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

In 1744-he went to Paris, carrying a letter with him to Mons. de Boze, keeper of the royal medals, a learned man, whose age and infirmities predisposing him to retire from labour, he selected our author as an associate in the care and arrangement of the cabinet, and his appointment was confirmed by Mons. de Maurepas, minister of that department. Our author lost no time in arranging in perfect order the large and valuable collection of Mons. D'Etrees and the abbe llothelin, which had remained in a very confused state. These he separated, compared, and described in a supplementary catalogue. At this time his career in these pursuits was threatened with an interruption. His friend and countryman, Mons. de Bausset, had engaged to promote him in the church, and being now bishop of Beziers, invited him to accept the office of vicar-general. Having promised to follow the fortunes of his friend, our author had no intention of retracting his engagement; but wishing to be released from it, he submitted his thoughts on the subject to the bishop, who with great kindness discharged him from the obligations he held himself under, and left him to follow the bent of his inclinations. In 1747 he was elected associate of the academy of inscriptions, and in 1753, on the death of M. de Boze, with whom he had been associate seven years, he was made keeper of the cabinet of medals, to which office he was promoted, notwithstanding some considerable opposition.

, prior of the monastery of Carmelites at York in the fifteenth century, uas born in Northumberland, and educated at York in the study of the liberal arts, in which he was much encouraged by the favour of some persons his patrons, who were at the expence of sending him to Oxford, to finish his studies in that university. Bate abundantly answered the hopes conceived of him, and became an eminent philosopher and divine, and particularly remarkable for his skill in the Greek tongue. He took the degree of D. D. at Oxford, and afterwards distinguished himself as an author. The Carmelites of York were so sensible of his merit, that, upon a vacancy, they offered him the government of their house, which he accepted, and discharged that office with great prudence and success. He died the 26th of January 1429, in the beginning of the reign of Henry VI. Bale, who cannot refuse him the character of a learned man, asserts that he adulterated the word of God with false doctrines, to support the blasphemies of antichrist, and defiled his own writings with the filth of Paganism. These writings, as enumerated by Leland, Bale, and Pits, consist of the following treatises, 1. “On the construction of the Parts of Speech.” 2. “On Porphyry’s Universalia.” 3. “On Aristotle’s Predicaments.” 4. “On Poretanus’s Six Principles.” 5. “Questions concerning the Soul.” 6. “Of the Assumption of the Virgin.” 7. “An introduction to the Sentences.” 8. “The praise of Divinity.” 9. “A compendium of Logic.” 10. “An address to the clergy or' Oxford.” 11. “Synodical conferences.” 12. “Determinations on several questions.” 13. “A course of Sermons for the whole year.” 14. “A preface to the Bible.”

, author of a book entitled “De Supremo et Absolute Regis Imperio,” was born at Broadchalke in Wiltshire, and educated at Wykeham’s school near Winchester: from whence he was sent very early to New-college in Oxford; where, having served two years of probation, he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1520. In 1526 he took the degree of master of arts, being that year (as one of the university registers informs us) “about to take a journey beyond the seas for the sake of study.” In his college he distinguished himself by his extraordinary skill in the Greek language. In 1538 he resigned his fellowship, and married. What preferment or employment he had afterwards is uncertain. He was familiarly acquainted with, and highly esteemed by, the most learned men of the nation, particularly Leland, who has bestowed an encomium on him. He was also in good esteem with king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. When queen Mary came to the crown, and endeavoured to destroy all that her father and brother had done towards the reformation of the church, Bekinsau became a zealous Roman catholic. After Queen Elizabeth’s accession, he retired to an obscure village in Hampshire, called Sherbourne; where he spent the remainder of his life in great discontent, and was buried in the church of that place, the 20th of Dec. 1559, aged sixty-three years; leaving behind him this character among the Roman catholics, that, “as he was a learned man, so might he have been promoted according to his deserts, if he had been constant to his principles.” The work abovementioned is a defence of the king’s supremacy against the claims of the church of Rome, and is dedicated by the author to king Henry VIII. He did not venture to publish it, till he saw that the pope’s power was wholly exterminated in England. It was printed at London in 1546, in 8vo, and afterwards in the first volume of “Monarchia Romani Imperil,” &c. by Melchior Goldast Hamensfeldius, at Francfort, 1621, fol.

Her “Letters” are written in a style so pure and elegant, that Sienna has pretended to rival Florence in the production of classical language. Girolamo Gigli, a learned man of Sienna, who published a fine edition of St. Catherine’s Letters in 1707, had a design of subjoining a vocabulary of words and expressions peculiar to her, but in this attempt took so many liberties with the language and academy of Florence, that his “Vocabolario Cateriniano” was stopt by an order from pope Innocent XII. the author banished, his work burnt by the hands of the hangman, and his name struck out of the list of the Florentine academicians, as guilty, says a late Italian historian, not only of leze-grammar, but of leze-majesty. The vocabulary, however, was afterwards published, without a date, 4to, and with the fictitious name of Manille.

