehood those who had ascribed to him dissertations of this kind; probably referring to Plato, in whose works Socrates is introduced as discoursing upon these subjects. The truth appears to be, that the distinguishing character of Socrates was, that of a moral philosopher.

The doctrine of Socrates, concerning God and religion, was rather practical than speculative. But he did not neglect to build the structure of religious faith upon the firm foundation of an appeal to natural appearances. He taught that the Supreme Being, though invisible, is clearly seen in his works, which at once demonstrate his existence, and his wise and benevolent providence. Besides the one supreme Deity, Socrates admitted the existence of beings who possess a middle station between God and man, to whose immediate agency he ascribed the ordinary phoenomena of nature, and whom he supposed to be particularly concerned in the management of human affairs. Hence, speaking of the gods, who take care of men, he says, “Le t it suffice you, whilst you observe their works, to revere and honour the gods and be persuaded, that this is the way in which they make themselves known for, among all the gods who bestow blessings upon men, there are none who, in the distribution of their favours, make themselves visible to mortals.” Hence he spoke of thunder, wind, and other agents in nature, as servants of God, and encouraged the practice of divination, under the notion, that the gods sometimes discover future events to good men.

If these opinions concerning the Supreme Being, and the subordinate divinities, be compared, there will be no difficulty in perceiving the grounds upon which Socrates, though an advocate for the existence of one sovereign power, admitted the worship of inferior divinities. Hence he declared it to be the duty of every one, in the performance of religious rites, to follow the customs of his country. At the same time, he taught, that the merit of all religious offerings depends upon the character of the worshipper, and that the gods take pleasure in the sacrifices of none but the truly pious. “The man,” says he, “who honours the gods according to his ability, ought to be cheerful, and hope for the greatest blessings: for, from whom may we reasonably entertain higher expectations, than from those who are most able to serve us? or how can we secure their kindness, but by pleasing them? or, how please them better, than by obedience?”

Concerning the human soul, the opinion of Socrates, according to Xenophon, was, tliat it is allied to the divine Bt-ing, not by a participation of essence, but by a similarity of nature; that man excels all other animals in the (acuity of reason, and that the existence of good men will be continued after death, in a state in which they will receive the reward of their virtue. Although it appears that, on this latter topic, Socrates was not wholly free from uncertainty, the consolation which he professed to derive from this source in the immediate prospect of death, leaves little room to doubt, that he entertained a real belief and expectation of immortality. The doctrine which Cicero ascribes to Socrates on this head is, that the human soul is a divine principle, which, when it passes out of the body, returns to heaven and that this passage is most easy to those who have, in this life, made the greatest progress in virtue.

The system of morality which Socrates made it the business of his life to teach, was raised upon the firm basis of religion. The first principles of virtuous conduct, which are common to all mankind, are, according to this excellent moralist, the laws of God; and the conclusive argument by which he supports this opinion is, that no man departs from these principles with impunity. He taught, that true felicity is not to be derived from external possessions, but from wisdom, which consists in the knowledge and practice of virtue; that the cultivation of virtuous manners is necessarily attended with pleasure, as well as profit; that the honest man alone is happy; and that it is absurd to attempt to separate things which are in nature so closely united as virtue and interest.

, an ecclesiastical historian, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, was born at Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius. He studied grammar under Helladius and Ammonius, who, having fled from Alexandria to Constantinople, had opened a school there; and, after he had finished his studies, for some time professed the law, and pleaded at the bar, whence he obtained the name of Scholasticus. In the decline of life he undertook to write the history of the church, beginning from 309, where Eusebius ends, and continued it down to 440, in seven books. This history is written, as Valesins his editor observes, with much judgment and exactness. His veracity may be presumed from his industry in consulting the original records, acts of council, bishops’ letters, and the writings of his contemporaries, of which he often gives extracts. He is also careful in setting down the succession of bishops, and the years in which every thing was transacted; and describes them by consuls and olympiads. His judgment appears in his reflections and observations, which are rational and impartial. He has been accused of being a Novatian; and it cannot be denied that he speaks well of that sect: yet, as Valesius has proved, he was not one of them, but adhered to the church, while he represents them as separated from it. What he says of these Novatians is only a proof of his candour and generous peaceable temper. His style is plain and easy; and has nothing in it of declamation, which he treats with contempt. His history has been translated into Latin, and published in Greek and Latin by Valesius, together with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians; and republished, with additional notes by Reading, at London, 1720, 3 vols, folio. There is also an English edition printed at Cambridge, 1683, fol.

, a celebrated naturalist, the pupil of Linnæus, and the friend of sir Joseph Banks, was a native of the province of Nordland in Sweden, where his father was minister. He was born Feb. 28, 1736, and studied at Upsal, where he appears to have taken his degree of doctor in inedicine. Linnseus, who during his residence in England, had formed an intimacy with Mr. Peter Collinson, advised his pupil to visit England, and probably recommended him to that gentleman. Dr. Solander arrived in England in 1760, and in October 1762, was strongly recommended by Mr. Collinson to the trustees of the British Museum, as a person who had made natural history the study of his life, and was particularly qualified to draw up a catalogue of that part of their collection. Three years after, he obtained a closer connection with that institution, being appointed one of the assistants in the department of natural history. In 1764 he became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1766, he drew up for Mr. Brander, the scientific descriptions of his Hampshire fossils, then published in a thin volume, 4to, entitled “Fossilia Hantoniensia, collecta, et in Musseo Britanmco deposita, a Gustavo Brander, R. S. et S. A. S. Mus. Brit. Cur.” Of his obligations to Dr. Solander, this gentleman thus speaks in his preface: “And now I think I have nothing more to do, than to acknowledge myself indebted for the scientific description of them to the learned and ingenious Dr. Solander, one of the officers of the British Museum, who is at this time employed by the trustees to compose a systematical catalogue of the natural productions of that entire collection.” It does not appear that this catalogue was ever completed.

