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

, or Adamnanus, abbot of the monastery of Hey, or Icolmkil, was born in 624, but whether in Scotland or Ireland is uncertain. He appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and, according to Bede, of a peaceable disposition; yet he enforced the discipline of the church with much severity, and partook of the credulity of the times. He died Oct. 23, 704, in the eightieth year of his age. Having hospitably entertained a French bishop, the latter, who had been in Palestine, communicated such particulars to him, as enabled him to write a description of that country, “De locis Terras Sanctse, lib. tres.” This was first published by Serrarius, at Ingoldstadt, 1619, and afterwards by Mabillon, “Saec. Benedict.” He wrote also a life of St. Columba, published by Canisius and Surius.

, a man of considerable learning, and even a great magician, according to report, in the 16th century, was born at Cologn, the 14th of September, 1486, of the noble family of Nettesheim. He was very early in the service of the emperor Maximilian: acted at first as his secretary; but afterwards took to the profession of arms, and served that emperor seven years in Italy, where he distinguished himself in several engagements, and received the honour of knighthood for his gallant behaviour. To his military honours he was desirous likewise to add those of the universities, and accordingly took the degrees of doctor of laws and physic. He was a man of an extensive genius, and well skilled in many parts of knowledge, and master of a variety of languages; but his insatiable curiosity, the freedom of his pen, and the inconstancy of his temper, involved him in so many vicissitudes, that his life became a series of adventures. He was continually changing his situation; always engaging himself in some difficulty or other; and, to complete his troubles, he drew upon himself the hatred of the ecclesiastics oy his writings. According to his letters, he was in France before the year 1507, in Spain in 1508, and at Dole in 1509. At this last place he read public lectures on the work of Reuchlin, “De Verbo mirifico,” which engaged him in a dispute with Catilinet, a Franciscan. These lectures, though they drew upon him the resentment of the monks, yet gained him general applause, and the counsellors of the parliament went themselves to hear them. In order to ingratiate himself into the favour of Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries, he composed a treatise “On the excellence of Women;” but the persecution he met with from the monks prevented him from publishing it, and obliged him to go over to England, where he wrote a “Commentary upon St. Paul’s Epistles.” Upon his return to Cologn, he read public lectures upon those questions in divinity which are called Quodlibitales. He afterwards went to Italy, to join the army of the emperor Maximilian, and staid there till he was invited to Pisa by the cardinal de St. Croix.

Baudius was a man of considerable learning, and wrote in Latin with great purity and elegance. But he was conceited and ambitious beyond all just claims, and disgraced his latter years by intemperance, and vagrant amours, although a married man. This exposed him to ridicule, and injured his reputation in the republic of letters. He died at Leyden, August 22, 1613.