His works are: 1. A Latin translation of two of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, never before published, “Contra observatores novilunii;” and “De dormientibus in Christo,” London, 1543, 4to. 2. A Latin translation of six homilies of the same father, “De Fato,” and “Providentia Dei,” Lond. 1547. 3. “The hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a commonwealth.” The running title is, “The true subject to the rebel*” It was published in 1549, on occasion of the insurrections in Devonshire and Norfolk; and besides being inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle, under the year 1549, was reprinted in 1576, as a seasonable discourse upon apprehension of tumults from malcontents at home, or renegadoes abroad. Dr. Gerard Langbaine of Queen’s college, Oxon, caused it to be reprinted again about 1641, for the use and consideration of those who took arms against Charles I. in the time of the civil wars, and prefixed to it a short life of the author. 4. A Latin translation of the English “Communion-book;” done for the use of M. Bucer, and printed among Bucer’s “Opuscula Angiicana.” 5. “De obitu doctissimi et sanctissimi Theologi domini Martini Buceri, &c. Epistolae duse,” Lond. 1551, 4to, printed in Bucer’s “Scripta Angiicana.” He also wrote an epicedium on the death of that learned man. 6. “Carmen heroicum, or Epitaphium, in Antonium Deneium clarissimum virum,” Lond. 4to. This sir Anthony Denny was originally of St. John’s college in Cambridge, and a learned man: afterwards he became one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber, and groom of the stole to Henry VIII. and one of the executors of his will. 7. “De Pronuntiatione Graecse potissimum linguae disputationes,” &c. containing his dispute on this subject with Gardiner, Basil, 1555, 8vo. 8. “De superstitione ad regem Henricum.” This discourse on superstition was drawn up for king Henry’s use, in order to excite that prince to a thorough reformation of religion. It is written in very elegant Latin, and was prefixed by the author, as a dedicar tion to a Latin translation of his, of Plutarch’s book of Superstition. A copy of this discourse, in manuscript, is still preserved in the library of University college, Oxon, curiously written, and bound up in cloth* of silver, which makes it probable, that it was the veiy book that was presented to the king. An English translation of it, done by the learned W. Elstob, formerly fellow of that college, was published by Mr. Strype, at the end of his Life of sir John Cheke. 9. Several “Letters” of his are published in the Life just now mentioned, and eight in Harrington’s “Nugae antiquae,” and perhaps in other places. 10. A Latin translation of Archbishop Cranmer’s book on the Lord’s Supper, was also done by sir John Cheke, and printed in 1553. 11. He likewise translated “Leo de apparatu bellico,” Basil, 1554, 8 vo. Strype gives also a long catalogue of his unpublished writings, which are probably lost. Sir John Cheke, like some other learned men of his time, particularly Smith, Cecil, and Ascham, wrote a very fair and beautiful hand.

In consequence of Orosius pronouncing him a heathen, “an obstinate pagan,” Cave thinks it may be reasonably inferred that he had written against the Christian religion. This Fabricius opposes, but Lardner says it may be reckoned somewhat remarkable, that a learned man, a devout worshipper of all the gods, a wit and a poet, and author of many works, should never say any thing disrespectful of Christianity. He allows, however, that it is somewhat more extraordinary that Claudian should so excel in Latin verse, as to approach the best writers of the Augustan age in purity and elegance. Gibbon’s character of Claudian, corresponding with this, is written with more than usual care and discrimination. If, says this historian, we fairly balance Claudian’s merits and defects, we shall acknowledge that he does not either satisfy, or silence our reason. It would not be easy to produce a passage that deserves the epithet of sublime or pathetic; to select a verse that melts the heart, or enlarges the imagination. We should vainly seek in the poems of Claudian, the happy invention and artificial conduct of an interesting fable, or the just and lively representation of the characters and situations of real life. For the service of his patron, he published occasional panegyrics and invectives; and the design of these slavish compositions encouraged his propensity to exceed the limits of truth and nature. These imperfections, however, are compensated in some degree by the poetical virtues of Claudian. He was endowed with the rare and precious talent of raising the meanest, of adorning tjie most barren, and of diversifying the most similar topics; tys colouring, mere specially in descriptive poetry, is soft and splendid; and he seldom fails to display, and even to abuse, the advantages of a cultivated understanding, a copious fancy, an easy, and sometimes forcible expression; and a perpetual flow of harmonious versification. To these commendations, independent of any accidents of time and place, we must add the peculiar merit which Claudian derived from the unfavourable circumstances of his birth. In the decline of arts, and of empire, a native of Egypt, who had received the education of a Greek, assumed in a mature age the familiar use and absolute command of the Latin language, soared above the heads of his feeble contemporaries, and placed himself, after an interval of three hundred years, among the poets of ancient Rome. Strada, in his Prolusions, allows him to contend with the five heroic poets, Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, and Statius. His patron is the accomplished courtier, Balthazar Castiglione. His admirers are numerous and passionate. Yet the rigid critics reproach the exotic weeds, or flowers, which spring too luxuriantly in his Latian soil, and for which Dr. Warton, one probably ranked by Gibbon among these “rigid critics,” places Claudian with Statius and Seneca the tragedian, as authors into which no youth of genius ought to be suffered to look.

As archbishop Cranmer was a learned man hiinself, so he was also a great patron of all solid learning, and of whatever he thought calculated to promote it. Mr. Gilpin observes, that the archbishop always thought himself much interested in the welfare of both the universities, but of Cambridge in particular; and though he does not appear to have bad any legal power there, yet such was his interest at court, and such was the general dependence of the more eminent members of that society upon him, that scarcely any thing was d,one there, either of a public or a private nature, without consulting him. It was his chief endeavour to encourage, as much as possible, a spirit of inquiry; and to rouse the students from the slumber of their predecessors; well knowing, the libertas philosophandi was the great mean of detecting error, and that true learning could never be at variance with true religion. Ascham and Cheke, two of the most elegant scholars of that age, were chiefly relied on, and consulted by the archbishop in this work. Leia'.id, also, the first British antiquary, was among the archbishop’s particular friends. Leland had a wonderful facility in learning languages, and was esteemed the first linguist in Europe. The archbishop soon took notice of him; and, with his usual discernment, recommended him to be the king’s librarian. His genius threw him on the study of antiquities; and his opportunities, on those of his own country. The archbishop, in the mean time, by procuring preferment for him, enabled him to make those inquiries to which his countrymen have been so much indebted.