In 1768, Dr. Solander was prevailed upon by his friend Mr. (afterwards sir Joseph) Banks, to undertake the voyage round the world, in pursuit of discoveries in natural history: and permission was obtained for him from the trustees of the British Museum, still to hold his appointment during his absence. The circumstance of going is thus mentioned, in the introduction to captain Cook’s first voyage, in speaking of Mr. Banks: “As he was determined to spare no expence in the execution of his plan, he engaged Dr. Solander to accompany him in the voyage. This gentleman, by bi th a Swede, was educated under the celebrated Linnæus, from whom he brought letters of recommendation into England and his merit being soon known, he obtained an appointment in the British Museum, a public institution which was then just established. Such a companion Mr. Banks considered as an acquisition of no small importance, and to his great satisfaction, the event abundantly proved that he was not mistaken.” One of the most remarkable circumstances which attended these heroes of natural history in this expedition, was the difficulty they experienced in attempting to ascend a mountain in Terra del Fuego, in search of Alpine plants. In the danger they here encountered, Dr. Solander undoubtedly preserved the lives of the party by the advice he gave; and what is more remarkable, was himself preserved by their attention to his directions. The matter is thus related in the voyage.

“Dr. Solander, who had more than once crossed the mountains which divide Sweden from Norway, well knew that extreme cold, especially when juined with fatigue, produces a torpor and sleepiness that are almost irresistible: he therefore conjured the company to keep moving, whatever pain it might cost them, and whatever relief they might be promised by an inclination to rest. Whoever sits down, says he, will sleep; and whoever sleeps will wake no more. Thus, at once admonished and alarmed, they set forward but while they were still upon the naked rock, and before they had got among the bushes, the cold became suddenly so intense, as to produce the effects that had been dreaded. Dr. Solander himself was the first who found the inclination, against which he had warned others, irresistible; and insisted upon being suffered to lie down. Mr. Banks intreated and remonstrated in vain; down he lay upon the ground, though it was covered with snow; and it was with great difficulty that his friend prevented him from sleeping. Richmond also, one of the black servants, began to linger, having suffered from the cold in the same manner as the doctor. Mr. Banks, therefore, sent five of the company, among whom was Mr. Buchan, forward to get a fire read)', at the first convenient place they could find; and himself, with four others, remained with the doctor and Richmond, whom, partly by persuasion and intreaty, and partly by force, they brought on; but when they had got through the greatest part of the birch and swamp, they both declared they could go no farther. Mr. Banks had recourse again to entreaty and expostulation, but they produced no effect; when Richmond was told that if he did not go on he would in a short time be frozen to death; he answered, that he desired nothing but to lie down and die. The doctor did not so explicitly renounce his life; he said, he was willing to go on, but that he must first take some sleep, though he had bet >re told the company that to sleep was to perish. Mr. Banks and the rest found it impossible to carry them, and there being no remedy, they were both suffered to sit down, being partly supported by the bushes, and in a few minutes they fell into a profound sleep: soon after, some of the people who had been sent forward returned, with the welcome news that a fire was kindled about a quarter of a mile further on the way. Mr. Banks then endeavoured to wake Dr. Solander, and happily succeeded; but, though he had not slept five minutes, he had almost lost the use of liis limbs, and the muscles were so shrunk, that the shoes fell from his feet; he consented to go forward with such assistance as could be given him; but no attempts to relieve poor Richmond were successful. Mr. Banks, with much difficulty, at length got the doctor to the fire.” Richmond and a seaman finally perished from the cold; the remainder of the party, to the number of ten, happily regained the ship, alter the utmost difficulties and hazards. The “Dictionnaire Historique” affirms, that Dr. Solan. tier had a salary of 400l. sterling a year, during this voyage. “Whatever he had must have been t'ri>tn the munificence of Mr. Banks, as he had no public appointment. There can be no doubt that the zeal and generosity of that friend rewarded him very amply, both for the time employed in the voyage, and for that which he afterwards spent in arranging and describing the vast collection of plants which they had made. In 1773, Dr. Solander was advanced from the office of assistant to be one of the under-librarians in the British Museum. He died in consequence of a stroke of apoplexy, onMay Ui, 178 1. Dr. Pulteney, in his” Sket> of the progress of Botany in England,“regards the arrival of Dr. Solander in this country as an acra of importance in that history.” At this juncture,“he says,” it is material, among those circumstances which accelerated the progress of the new system, to mention the arrival of the late muchlamented Dr. Solander, who came into England on the 1st of July, 1760. His name, and the connection he was known to bear, as the favourite pupil of his great master, had of themselves some share in exciting a curiosity which led to information; while his perfect acquaintance with the whole scheme enabled him to explain its minutest parts, and elucidate all those obscurities with which, on a superficial view, it was thought to be enveloped. I add to this that the urbanity of his manners, and his readiness to afford every assistance in his power, joined to that clearness and energy with which he effected it, not only brought conviction of its excellence in those who were inclined to receive it, but conciliated the minds, and dispelled the prejudices, of many who had been averse to it.“It is testified of him by others, who knew him intimately, that to a very extensive knowledge he added a mode of communication, not only remarkable for its readiness, but for so peculiar a modesty, that he contrived almost to appear to receive instruction when he was bestowing it in the most ample manner. There are said to be some papers by him scattered in the various memoirs of philosophical societies; but in the transactions of the Royal Society of London, there is only one letter, which is in vol. LI I. p. 654, and is entitled,” Account of the Gardenia (Jasminoides), in a Letter to Philip Carteret Webb, esq. F. R. S. from Daniel C. Solander, M. D." Nor, though his time was always usefully employed, do we know of any other production of which he was the author. He was a short, fair man, rather fat with small eyes, and a good-humoured expression of countenance.