On the 16th of November 1713, he began a paper, printed three times a week, called the “Lay Monk.” Only forty numbers of it were published, which, in 1714, were collected into a volume, under the title of the “Lay Monastery.” The Friday’s papers in this collection were written by Hughes, and the rest by sir Richard. In a letter to Mr. Hughes, he declared that he was not determined to the undertaking by a desire of fame or profit, hut from a regard to the public good. In 1716, he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “Essays upon several subjects,” and in 1718, “A collection of poems,” in 1 vol. 8vo. But the work which procured him the greatest reputation, was his “Creation, a philosophical poem, demonstrating the Existence and Providence of a God, in seven books.” This passed through several editions, and was greatly applauded by Mr. Addison. Mr. Locke also formed a very favourable opinion of sir Richard Blackmore; although perhaps he estimated his poetical talents too highly. In 1721, our author published in 12mo, “A new version of the Psalms of David, fitted to the tunes used in churches.” This was recommended by public authority, as proper to be used in the churches and chapels of England, but it does not appear to have been generally adopted. Towards the close of his life, his practice as a physician is said to have declined which might probably arise from the numerous attempts which were made to lessen his reputation. He died on the 8th of October, 1729, in an advanced age; and manifested in his last illness the same fervent piety, which had distinguished him in his life. He was certainly a man of considerable learning and abilities, and a most zealous advocate for the interests of religion and virtue. He wrote, indeed, too much, and was deficient in point of taste nor did he take sufficient time to polish his compositions. But he was far from being destitute of genius; and it is sufficiently manifest, that it was not his dullness, which excited so much animosity against him. Hardly any author has ever been more satirized than sir Richard Blackmore, and yet, so far as we can judge from his writings, there have been few, perhaps none, who have had better intentions. He had very just ideas of the true ends of writing and it would have been happy for the world, if such ideas had been adopted by, and really influenced, authors of more brilliant genius. And though his historical and epic poems exposed him to some degree of ridicule, yet he was far from being a proper object of the extreme contempt with which he was treated. The merit of his poem on Creation, and the excellency of his life, might have procured him better usage. And whatever were the defects of his compositions, he was justly entitled to commendation for the morality of their tendency. He who labours to reform mankind is more deserving of our esteem, than he who would corrupt them, whatever may be the powers of genius possessed by the latter, or whatever reputation his wit may have procured him. The fashion of the times, or the mutual jealousies and animosities of contemporary wits and authors, often occasion great injustice to be done to worthy men and useful writers. But time will, generally, in a great degree, remove such prejudices; and those who form an impartial estimate of the character and various productions of Blackmore, will acknowledge, that as a writer, with all his faults, he had considerable merit; that as a man, he was justly entitled to great applause. For, numerous as his enemies and opponents were, they seem to have been incapable of fixing the least imputation upon his character; and those who personally knew him spoke highly of his virtues. We think it an act of justice to endeavour to remove from a worthy man some part of that load of obloquy with which his memory has been overwhelmed. To this character, from the Biog. Britannica, we may add, that Dr. Johnson has increased the number of those liberal-minded men who have endeavoured to rescue sir Richard Blackmore’s name from the contempt with which it has been treated, and to do justice to his abilities as well as his virtues. To his “Creation” the doctor has given high praise, and has drawn the character of it with singular precision and elegance. From the inaccuracy with which Blackmore in his poems has pronounced the ancient, names of nations or places, Dr. Johnson has inferred, that the thirteen years he spent at the university, seem to have passed with very little attention to the business of the place. A strong testimony, however, to his diligence whilst at Edmund-hall, has lately been produced in the Gentleman’s Magazine, from Turner’s “Book of Providence.” “Dr. Richard Blackmore,” says Turner, “my contemporary and colleague (fellow collegian) at Oxon, now living, and one of the college in London, was, in his first years, one of the most eager and diligent students I ever knew sitting up at his book till twelve, one, two, and sometimes three o'clock in the morning, and then lying down only upon his chairs till prayer-time, till his health broke, and he was constrained by necessity to retire into the country, to repair himself by physic.”

, a bookseller at Hamburgh, and a man of considerable learning, was born at Brunswick, Jan. 16, 1730, and died Dec. 13, 1793. He was long known for his controversial writings against the free-masons, but perhaps was more esteemed by his countrymen for his translations into German of various foreign popular works. Among these were Marmontel’s Incas and Montaigne’s Essays; and of the English series, Fielding’s Tom Jones, Sterne’s Sentimental Journey, and Tristram Shandy, and Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield.

, one of the most eminent nonconformists of the seventeenth century, was born in 1600, and educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, in 1626, and was several years a fellow. After preaching in Essex for five years, he was called to Norwich, where he preached in the parish of St. George’s Tombland, until 1636, when he was silenced by bishop Wren for nonconformity in some points, and remaining obstinate, he was excommunicated, and the writ de ca> pitndo issued against him. On this he quitted Norwich, where he had a lecture and two cures, and went into Holland. At Rotterdam he was chosen pastor to a congregational church, but returned to England in 1642, frequently preached before the long parliament, and was chosen one of the assembly of divines, although he agreed with them only in doctrinal matters. At length he fixed at Yarmouth, where he preached until the Bartholomew act took place, when he was ejected. He died March 12, 1670. He was a man of considerable learning, and possessing a library well furnished with the fathers, schoolmen, and critics, was a very close student, rising every morning, both in winter and summer, at four o'clock, and continuing in his library until eleven. He was inflexibly attached to the independent party, but too charitable towards men of opposite sentiments to follow their example in all respects. His principal works are collected in 2 vols. 4to, 1657, besides which he published many single sermons before the parliament, and some tracts enumerated by Calamy. In Peck’s Desiderata are two letters from him to Scobell, the clerk of the council, by which we learn that he was a leading man among the independents.