, an. eminent French poet, was born near the head of the Vienne, in the Limousin, about 1507. Removing to the capital of the kingdom to finish his studies, he distinguished himself in such a manner by his skill in Greek, and his talent at poetry, that he became one of the professors of the university of Paris. In 1560 he succeeded John Stracellus in the post of king’s reader and professor of Greek; but before this he had been principal of the college of Coqueret, and tutor to John Antony de Baif, in the house of his father Lazarus de Baif, who was master of the requests. He continued to instruct this young pupil in the college of Coqueret; and he had also the famous Ronsard for his scholar there, during the space of seven years. His highest praise is, that his school produced a great number of able men; but imprudent generosity and want of management reduced him to poverty, and procured him a place in the list of those learned men, whose talents have been of little benefit to themselves. In the reign of Henry II. he had been preceptor to the king’s pages and Charles IX. honoured him with the title of his poet, took great delight in conversing with him, and endeavoured to support him in his old age. It will not now be thought much in his favour that Daurat had an uncommon partiality for anagrams, of which he was the first restorer. It is pretended, that he found the model of them in Lycophron, and brought them so much into vogue, that several illustrious persons gave him their names to anagrammatise. He undertook also to explain the centuries of Nostradamus, and with such imposing plausibility as to be considered in the light of his interpreter or subprophet. When he was near 80, having lost his first wife, he married a young girl; and by her had a son, for whom he shewed his fondness by a thousand ridiculous actions. In excuse for this marriage, he said that he would rather die by a bright sword than a rusty one. He had by his first wife, among other children, a son, who was the author of some French verses, printed in a collection of his own poems; and a daughter, whom he married to a learned man, named Nicolas Goulu, in whose favour he resigned his place of regius professor of Greek. He wrote a great many verses in Latin, Greek, and French, in some of which he attacked the protestants; and no book was printed, nor did any person of consequence die, without his producing some verses on the subject; as if he had been poet in ordinary to the kingdom, or his muse had been a general mourner. The odes, epigrams, hymns, and other poems in Greek and Latin, composed by Daurat, have been estimated at the gross sum of 50,000 verses; Scaliger had such an opinion of him as a critic, that he said he knew none but him and Cujacius, who had abilities sufficient to restore ancient authors; but he has presented the public with no specimen of that talent, except some remarks on the Sybilline verses in Opsopseus’s edition. Scaliger tells us, with some ridicule, however, that he spent the latter part of his life in endeavouring to find all the Bible in Homer. He died at Paris, Nov. 1, 1588, aged Si. His principal collection of verses is entitled “Joannis Aurati, Lemovicis, Poetse et interprets regii, Poematia, hoc est, Poematum libri quinque; Epigrammatum libri tres; Anagrammatum liber unus; Funerum liber unus; Odarum libri duo; Epithalamiorum liber unus; Eclogarum libri duo; Variarum rerum liber unus,” Paris, 1586, 8vo, a very singular collection, although of no great merit as to taste or versification. He deserves more praise as one of the revivers of Greek literature in France, and in that character his memory was honoured, in 1775, hy an eloge, written by the abbe Vitrac, professor of humanity at Limoges.

At this period of our history, it was deemed expedient to select such men for high offices in the church, as promised by their abilities and zeal to vindicate the reformed religion. King James, who was no incompetent judge of such merit, though perhaps too apt to measure the talents of others by his own standard, conceived from a perusal of the “Pseudo-Martyr,” that Donne would prove an ornament and bulwark to the church, and therefore not only endeavoured to persuade him to take orders, but resisted every application to exert the royal favour towards him in any other direction. When the favourite earl of Somerset requested that Mr. Donne might have the place of one of the clerks of the council, then vacant, the king replied, *' I know Mr. Donne is a learned man, has the abilities of a learned divine, and will prove a powerful preacher, and my desire is to prefer him that way, and in that way I will deny you nothing for him." Such an intimation must have made a powerful impression, yet there is no reascn to conclude from any part of Mr. Donne’s character, that he won I'd have been induced to enter the church merely by the persuasion of his sovereign, however flattering. To him, however, at this time, the transition was not difficult. He had relinquished the follies of youth, and had nearly outlived the remembrance of them. His studies had long inclined to theology, and his frame of mind was adapted to support the character expected from him. His oldfriend Dr, Morton probably embraced this opportunity to second the king’s wishes, and remove Mr. Donne’s personal scruples; and Dr. King, bishop of London, who had been chaplain to the chancellor when Donne was his secretary, and consequently knew his character, heard of his intention with much satisfaction. By this prelate he was ordained deacon and afterwards priest; and the king, although not uniformly punctual in his promises of patronage, immediately made him his chaplain in ordinary, and gave him hopes of higher preferment.

, a learned man, was born in the isle of Jersey in 1655, and in 1669 became a commoner of Exeter college in Oxford; from whence he removed to St. Alban’s hall, and took both his degrees in arts, that of master in July 1676. Afterwards he went into orders, retired to his native country, where he was made rector of St. Saviour’s, and was afterwards chosen deputy from the states of that island to king William and queen Mary. He was also rector of Shenley, in Hertfordshire, where he built an elegant house at the expense of 1000l. King William recommended him to a prebend in Durham. The golden prebend was then vacant, but the bishop removed Dr. Pickering to it, and gave Dr. Falle the fourth stall, of which he afterwards complained. The repairing of the prebendal house cost him 200l. He died at Shenley, in 1742, and left his excellent library (excepting a collection of sacred music, which he gave to the library at Durham), to the island of Jersey. He published three sermons; one preached at St. Hilary’s in Jersey, in 1692; another at Whitehall in 1694; and another before the mayor of London in 1695. He was the author also of “An account of the isle of Jersey, the greatest of those islands that are now the only remainder of the English dominions in France: with a new and accurate map of that island,” 1694, 8vo. This is much quoted by bishop Gibson.