, a landscape painter, was born at Bologna, in 1597, and was a disciple of Albano; but he principally applied to landscape-painting, and in that branch rendered himself deservedly eminent. His situations were always beautifully chosen, his distances are pleasing, the perspective receding of his objects is conducted with great skill and judgment, and his colouring is bold and lively. It was remarked of him that he painted, and also constantly wrote, with his left hand, and had full as much command of it as others have of their right; hence he was denominated II manchino da paesi. He died in 1677, aged eighty.

His son, Joseph Dal Sole, was born in 1654, and was for some time the scholar of Lorenzo Pasinelli, and to emulate him with success consulted the same sources in repeated visits to Venice. Without reaching the general brilliancy and the voluptuous tone of his master, he possessed great elegance in accessories, such as hair, wings, bracelets, veils, crowns, and armour; he was better adapted to subjects of energy, more attentive to costume, more regulated in composition, and more learned in architecture and landscape. In landscape he is nearly unrivalled; his Evening, Night, and Dawn, at Imola, in the house Zappi, are massed and toned by pure sentiment. His sacred subjects and visions radiate with vivid flashes of celestial light. He was correct and slow in his piocess from choice, though few excelled him in readiness of execution; of a Bacchus and Ariadne, which he had finished in one week with general approbation, he cancelled the greater part, and repainted it at leisure, saying that he might content others by celerity, but must satisfy himself by accuracy; hence his prices were high. He gained the appellation of the modern Guido, and there is a zest of Guido in many of his works. Among his numerous scholars, Lucia Casalini, and Teresa Muratori, ought not to be forgot. The former signalized herself in portrait, the second acquired no inconsiderable share of praise in history. Giuseppe dal Sole died in the year 1719, aged sixty-five.

, was born at Montpellier in 16S7, of a noble family, and went early to Paris, where he was noticed at court, and soon employed in an honourable station in Poland. He there became acquainted with king Stanislaus, who took him, after a time, not only as his secretary, but as his friend. He followed this prince into France, when he went to take possession of Lorraine, and became secretary of that province, and perpetual secretary to the academy of Nanci. There he found leisure to cultivate literature and philosophy, and employed himself in writing. His learning was extensive and his manners amiable. He died in 1773, at the age of eighty. His principal works are, 1. “A History of Poland,” in 5 vols. 12mo. 2. “Eloge Historique du Roi Stanislas,” 8vo, written with feeling and with genius. 3. Several detached pieces in the Memoirs of the academy of Nanci.

, called L‘Abate Ciccio, from his mode of dressing like an abbot, an illustrious Italian painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Nocera de’ Pagani near Naples in 1657. His father Angelo, who had been a scholar of Massimo, and was a good painter and a man of learning, discerned an uncommon genius in his son; who is said to have spent whole nights in the studies of poetry and philosophy. He designed also so judiciously in chiaro obscure, tiiat his performances surprised all who saw them. Angelo intended him for the Jaw, and did not alter his purpose, though he was informed of his other extraordinary talents, till cardinal Orsini advised him. This cardinal, afterwards Benedict Xiji. at a visit happened to examine the youth in philosophy, and, although satisfied with his answers, observed, that he would do better, if he did not waste so much of his time in drawing; but when these drawings were produced, he was so surprised, that he told the father how unjust he would be both to his son and to the art, if he attempted to check a genius so manifestly displayed. Ou this, Solimene had full liberty given him to follow his inclination. Two years passed on, while he studied under his lather, after which, in 1674, he went to Naples, and put himself under the direction of Francesco di Maria. Thinking, however, that this artist laid too great a stress on design, he soon left him, and guided himself by the works of Lanfranc and Calabrese in composition and chiaro obscuro, while those of Pietro Cortona and Luca Jordano were his standards for colouring, and Guido and Carlo Maratti for drapery. By an accurate and well-managed study of these masters, he formed to himself an excellent style, and soon distinguished himself as a painter. Hearing that the Jesuits intended to paint the chapel of St. Anne in the church Jesu Nuovo, he sent them a sketch by an architecture painter; not daring to carry it himself, lest a prejudice against his youth might exclude him. His design was nevertheless accepted, and, while he was employed on this chapel, the best painters of Naples visited him, astonished to h'nd themselves surpassed by a mere boy. This was his first moment of distinction, and his reputation increased so fast, that great works were offered him from every quarter. His fame extending to other countries, the kings of France and Spain made him very advantageous proposals to engage him in their service, all which he declined. Philip V. arriving at Naples, commanded him to paint his portrait, and allowed him to sit in his presence: and the emperor Charles VI. knighted him on account of a picture he sent him. In 1701, he resided at Rome during the holy year: when the pope and cardinals took great notice of him. This painter is also known by his sonnets, which have been often printed in collections of poetry; and, at eighty years of age, he could repeat from memory the most beautiful passages of the poets, in the application of which he was very happy. He died in 1747, at almost ninety. He painted entirely after nature; being fearful, as he said, that too servile an attachment to the antique might damp the fire of his imagination. He was a man of a good temper, who neither criticised the works of others out of envy, nor was blind to his own defects. He told the Italian author of his life, that he had advanced many falsities in extolling the character of his works: which had procured him a great deal of money, but yet were very far short of perfection. The grand duke of Tuscany with difficulty prevailed on Solimene’s modesty to send him his picture, which he wanted to place in his gallery among other painters.

, an ancient Latin grammarian, and (as it appears) a Roman, whom some have imagined to have lived in the time of Augustus, though in his “Polyhistor” he has made large extracts from the elder Pliny, probably lived about the middle of the third century. We have of his the abovementioned work, which Salmasius has published in 2 vols. folio: illustrated with a commentary of his own, if to overwhelm a small tract, and bury it under a mass of learning, can be called illustrating. There are various other editions. The “Polyhistor” is an ill-digested compilation of historical and geographical remarks upon various countries: and the extracts in it from Pliny are so large, and his manner withal so imitated, that the author has been called, “The Ape of Pliny.”

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

, ben Abraham, ben Abdulla by his first wife Tanomata, was born at Bonda, a town founded by his father Ibrahim, in the kingdom of Futa or Sanaga, which lies on both sides the river Senegal or Sanaga, and extends as far as the Gambra. Being sent by his father, in Feb. 1731, to sell some slaves to captain Pyke, commander of a trading vessel belonging to Mr. Hunt, and not agreeing about their price, he set out with another black merchant on an expedition across the Gambra; but they were taken prisoners by the Mandingos, a nation at enmity with his own, and sold for slaves to captain Pyke aforesaid, who immediately sent proposals to his father for their redemption. The ship sailing before the return of an answer, Job was carried to Annapolis, and delivered to Mr. Denton, factor to Mr. Hunt. He sold him to Mr. Tolsey of Maryland, from whom, though kindly treated, he escaped; and, being committed to prison as a fugitive slave, discovered himself to be a Mahometan. Being at length conveyed to England, a letter addressed to him by his father fell into the hands of general Og!cthorpe, who immediately gave bond to Mr. Hunt for payment of a certain sum on his delivery, in England. Accordingly, he arrived in England in 1733; but Mr. Oglethorpe was gone to Georgia. Mr. Hunt provided him a lodging at Limehouse; and Mr. Bluet, who first found him out in Maryland, took him down to his house at Cheshunt. The African Company undertook for his redemption, which was soon effected by Nathaniel Brassey, esq. member for Hertford, for 40l. and 20l. bond and charges, by a subscription amounting to 60l. Being now free, he translated several Arabic Mss. for sir Hans Sloane, who got him introduced at court, and after fourteen months stay in London, he returned home loaded with presents to the amount of 500l. He found his father dead, and his native country depopulated by war. He was of a comely person, near six feet high, pleasant but grave countenance, acute natural parts, great personal courage, and of so retentive a memory, that he could repeat the Koran bv heart at fifteen, and wrote it over three times in England by memory.

, one of the seven wise men of Greece, as they are called, was born atS;t!amis, of Athenian parents, who were descended from Codrus, in the sixth century B. C. His father leaving little patrimony, he had recourse to merchandise for his subsistence. He hat!, however, a greater thirst after knowledge and fame, than after riches, and made his mercantile voyages subservient to the increase of his intellectual treasures. He very early cultivated the art of poetry, and applied himself to the study of moral and civil wisdom. When the Athenians, tired out with a long and troublesome war. with the Megarensians, for the recovery of the isle of Salamis, prohibited any one, under pain of death, to propose the renewal of their claim to that island, Solon, thinking the prohibition dishonourable to the state, and finding many of the younger citizens desirous to revive the war, feigned himself mad, and took care to have the report of his insanity spread through the city. In the mean time, he composed an elegy, adapted to the state of public affairs, which he committed to memory. Every tiling being thus prepared, he sallied forth into the market place, with the kind of cap on his head which was commonly worn by sick persons, and, ascending the herald’s stand, he delivered, to a numerous crowd, his lamentation for the desertion of Salamis. The verses were heard with general applause; and Pisistratus seconded his advice, and urged the people to renew the war. The decree was immediately repealed, and the conduct of the war being committed to Solon and Pisistratus, they defeated the Megarensians, and recovered Salamis. He afterwards acquired additional fame by a successful alliance which he formed among the states, in defence of the temple at Delphos, against the Cirrhoeans.

But the height of his glory was when the dissert dons and civil commotions among the Athenians rendered it necessary to vest the supreme powers of legislator and magistrate in one person, and when in 594 B. C. he was appointed to this high office under the title of Archon. This office he appears to have executed with such wisdom and firmness as to give universal satisfaction, and spread his fame through the most distant parts of the world. In the exercise of his power, he made a new distribution of the people, formed new courts of judicature, and framed a judicious code of laws, which afterwards became the basis of the laws of the twelve tables in Rome. At the opening of this new plan of government, Solon was every day visited by persons, who were desirous, either to propose questions concerning the meaning and application of his laws, or to suggest farther corrections and improvements. Finding these importunities troublesome, he determined to make his escape from the difficult situation in which he was placed, and to leave his laws to their own natural operation. For this purpose he obtained permission from the state to travel. His first voyage was to Egypt. Here he became acquainted with several of the more eminent priests of Heliopolis and Sais, by whom he was instructed in the Egyptian philosophy. One of his preceptors, boasting of the antiquity of the Egyptian wisdom, said to him, “Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; you have not an old man among you.” From Egypt he sailed to Cyprus, where he formed an intimate friendship with Philocyprus, one of the princes of the island, and assisted him in founding a new city.