, an English lawyer, and recorder of London in the reign of Elizabeth, was the natural son of Robert Fleetwood, esq. who was the third sou of William Fleetwood, esq. of Hesketh in Lancashire. He had a liberal education, and was for some time of Oxford, whence he went to the Middle Temple, to study the law; and having quick as well as strong parts, became in a short time a very distinguished man in his profession. In 1562 he was elected summer reader, and in 1568 double reader in Lent. His reputation was not confined to the inns of court; for when it was thought necessary to appoint commissioners in the nature of a royal visitation in the dioceses of Oxford, Lincoln, Peterborough, Coventry, and Litchtield, Fleetwood was of the number. In 1569 he became recorder of London. It does not appear whether his interest with the earl of Leicester procured him that place or not; but it is certain that he was considered as a person entirely addicted to that nobleman’s service, for he is styled in one of the bitterest libels of those times, “Leicester’s mad recorder;” insinuating, that he was placed in his office to encourage those of this lord’s faction in the city. He was very zealous against the papists, active in disturbing mass-houses, committing popish priests, and giving informations of their intrigues: so zealous, that once rushing in upon mass at the Portuguese ambassador’s house, he was, for breach of privilege, committed prisoner to the Fleet, though soon released. In 1580 he was made serjeant at law, and in 1592, one of the qneen’s Serjeants; in which post, however, he did not continue long, for he died at his house in Noble-street, Aldersgate, February 28, 1594, and was buried at Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire, where he had purchased an estate. He was married, and had children. Wood says that “he was a learned man, and a good antiquary, but of a marvellous merry and pleasant conceit,” He was farther esteemed an acute politician; which character was most likely to recommend him to his patron Leicester. He was a good popular speaker, and wrote well upon subjects of government. He made a great figure in his profession, being equally celebrated for eloquence as an advocate, and for judgment as a lawyer.

, known by the name of Fronto Duc.Eus, a learned Jesuit, was the son of a counsellor of Bourdeaux, where he was born in 1558, and made a Jesuit in 1577. He studied with unwearied application the Greek tongue, and became one of the ablest translators and editors of Greek works in his time. He published notes and corrections, both on the text and on the translations of many of the works of the Greek and Latin fathers, particularly St. Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Basil, St. Gregory de Nazianzen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa, Zonaras, Bulsamon, &c. But his principal work is his edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, 6 vols. fol. Paris, 1609 1624, and reprinted there in 1636, and at Francfort in 1698. He was also engaged in controversy, and wrote against Philip du Plessis Mornay. He died at Paris, Dec. 12, 1624. Dupin informs us that he was as much esteemed for his prudence and modesty as for his learning and judgment, that his merit was equally acknowledged by catholics and protestants, and that there was scarcely a learned man in either communion with whom he did not correspond.

, an enterprising English navigator, was born in 1745; he was the son of Mr. Hearne, secretary to the water-works, London-bridge, a very sensible man, and of a respectable family in Somersetshire; he died of a fever in his fortieth year, and left Mrs. Hearne with this son, then but three years of age, and a daughter two years older. Mrs. H. finding her income too small to admit her living in town as she had been accustomed, retired to Bimmister, in Dorsetshire (her native place), where she lived as a gentlewoman, and was much respected. It was her wish to give her children as good an education as the place afforded, and accordingly she sent her son to school at a very early period: but his dislike to reading and writing was so great, that he made very little progress in either. His masters, indeed, spared neither threats nor persuasion to induce him to learn, but their arguments were thrown away on one who seemed predetermined never to become a learned man; he had, however, a very quick apprehension, and in his childish sports shewed unusual activity and ingenuity; he was particularly fond of drawing; and though he never had the least instruction in the art, copied with great delicacy and correctness even from nature. Mrs. Hearne’s friends, finding her son had no taste for study, advised tier fixing on some business, and proposed such as they judged most suitable for him; but he declared himself utterly averse to trade, and begged he might be sent to sea. His mother very reluctantly complied with his request, took him to Portsmouth, and remained with him till he sailed. His captain (now lord Hood) promised to take care of him, and gave him every indulgence his youth required. He was then but eleven years of age. They had a warm engagement soon after he entered, and took several prizes: the captain told him he should have his share; but he begged, in a very affectionate manner, it might be given to his mother, and she would know best what to do with it. He was a midshipman several years under the same commander; but on the conclusion of the war, having no hopes of preferment, he left the navy, and entered into the service of the Hudson’s Bay company, as mate of one of their sloops. He was, however, soon distinguished from his associates by his ingenuity, industry, and a wish to undertake some hazardous enterprize by which mankind might be benefited. This was represented to the company, and they immediately applied to him as a proper person to be sent on an expedition they had long had in view, viz. to find out the north-west passage: he gladly accepted the proposal, and how far he succeeded is shewn to the public in his Journal. On his return he was advanced to a more lucrative post, and in a few years was made commander in chief, in which situation he remained till 1782, when the French unexpectedly landed at Prince of Wales’ s Fort, took possession of it, and after having given the governor leave to secure his own property, seized the stock of furs, &c. &c. and blew up the fort. At the company’s request Mr. H. went out the year following, saw it rebuilt, and the new governor settled in his habitation (which they took care to fortify a little better than formerly), and returned to England in 1787. He had saved a few thousands, the fruits of many years’ industry, and might, had he been blessed with prudence, have enjoyed many years of ease and plenty; but he had lived so long where money was of no use, that he seemed insensible of its value here, and lent it with little or no security to those he was scarcely acquainted with by name; sincere and undesigning himself, he was by no means a match for the duplicity of others. His disposition, as may be judged by his writing, was naturally humane; what he wanted in learning and polite accomplishments, he made up in native simplicity; and was so strictly scrupulous with regard to the property of others, that he was heard to say, a few davs before his death, “he could lay his hand on his heart and say, he had never wronged any man of sixpence.”