It is also related, that he visited Croesus, king of Lydia, and that, during the interview, the following interesting conversation passed between them. Croesus, after entertaining his guest with great splendour, and making an ostentatious display of the magnificence of his palace, desirous to extort from Solon expressions of admiration which he did not seem inclined to bestow, asked him, whom, of all mankind, he esteemed most happy Solon answered, “Tellus, the Athenian.” Crcesns, surprized that Solon should name any other man in preference to himself, requested to be informed of the grounds of this judgment. “Tellus,” replied Solon, “was descended from worthy parents, was the father of virtuous children, whom every one respected, and, at last, fell n tin engagement in which, before he expired, he saw his country victorious.” Croesus, flattering himself that he should at least obtain the second place, in Solon’s judgment, among the fortunate, inquired, whom, next to Tellus, he thought most happy? Solon, in return, said, two youths of Argos, Cleobis and Biton, who while they lived were universally admired for their fraternal affection to each other, and for their dutiful behaviour to their mother; and who, after they had given an illustrious example of filial piety, expired without sorrow or pain. Crcesus, mortified to find the condition of a private citizen of Athens or Argos preferred to his own, could no longer refrain from asking Solon, whether he meant wholly to exclude him from the number of the happy? Solon’s reply is a memorable proof of his wisdom: “The events of future life are uncertain; he who has hitherto been prosperous may be unfortunate to-morrow: let no man therefore be pronounced happy before his death.” This observation made so deep an impression upon the mind of Crcesus, that when afterwards, experiencing a reverse of fortune, he became a prisoner to Cyrus, and was brought forth to be put to death, he cried out, “O Solon! Solon!” Cyrus inquiring into the meaning of the exclamation, Crcesus informed him of what had formerly passed between himself and Solon. The consequence was, that Cyrus, struck with the wisdom of Solon’s remark, set Croesus at liberty, and treated him with all the respect due to his former greatness. The story is attended with some chronological difficulties; but it is so consonant to the character of Solon, and so admirable an example of the moral wisdom of those times, that we could not persuade ourselves to reject it.

Solon died in the island of Cyprus, about the eightieth year of his age. Statues were erected to his memory, both at Athens and Salamis. His thirst after knowledge continued to the last: “I grow old,” said he, “learning many things.” Among the apophthegms recorded of him, are, “Laws are like cobwebs, that catch the weak but are broken through by the strong;” “He who has learned to obey, will know how to command;” “In every thing you do, consider the end.” Laertius has mentioned among his writings, his orations, poems, laws, and an Atlantic history, completed afterwards by Plato and has preserved som epistles, but of doubtful authority.

, an eminent English lawyer, was born at Worcester, March 4, 1650, but no register of his baptism can be found. A house called White Ladies is shown on the east side of the cathedral, and very near St. MichaePs church, where he is said to have been born. His father, John Somers, was an attorney of considerable eminence, and had an estate of about 300l. per ann. at Clifton. During the rebellion he commanded a troop of horse, part of Cromwell’s army, but resigned his commission after the battle of Worcester, and returned to his profession, and, among other business, had the superintendance of the finances and estates of the Talbots, earls of Shrewsbury, which eventually produced a lasting friendship and cordiality between the duke of Shrewsbury and his son, the subject of this article. Of old Mr. Somers the following anecdote has been recorded: “He used to frequent the terms in London, and in his way from Worcester was wont to leave his horse at the George, at Acton, where he often made mention of the hopeful son he had at the Temple. Cobbet, who kept the inn, hearing him enlarge so much in praise of his son, to compliment the old gentleman, cried, ` Why wont you let us see him, Sir?‘ The father, to oblige his merry landlord, desired the young gentleman to accompany him so far on his way home; and being come to the George, took his landlord aside, and said, ’ I have brought him, Cobbet, but you must not talk to him as you do to me; he will not sutler such fellows as you in his company'.” After the restoration Mr. Somers obtained a pardon for what he might have committed while in the republican army, which pardon is still in the possession of the family. He died Jan. 1681, and was buried at Severnstoke, in the county of Worcester; where an elegant Latin inscription, engraved on a marble monument, and written by his son, is still to be seen.

In 1675, Mr. (afterwards lord) Somers, was entered as a commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford. In the year following he is known to have contributed 5l. towards the embellishment of the chapel and some years afterwards, as appears by the bursar’s book, 100l. more.It is said that he did not entirely quit the university until 1682, and had in the interim become a student of law in the Middle Temple, and returning to college took his degree of M. A, June 14, 1681. While studying- law, he never neglected the belles lettres, and it was by his amusements in that way, his translations, and poetical performances, that he first became known to the public At that time merit of this kind was a passport both to tame and riches, and Mr. Somers, who in some degree owed his promotion to the muses, showed himself not ungrateful when he endeavoured to raise into notice their favourite votary Addison. Sir Francis Winnington, then solicitor, was one of his earliest patrons. By such assistance, united to his own merit and application, he became, what was very rarely seen in those days, when a deeper legal knowledge was supposed essential to a barrister, an eminent counsel, before he had attained the age of thirty. It is imagined by some, that his early acquaintance vvth the duke of Shrewsbury, might have contributed to turn his attention to the law, and possibly accelerated his rapid progress in that profession. His abilities, however, and powerful oratory, were always exerted in favour of liberty, and in the support of that rational freedom which is equally opposed to licentiousness and slavery.