, an ingenious English divine, and miscellaneous writer, descended of an ancient Derbyshire family, whose property was injured during the civil wars, was born Dec. 16, 1721, at Barrow upon Soar, in Leicestershire. His father was then curate of that place, but afterwards had the vicarage of Sileby in that county, and the rectory of Morton in Derbyshire. He died in 1765. His mother was a daughter of Simon Ockley, Arabic professor at Cambridge. He passed the first fourteen years at home with his father, who taught him Greek and Latin, but in April 1736, sent him to the public school of Chesterfield, where he continued five years under the rev. William Burrow, a learned man, and a very skilful teacher. In April 1741 r he was admitted sizar of Jesus college, Cambridge, and in Jan. 1745, took his degree of A. B. and soon after entered intered into holy orders. In March 1748 he undertook the cure of St. Margaret’s, Leicester, and the year after waspresented to the small vicarage of Barkby, in the neighbourhood, which, with his curacy (worth 50l. yearly) he says made him “well to live.” In July 1748, he took his master’s degree, and at the same time withdrew his name from college, having in view a marriage with miss Margaret Mompesson, a Nottinghamshire la;iy of good family, which tie accomplished in August 1750, and whose fortune, in his estimation, made him independent. This lady died April 12, 1790.

The learned have all joined in their praises of Heinsius. Gerard Vossius says that he was a very great man; and calls him the ornament of the muses and the graces. Casaubon admires him equally for his parts and learning. Pareus calls him the Varro of his age. Barthius ranks him with the first writers. Bochart pronounces him a truly great and learned man and Selden speaks of him as “tarn severiorum quam amceniorum literarum sol” a light to guide us in our gay as well as severe pursuits in letters. Some, however, have thought that, he was not so well formed for criticism; and Le Clerc, in his account of the Amsterdam edition of Bentley’s “Horace,” says that though doubtless a learned man, who had spent his life in the study of criticism, yet if we may judge by his Horace, he was by no means happy in his conjectures; but he speaks much more advantageously of his son Nicolas Heinsius; and agreed, with the rest of the world, that though not so learned a man as his father, he had a better taste for criticism. Daniel Heinsius was, however, highly honoured abroad as well as at home; and received uncommon marks of respect from foreign potentates. Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, gave him a place among his counsellors of state: the republic of Venice made him a knight of their order of St. Mark: and pope Urban VIII. was such an admirer of his fine talents and consummate learning, that he made him great offers if he would come to Rome; “to rescue that city from barbarism,” as the pontiff is said to have expressed himself.

, earl of Northampton, second son of the preceding, but unworthy of such a father, was born at Shottisham in Norfolk about 1539. He was educated at King’s college, and afterwards at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. M. to which he was also admitted at Oxford, in 1568. Bishop Godwin says, his reputation for literature was so great in the unU versity, that he was esteemed“the learnedest among the nobility; and the most noble among the learned.” He was at first, probably, very slenderly provided for, being often obliged, as Lloyd records, “to dine with the chair of duke Humphrey.” He contrived, however, to spend some years in travel; but on his return could obtain no favour at court, at least till the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, which was probably owing to his connections. In 1597, it seems as if he was in some power (perhaps, however, only through the influence of his friend lord Essex), because Rowland White applied to him concerning sir Robert Sydney’s suits at court. He was the grossest of flatterers, as appears by his letters to his patron and friend lord Essex; but while he professed the most unbounded friendship for Essex, he yet paid his suit to the lord treasurer Burleigh. On the fall of Essex, he insinuated himself so far into the confidence of his mortal enemy, secretary Cecil, as to become the instrument of the secretary’s correspondence with the king of Scotland, which passed through his hands, and has been since published by sit David Dalrymple. It is not wonderful, therefore, that a man of his intriguing spirit, was immediately on king James’s accession, received into favour. In May 1603, he was made a privy-counsellor; in January following, lord warden of the Cinque Ports; in March, baron of Marnhill, and earl of Northampton; in April 1608, lord privy seal; and honoured with the garter. In 1609, he succeeded John lord Lumley, as high steward of Oxford; and in 1612, Robert, earl of Salisbury, as chancellor of Cambridge. Soon after he became the principal instrument in the infamous intrigue of his great niece the countess of Essex with Carr viscount Rochester. The wretch acted as pander to the countess, for the purpose of conciliating die rising favourite and it is impossible to doubt his deep criminality in the murder of Overbury. About nine months afterwards, June 15, 1614, he died, luckily for himself, before this atrocious affair became the subject of public investigation. He was a learned man, but a pedant dark and mysterious, and far from possessing masterly abilities. It causes astonishment, says the elegant writer to whom we are indebted for this article, “when we reflect that this despicable and wicked wretch was the sou of the generous and accomplished earl of Surrey.” One of his biographers remarks, that “his lordship very prudently died a papist; he stood no chance for heaven in any other religion.”