Having formed an acquaintance with lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, and other supporters of liberty at that time, he frequently employed his pen against the arbitrary proceedings of the reign of Charles II.; but as it was his practice to publish such pieces without his name, very few of them are now known, and these we shall notice at the conclusion of this article. In 1688, when in his thirtysixth year, he distinguished himself as counsel for the seven prelates who were tried for opposing the dispensing power of James II. He had afterwards a considerable share in concerting the measures for bringing about the revolution. He was chosen representative for his native city of Worcester, in the convention-parliament; and in the conference between the two houses about the word abdicated, on which he delivered a celebrated speech, he was appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons.

On the accession of king William, Mr. Somers was rewarded for his exertions, by being, on May 9, 1689, made solicitor-general, elected recorder of Gloucester in 1690, appointed attorney-general, on May 2, 1692, and lordkeeper in 1693. We may judge of his popularity, his activity, and political skill, by the following expression of lord Sunderland, in a letter to king William, written about this period: “Lord Somers,” says he, “is the life, the soul, the spirit of his party; and can answer for it” A character of such influence was not to be neglected by a yet unestablished monarch, and accordingly king William, who had conferred the honour of knighthood on Mr. Somers when solicitor-general, now created him baron of Evesham, and lord chancellor of England. For the support of these dignities and honours, his majesty made him a grant of the manors of Ryegate and Howlegh, in Surrey, and another grant of 2, 100l. per annum out of the fee-farm rents of the crown. Lord Orford, in a note on his very flippant character of lord Somers, thinks these grants formed an alloy, but has not told us how lord Somers’s rank was to be kept up without them. “One might as well,” observes lord Hardwicke, “lay a heavy charge on his father’s (sir Robert Walpole) memory, for the grants of lucrative offices obtained for his family, and taking a pension when he resigned. Lord Somers raised no more from his offices and grants than a fortune which enabled him to live with decency and elegance.”

Before the king’s departure for Holland, in the summer of the year 1697, his majesty communicated to lord Somers a proposition made by count Tallard, to prevent a war about the succession to the crown of Spain, upon the death of the then monarch of that kingdom; and the chancellor afterwards received a letter from his majesty, then in Holland, informing him, that fresh offers had been made to the same purpose; and requiring him to dispatch full powers, under the great seal, with the names in blank, to empower his majesty to treat with the before mentioned Count. This order he accordingly complied with; and the negociations being immediately entered upon, a treaty was concluded. This was the first Partition-treaty; and in the next session of parliament, which began Nov. 16, 1699, great complaints were made in the House of Commons against the chancellor; and the House being resolved, on Dec. 6, to push the resumption of the grants of the Irish forfeited estates, by tacking it to the land-tax-bill, an address was concerted on April 10, 1700, praying, that “John lord Somers, lord chancellor of England, should be removed for ever from his majesty’s presence and councils;” but the majority of the House voted against any such address. However, the parliament being prorogued the next day, his majesty sent for the lord chancellor, and desired him to surrender the seals voluntarily; but this his lordship declined, thinking that it would imply a consciousness of guilt, He told the king, however, that whensoever his majesty should send a warrant under his hand, commanding him to deliver them up, he would immediately obey it. Accordingly an order was brought to him for this purpose by lord Jersey, upon which the seals were sent to the king. Thus was lord Somers removed from the post of chancellor, the duties of which he had discharged with great integrity and ability; and although this was contrary to the king’s inclinations to make such a sacrifice, “was not sufficient to appease the tory party, who now formed a design to impeach him. This his lordship in some measure anticipated, by sending, os> April 14, 1701, a message to the House of Commons, in which,” having heard tiiat the House was in a debate concerning him, he desired that he might be admitted and heard.“This was granted, and a chair being set by the Serjeant, a little wittiin the bar on the left hand, he had directions to acquaint lord Somers r that he might come in; and on his entrance the Speaker informed him, that he might repose himself in the chair provided for him. His lordship then defended himself with respect to his share in concluding the partition-treaty, which was the principal charge against him in that House, and, according to Burnet,” spoke so fully aud clearly, that, upon his withdrawing, it was believed, if the question had been quickly put, the whole matter had b*>en soon at an end, aud that the prosecution would have been let fall. But his enemies drew out the debate to such a length, that the impression, which his speech had made, was much worn out; and the House sitting till it was past midnight, they at last carried it by a majority of seven or eight to impeach him."

On the lyth of May following, the articles of impeachment against lord Somers were carried to the House of Peers, but a misunderstanding arising between the two Houses, he was acquitted by the Lords, without any farther prosecution of the Commons. King William dying not long after, lord Somers, not being a favourite at the new court, withdrew from public life, and spent much of his time at his seat near Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, in the study of history, antiquities, and polite literature. From 1698 to 1703 he had sat as president of the Royal Society, of which he had been elected a fellow in the first of these years. He still continued his attendance in the House of Peers, where he opposed the bill to prevent occasional nonconformity; and was one of the managers for the Lords, in the conference between the two Houses upon that bill in 1702. In 1706 he projected the plan for the union of England and Scotland, and was appointed by queen Anne one of the managers. The same year he introduced a bill for preventing delays and expences in proceedings at law: and also some regulations with regard to passing private acts of parliament.