He had made good progress in this undertaking, and no doubt would have proceeded much farther towards completing his design, had not he been prevented by death. This happened August 1629. He was buried towards the upper end of New college chapel at Oxford. Wood informs us, that he left behind him the character of being the most industrious and indefatigable writer against the papists, that had been educated in Oxford since the reformation; and in reality his designs were so great, and so well known to be for the public benefit of learning and the church of England, that Camden, speaking of him in his ife-time, calls him “a learned man and a true lover of books, wholly dedicated to learning; who is now laboriously searching the libraries of England, and proposeth that for the public good which will be for the great benefit of England.”

, in Latin Larroquanus, whom Bayle styles one of the most illustrious ministers the reformed ever had in France, was born at Leirac, a small city of Guienne, near Agen, in 1619. He was hardly past his youth when he lost his father and mother, who were persons of rank and character. This misfortune was soon ifol lowed by the loss of his whole patrimony, although by what means is not known; but the effect was to animate him more strongly to his studies, and to add to polite literature, which he had already learned, the knowledge of philosophy, and above all, that of divinity. He made a considerable progress in these sciences, and was admitted a minister with great applause. Two years after he had been admitted in his office he was obliged to go to Paris to answer the cavils of those who intended to ruin his church, in which, although he was not successful, he met with such circumstances as proved favourable to him. He preached sometimes at Charenton, and was so well liked by the duchess de la Tremouille, that she appointed him minister of the church of Vitre, in Britany, and gave him afterwards a great many proofs of her esteem; nor was he less respected by the prince and princess of Tarente, and the duchess of Weimar. He served that church about twenty-seven years, and studied the ancient fathers with the utmost application. He gave very soon public proofs of the progress he had made in that study, for the answer he published to the motives which an opponent had alledged for his conversion to popery, abounded with passages quoted from the fathers, and the works which he published afterwards raised his reputation greatly. There was an intimate friendship between him and Messieurs Daille, father and son, which was kept up by a constant literary correspondence; and the journey he took to Paris procured him the acquaintance of several illustrious men of letters. The church of Charenton wished to have invited him in 1669, but his enemies had so prepossessed the court against him, that his majesty sent a prohibition to that church not to think of calling him, notwithstanding the deputy general of the reformed had offered to answer for Mods, de Larroque’s good behaviour. He was afterwards chosen to be both minister and professor of divinity at Saumur. The former he accepted, but refused the professorship of divinity, as it might interfere with the study of church history, to ttfhich he was very partial. The intendant of the province, however, forbad him to go to Saumur; and although the church complained of this unjust prohibition, and petitoned very zealously for the necessary permission, which she obtained, Larroquc did not think it proper to enter upon an employment against the will of the intendant. He continued therefore still at Vitré, where he did not suffer his pen to be idle. Three of the most considerable churches of the kingdom chose him at once, the church of Moutauban, that of Bourdeaux, and thut of Roan. He accepted the invitation of Roan, and there died, Jan. 31, 1684, having gained the reputation not only of a learned man, but also of an honest man, and a faithful pastor.

This story is evidently of the same cast with that of Solomon, and was perhaps taken from it; but Lokman himself gives a different account of his perfections. Being seated in the midst of a number of people who were listening to him, a man of eminence among the Jews, seeing so great a crowd of auditors round him, asked him, “Whether he was not the black slave who a little before looked after the sheep of a person he named?” To which Lokman assenting; “How has it been possible,” continued the Jew, “for thee to attain so exalted a pitch of wisdom and virtue” Lokman replied, “It was by the following means by always speaking the truth, by keeping my word Inviolably, and by never intermeddling in affairs that did not concern me.” Accordingly, we find inscribed to him this apophthegm: “Be a learned man, disciple of the learned, or an auditor of the learned; at least be a lover of knowledge, and desirous of improvement.” Lokman, it is said, hud not only consummate knowledge, but was equally good and virtuous; and so many admirable qualifies could not always be held in slavery. His master giving him a bitter melon to eat, Lokman ate it all; when his master, surprised at his exact obedience, says, “Hovr was it possible for you to eat so nauseous a fruit?” Lokman replied, “I have received so many favours from you, that it is no wonder I should once in my life eat a bitter melon from your hand.” This generous answer struck the master to such a degree, that he immediately gave him his liberty.

While he was cardinal, he was very charitable and bestowed tlu> Jesuits’ bark, which then sold for its weight in gold, very liberally to persons afflicted with agues. He was iiic first that brought this febrifuge specific into France in 1650, when it was called cardinal de Lugo’s powder. He was undeniably a learned man, and had all that subtlety of genius which is the characteristic quality of the Spanish divines; and is said to be the first that discovered the philosophical sin, and the justice of punishing it eternally. His solution of this difficulty is somewhat extraordinary; for, having asserted that the savages might be ignorant of God inculpably, he observes that the Deity gave them, before their death, so much knowledge of himself as was necessary to be capable of sinning theologically, and prolonged their life till they had committed such sin, and thereby justly incurred eternal damnation. Among his other scholastic absurdities he has also the reputation of inventing the doctrine of inflated points, in order to remove the difficulties in accounting for the infinite divisibility of quantity, and the existence of mathematical points. It was a received opinion, that a rarefied body takes up a greater space than before, without acquiring any new matter; our cardinal applied this to a corpuscle, or atom, without parts or extension, which he supposes may swell itself in such a manner as to fill several parts of space.