Upon a change of measures in 1708, he was again called into office, and appointed president of the council. But the whig interest, of which he was the chief support, began now rapidly to decline. The same engine was played off against it, which has so often since been the last resource of party animosity. The empty splendours of conquest were derided; and the people warned that, while they joined in the huzza of victory, they were impoverishing themselves merely to enrich a few creatures of the minister. Swift had no small concern in this revolution of the public mind, by his pamphlet on “The Conduct of the Allies.” Another change of administration was effected in 1710, and lord Somers once more retired from public life. Towards the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he grew very infirm, and survived the powers of his understanding. Mr. Cooksey, one of his biographers, and a descendant, attributes this to a cause which every admirer of lord Somers must regret, and perhaps wish suppressed *. His lordship died of an apoplexy, April 26, 1716.

the insinuations of Swift, &c. has yet delicate. To this was owing his frecoucluded his Essay on the life and q-.ient illnesses and calls lo Tollbridge;

character of his lordship, with the fol- and, what was worst of all, that wreiclilowing particulars, more seriously af- ed state to which the brightest parts

fectiug his character than all that his and intellects (jod ever bestowed oa contemporary enemies had advanced. man, were reduced before his final di. ­“His (lord Somers’s) ideas, astocmi- solution.” We know not how to renexion with women (having been dis- concile this with Miss M ore’s introdui 1 ­appuinted in his first attachment, on ing his lordship in her “Religion of lite which he renounced ever after the Fashionable World.” as one who " was thought of marrying) were such as he not only remarkable for a strict attendprofesses and teaches in the Tale of a ance on the public duties of religion.

fora g'iceque. Nor did any ri:aii-ever exactness in his family.“ Many are the encomiums which have been bestowed upon this noble and illustrious person. Burnet tells us that” he was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions; in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post: so that he ru:d all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate.“Lord Orford calls him” one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest i tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest statesman, as a master-orator, a genius of the finest taste, and as a patriot of the noblest and most extensive views; as a man who dispensed blessings by his life, and planned them for posterity.“He was a very great patron of men of parts and learning, and particularly of Mr. Addison, who has drawn his character at large in one of his” Freeholders,“in that of May 4, 1716, where he has chosen -his lordship’s motto for that of his paper,” Prodesse quam conspici.“Lord Somers was one of those who first redeemed Milton’s” Paradise Lost“from that obscurity in which party-prejudice and hatred had suffered it long to lie neglected, and who pointed out the merits of that noble poem. The most unfavourable character of lord Somers is that drawn by Swift, once his friend, as appears by the dedication of the” Tale of a Tub,“if that be Swift’s; and here we may notice that lord Somers’s biographer, Mr. Cooksey, offers some arguments, and combines some facts, to prove that this satire was the production of his lordship, and of his gay young friend lord Shrewsbury. The characters of Peter, Jack, and Martin, are said to have been sketched from living persons, and these sketches of character, after many years remaining in ms. and passing through the hands of lord Shaftesbury and sir William Temple, are said to have been published by dean Swift. That this work was the sportive production of Mr. Somers,” I have no doubt,“says Mr. Cooksey,” from the private tradition of the family, and drawn by him from real life, and originals within his own observation.“Blurton, the uncle of Mr. Somers, a good and pious man, furnished, it is said, the portrait of the church of England man. The character of Jack, the Calvinist, exhibited that of his grandfather, Somers, who was so devoted an admirer of Richard Baxter, of presbyterian memory, as to be induced to spend most of his latter days with him at Kidderminster, and to direct his remains to be deposited under a cross in the church-yard there, as he supposed the ground hallowed by die sanctity of Baxter. Peter had his lineaments from father Petre, the Jesuit. Lord Somers’s later biographer, Mr. Maddock, after examining the probability of this story, discredits it, and leaves the” Tale of a Tub" the property of its generally reputed author, dean Swift; and most readers, we apprehend, will be more inclined to acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. Maddock than in that of Mr. Cooksey.

The other works attributed to lord Somers, with more or less authority, are, 1. “Dryden’s Satire to his Muse;” but this has been disputed. Mr. Malone says, the author of this severe attack on Dryden has never been discovered. Pope assures us that lord Somers “was wholly ignorant of it;” but, says Mr. Maione, “if Somers had written any part of this libel (we cannot suppose him to have written the scandalous part of it) thirty years before he was acquainted with Pope, is it probable that he would have made a young author of four-and-twenty the depositary of his secret? Two years before this satire was published, he had appeared as a poet; and near two hundred lines of it, that is, nearly two parts out of three, are a political encomium and vindication of the whigs, without any offensive personality, couched in such moderate poetry as is found in Somers’s acknowledged poetical productions.” Lord Somers’s other and acknowledged poems were, 2. “Translation of the Epistle of Dido to Æneas.” 3. “Translation of Ariadne to Theseus.” Of the prose kind were, 4. “Translation of Plutarch’s life of Alcibiades.” 5. “A just and modest Vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments,” 1681, 4to, first written by Algernon Sidney, but ncic-draivn by Somers, published in Baldwin’s collection of pamphlets in the reign of Charles II. The two following are doubtful: 6. “The Security of Englishmen’s Lives, or the trust, power, and duty of the Grand Juries of England explained according to the fundamentals of the English government, &c.”1682, and 1700. 7. “Lord Somers’s Judgment of whole kingdoms in the power, &c. of Kings,” 1710, 8vo, but bearing no resemblance to his style or manner. With more certainty we may add, 8. “A Speech at the conference on the word Abdicated,'” in the General Dictionary, and probably published separately. 9. “Another on the same occasion.” 10. “Speeches at the trial of lord Preston.” 11. “His letter to king William on the Partition-treaty.” 12. “His answer to his Impeachment.” 13. “Extracts from two of his Letters to lord Wharton.” 14. “Addresses of the Lords in answer to Addresses of the Commons.” 15. “The Argument of the lord keeper Somers on his giving judgment in the Banker’s Case, delivered in the exchequer chamber, July 23, 1696.” He is supposed likewise to have written “The preface to Dr. Tindal’s Rights of the Christian Church,” a “Brief History of the Succession, collected out of the records, written for the satisfaction of the E. of H.” This was in favour of the attempt to exclude the duke of York, and was re-printed in 1714. The Mss. of this able statesman and lawyer filled above sixty folio volumes, which were destroyed by fire in Lincoln’s Inn, in 1752. Some remains, which the fire had spared, were published by lord Hardwicke in 1778, 4to, entitled “State Papers, from 1501 to 1726.” This noble editor informs us that the treatise on Grand Jurors, the Vindication of the last Parliament of Charles II. above-mentioned, and the famous last Speech of king William, were all found in the hand-writing of lord Somers. The “Somers Tracts,” so frequently referred to, are a collection of scarce pieces in four sets of four volumes each, 4to, published by Cogan from pamphlets chiefly collected by lord Somers. His lordship left a large and well-chosen library of books, and many curious Mss. Of this collection Whiston, the bookseller, gives the following account " Sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, married one of his sisters the other was married to

which married sir Philip Yorke, who thereby came to the right of the fourth share of that collection, and purchased the other fourth. They consisted of about 6000 articles, and were valued at near 4000l. by Mr. Gyles and Mr. Charles Davies. I was employed, when apprentice to Mr. Gyles, in dividing them between sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Philip Yorke, previous to which I called them over, to see if they answered the catalogue. Every book almost went through my hands four or five times. This gave me a.n opportunity, when young, of attaining the knowledge. of many scarce books, much sooner than the common course of business would have done. The catalogue was excellently well ranged in sciences and their subdivisions, *by the care, I heard, of the rev. Humphrey Wanley. It was about 17X1 the affair was finished. A fine collection of Bibles in all languages made a part."

Lord Somers never married. The two sisters mentioned by Mr. Whiston, were Mary, who married Charles Cocks, esq. grandfather to Charles Cocks, created baron Somers in 1784; and Catherine, who married James Harris, esq. of Salisbury, the ancestor of lord Malmsbury. The eldest daughter by this marriage, Elizabeth, married sir Joseph Jekyl, master of the rolls, who introduced Mr. Yorke to Mr. Cocks, as a proper match for his eldest daughter, Margaret, then the young widow of Mr. William Lygon of Madersfield.

, an English poet, was descended from a very ancient family in the county of Warwick. His ancestors had large possessions at Kingston, in Worcestershire, so early as the reign of Edward I. He was the son of Robert Somervile, of Edston, in Warwickshire, and, as he says himself, was born near Avon’s banks. He was born at Edston, in Warwickshire, in 1692, bred at Winchester school, and chosen from thence fellow of New college, Oxford, as was his brother Dr. Somervile, rector of Adderbury, in Oxfordshire. Dr. Johnson says, he “never heard of him but as a poet, a country gentter man, and a useful justice of the peace;” and indeed very little is known of his history.

The following account, copied from the letters of his friend Shenstor.e, will be read with puin by those whom his poems have delighted. “Our old friend Somervile is dead! I did not imagine I could have been so sorry as I find myself on this occasion, ‘ Snblatum quacrimus.’ 1 can now excuse all his foibles, impute them to age and to distress of circumstances; the last of these considerations wrings my very soul to think on. For a man of high spirit, conscious of having (at least in one production) generally pleased the world, to be plagued and threatened by wretches that are low in every sense, to be forced to drink himself into pains of the body in order to get rid of the pains of the mind, is a misery.” He died July 14, 1743.

His distresses, says Dr. Johnson, need not be much pitied: his estate is?aid to have been fifteen hundred a year, which by his death devolved to lord Somervile, of Scotland. His mother, indeed, who lived till ninety, had a jointure of six hundred. Dr. Johnson regrets his not being better enabled to exhibit memorials of a writer, who at least must be allowed to have set a good example to men of his own class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge; and who has shewn by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, thn it is practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters. He tried many modes of poetry; and though perhaps he has not in any reached such excellence as to raise much envy, it may commonly be said at least, that “he writes very well for a gentleman.” His serious pieces are sometimes elevated, and his trifles are sometimes elegant. His subjects are commonly such as require no great depth of thought or energy of expression. His fables are generally stale, and therefore excite no curiosity. Of his favourite, The Two Springs, the fiction is unnatural, and the moral inconsequential. In his Tales there is too much coarseness, with too little care of language, and not sufficient rapidity of narration. As a poet, however, he is chiefly known by his “Chace,” which is entitled to great praise as a descriptive poem.

, 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.

Among his friends and correspondents were the archbishops Laud and Usher, sir Robert Cotton, sir William Dugdale, sir Simonds D'Ewes, the antiquary Mr. William Burton, sir John Marsham, Elias Ashmole, esq. and others of the same stamp and character. A print of him is placed over-against the titlepage of his treatise “Of the Roman ports and forts in Kent.”

, 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 price of prologues and of plays.

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.