After this long, but we trust, not uninteresting account of the great founder of the Reformation, we shall select only, on the part of the Roman catholics, the opinion of father Simon, respecting his talents as an interpreter of scripture, for this is a part of his character which must appear very important, as he was the first who boldly undertook to reform an overgrown system of idolatry and superstition by the pure word of God. “Luther,” says this critical author, “was the first protestant who ventured to translate the dible into the vulgar tongue from the Hebrewtext, although he understood Hebrew but very indifferently. As he was of a free and bold spirit, he accuses St. Jerom of ignorance in the Hebrew tongue; but he had more reason to accuse himself of this fault, and for having so precipitately undertaken a work of this nature, which required more time than he employed about it. Thus we find that he was obliged to review his translation, and make a second edition; but, notwithstanding this review, the most learned protestants of that time could not approve of either the one or the other, and several of them took the liberty to mark the faults, which were very numerous.” In another place he speaks of him not as a translator, but as a commentator, in the following manner: “Luther, the German protestant’s patriarch, was not satisfied with making a translation of the whole Bible, both from the Hebrew and Greek, into his mother tongue, but thought he ought to explain the word of God according to his own method, for the better fixing of their minds whom he had drawn to his party. But this patriarch could succeed no better in his commentaries upon the Bible than in his translation. He made both the one and the other with too little consideration; and he very often consults only his own prejudices. That he might be thought a learned man, he spends time to no purpose in confuting of other people’s opinions, which he fancies ridiculous. He mixes very improperly theological questions and several other things with his commentaries, so that they may rather be called lectures, and disputes in divinity, than real commentaries. This may be seen in his exposition on Genesis, where there are many idle digressions. He thought, that by reading of morality, and bawling against those who were not of nis opinion, he might very much illustrate the word of God; yet one may easily see by his own books, that he was a turbulent and passionate man, who had only a little flashy wit and quickness of invention. There is nothing great or learned in his commentaries upon the Bible; every thing low and mean: and as he had studied divinity, he has rather composed a rhapsody of theological questions, than a commentary upon the scripture text: to which we may add, that he wanted understanding, and usually followed his senses instead of his reason.”

, dean of the cathedral of Munster, and celebrated for his inquiries into typographical antiquities, was certainly a learned man, but very turbulent and ambitious. Hence it happened that he was named to two bishoprics without taking possession of either, and that he died in prison for his opposition to another prelate. The emperor Ferdinand I. appointed him to the bishopric of Ratzebourg, and he was, a few days after, elected to the see of Minden. But his ambition was to be bishop of Munster, and not succeeding, in 1650, he intrigued and raised seditions against the bishop who had succeeded, till in 1655, he was degraded from his dignity of dean. Nor yet warned, he continued his machinations, and in 1657, the bishop had him arrested and confined in the castle of Otteinzheim. Here he continued till his death, which happened suddenly, March 7, 1664. He wrote in Latin, 1. “De natura et usu Literarum,” Munster, 1638, 4to. 2. “De ortu et progressu artis Typographica;,” Cologne, 1639, 4to, and since reprinted in Wolfs collection of “Monumenta Typographica,” vol. I. 1740. 3. “De Archicancellariis S. R. imperil,” Munster, 1640, 4to. 4. “Paralipomenon de Historicis Gracis,” Cologne, 1656, 4to.

, a learned man, who held the place of perpetual secretary to the French academy, was born in Provence in 1674, and lived to the age of eighty-six. He is chiefly known, as an author, by 1. “A translation of Tasso’s Jerusalem delivered,” which has gone through several editions, but has since been superseded by a better, written by M. le Brun. Mirabauu took upon him, rather too boldly, to retrench or alter what he thought unpleasing in his author, 2. “A translation of the Orlando Furioso,” which has the same faults. He wrote also a little tract entitled “Alphabet de la Fee Gracieuse,” 1734, 12mo. His eulogium at the academy was drawn up by M. de Buffon, and is full of high encomiums.

, a learned judge, and author of a book of reports, was the son of Richard Owen, esq. of Condover, in Shropshire, and educated in Oxford, but in what college seems doubtful. Having taken a degree in arts, he left the university, and repairing to Lincoln’s Inn, London, studied law, and became an eminent counsellor. In 1583 he was elected Lent-reader of that society. In 1590 he was made serjeant at law, and- queen’s serjeant soon after. He arrived at length at the dignity of judge of the common pleas, which office he is said to have executed during five years with great abilities and integrity. He died in December 1598, and was buried on the south side of the choir in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory. He had the reputation of a learned man, and a patron of learning. His “Reports in the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and some few cases in the time of king James,” (which last could not have been his) were printed in folio, in 1656. Though there is a vacancy in the pages of this volume from 77 to 80 inclusive, the book is perfect.

Strype, on the authority of his contemporary Becan, who knew him well, gives him this character: “He was naturally somewhat hasty; but soon appeased again. He would speak his mind freely, and fear none in a good cause. A true friend, and easily reconciled to any against whom he had taken a displeasure. He appointed in his diocese (that was large) for the better oversight thereof, ten commissaries, to whom he, as occasion served, sent instructions for the regulation and order of his see. He could have been willing to allow a liberty of officiating in the church, to such as could not conform to some of the ceremonies of it, looking upon them as indifferent matters; but upon command from above, he readily obeyed his prince’s and metropolitan’s authority. He was a friend to prophesies; that is, to the meetings of the ministers in several appointed parish churches in his diocese, as in St. Edmund’s Bury, &c. to confer together about the interpretation and sense of the scriptures. But the queen forbidding it, upon some abuses thereof, the archbishop signified to him her will, and he in obedience sent to his archdeacons and commissaries, to have them forborn for the future.” “As for his life and conversation, it was such as might be counted a mirror of virtue; wherein appeared nothing but what was good and godly; an example to the flock in righteousness, in faith, in love, in peace, in word, in purity. He preached diligently, and exhorted the people that came to him. He was a learned man, as well in respect of human learning, as divine, well seen iti the sacred Scriptures; an earnest protestant, and lover of sincere religion; an excellent bishop, a faithful pastor, and a worthy example to -all spiritual ministers in his diocese, both for doctrine, life, and hospitality.” This character is confirmed by Bale, in the dedication to Parkhurst, of his “Reliques of Rome,” printed in 1563.

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

He was a learned man, and an excellent writer. In 1555, came out in folio, his “De Statu Religionis & lleipublicie, Carolo Quinto Cajsaie, Commentarii,” in twenty-five books, from 1517, when Luther began to preach, to 1555. This history was quickly translated into almost all the languages of Europe, and has been generally thought to be well and faithfully written, notwithstanding the attempts of Varillas and other popish authors to discredit it. It did not stand solely upon Sleidan’s own authority, which, however, must be of great weight, considering that he wrote of times in which he lived, and of transactions in which he had some concern; but was extracted from public acts and original records, which were in the archives of the town of Strasburg, and with which he was furnished by James Sturmius. Besides this history, which is his principal work, he wrote “De quatuor summis Imperils libri tres,” a compendious chronological account of the four great empires, which, on account of its singular utility, has been often printed. He epitomized and translated into Latin the Histories of Froissart and Philip de Comines, and was the author of some other works relating to history and politics, the principal of which are printed in a volume of “Opuscula,” Hanover, 1608, 8vo.

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

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

In 1740 Mr. Swinton was involved in a law-suit, in consequence of a letter he had published. It appears from one of the newspapers of the time, that a letter from the Rev. Mr. Swinton, highly reflecting on Mr. George Baker, having fallen into the hands of the latter, the court of King’s Bench made the rule absolute for an information against Mr. Swinton. These two gentlemen were also engaged for some time in a controversy at Oxford; which took its rise from a matter relative to Dr. Thistlethwaite, some time warden of Wadham, which then attracted much attention. Mr. Swinton had the manners, and some of the peculiarities often seen in very recluse scholars, which gave rise to many whimsical stories. Among the rest, there is one mentioned by Mr. Boswell, in the Life of Johnson, as having happened in 1754. Johnson was then on a visit in the university of Oxford. “About this time,” he says, “there had been an execution of two or three criminals at Oxford, on a Monday. Soon afterwards, one day at dinner, I was saying that Mr. Swinton, the chaplain of the gaol, and also a frequent preacher before the university, a learned man, but often thoughtless and absent, preached the condemnation sermon on repentance, before the convicts on the preceding day, Sunday; and that, in the close, he told his audience that he should give them the remainder of what he had to say on the subject, the next Lord’s-day. Upon which, one of our company, a doctor of divinity, and a plain matter-of-fact man, by way of offering an apology for Mr. Swinton, gravely remarked, that he had probably preached the same sermon before the university:” Yes, sir, (says Johnson,) but the university were not to be hanged the next morning"

In 1636 he gave a good edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus,” in 4to, corrected in a great number of places from the manuscripts, and illustrated with very ingenious and learned notes. A second edition, with more notes of Valesius, and those of Lindenbrog, came out at Paris, 1681, in folio, edited by his brother Adrian Valesius; and James Gronovius also published a third at Leyden, 1693, fol. and 4to. The critical talents and learning which Valesius had displayed in these publications, recommended him as the most proper person to superintend a work of greater importance, an edition of the ancient ecclesiastical historians. M. de Montchal, abp. of Tholouse, a learned man, whom the clergy of France had requested to give an edition of these historians, undertook the affair; and applied to Valesius to assist him privately. But Valesius was too jealous of his reputation, to let another person enjoy the fruits of his labours; and therefore absolutely refused his aid. The archbishop, either too much taken up with the business of his see, or despairing of success in what he had undertaken, soon after excused himself to the clergy; and at the same time advised them to apply to Valesius, as a man who was every way qualified for the task. To this Valesius had no objection, and his employers by way of encouragement settled a pension upon him. This was about 1650, and the Historians were published in Greek and Latin, with good notes, in the following order: “Eusebii Pamphili historia ecclesiastica, ejusdemque libri de vita Constantini, & panegyricus atque oratio Constantini ad sanctos,” Paris, 1659; “Socratis & Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica,” 166S; “Theodoreti et Evagrii historia ecclesiastica, item excerpta & historia ecclesiastica Philostorgii,” 1673. These were reprinted in 3 vols. folio, first at Amsterdam in 1699, and then at Cambridge in 1720; to which last edition some remarks, but very inconsiderable ones, scattered up and down in various authors, were collected and subjoined by the editor William Reading.

Huet, and almost every one of those who have spoken of our poet, have maintained that he had been clerk of the chapel to king Henry II. Wace, however, mentions nothing concerning this dignity, although he minutely describes all the favours which that monarch conferred upon him; he is even so attentive upon this subject, that he assures us the king gave him many things, but had promised him more. Besides, as the title of clerk of the King’s chapel was a very honourable one, which generally led the way to a bishopric, we may presume from his silence that he was not invested with it. Monsieur Huet has certainly been misled by the description of clerk, which Wace often assumes; but he should have remarked, that he never calls himself clerc du roi, but always clerc de Caen, or clerc lisant, a title which then signified nothing more than a learned man, and which was even given to laymen, since Henry I. was surnamed Beauclerc.