, a man of considerable learning in classical criticism, was born Nov. 1, 1645, in the diocese of Rouen, and entered the society of the Jesuits in 1664, completing his vows in 1679. His immoderate and incessant application to study, operating upon a delicate constitution, shortened his days, and he diedin the Jesuits’ college at Paris, Dec. 6, 1684. He was one of the French literati employed in preparing the Delphin classics, and edited Justin in 1677, 4to, and Valerius Maximus in 1679, enriched with six dissertations, on the names, families, inagistrates, &c. of the Romans. He published also, 1. “De Rouiana llepublica, de re militari et civiii Romanorum,” Paris, 1684, 12mo, and thrice reprinted at Utrecht, 1691, 1696, 1707, the last with plates, taken from Justus Lipsius and Onuphrius Panvinius. This has always been considered as an excellent abridgment of the Roman antiquities. 2. “Metropolitanarum urbium historia civilis et ecclesiastica, tomus primus, &c.” Paris, 1684, 8vo.

Carolostadt now wandered from place to place through the higher Germany, and at length made a pause at Rotenburgh, where, as usual, he soon raised tumults, and incited the people to pull down the statues and paintings. When the seditious faction of the peasants, with Munzer their ringleader, was effectually suppressed, he became in the greatest difficulties, and even in danger of his life from his supposed connection with these enthusiastic rebels, and he narrowly escaped, through being let down by the wall of the town in a basket. Thus reduced to the last extremities, he and his wife incessantly intreatedboth the elector and Luther that they might be allowed to return into their own country. He said, he could clear himself of having had any concern in the rebellion; and if not, he would cheerfully undergo any punishment that could be inflicted upon him. With this view he wrote a little tract, in which he takes much pains to justify himself from the charge of sedition: and he sent a letter likewise to Luther, in which he earnestly begs his assistance in the publishing of the tract, as well as in the more general design of establishing his innocence. Luther immediately published Carolostadt’s letter, and called on the magistrates and on the people to give him a fair hearing. In this he succeeded; and Carolostadt was recalled about -the autumn of 1525, and then made a public recantation of what he had advanced on the sacrament, a condescension which did not procure a complete reconciliation between him and the other reformers, and indeed affords but a sorry proof of his consistency. We find Carolostadt, after this, at Zurich and at Basil, where he was appointed pastor and professor of divinity, and where he died with the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, ijec. 25, 1541, or 1543. He was a man of considerable learning, hut his usefulness both as a reformer and writer was perpetually obstructed by the turbulence of his temper, and his misguided zeal in endeavouring to promote that by violence which the other reformers projected only through the medium of reason and argument. That he should be censured by Moreri, Bossuet, and other Roman catholic writers, is not surprising, for he afforded too much ground of accusation; but it is more inexcusable in Mosheim, Beausobre, and some other ecclesiastical historians, to throw the blame of his banishment and restless life on Luther, and highly absurd to insinuate that the latter was jealous of his fame. The comparative merits of the conduct of Luther and Carolostadt throughout their whole connection, have been examined with great candour and perspicuity by Milner. One singularity in Carolostadt’s character still remains to be noticed, namely, that he was the first protestant divine who took a wife. His works were numerous, but are now fallen into oblivion. His followers, who for some time retained the name of Carolostadtians, were also denominated Sacramentarians and agree in most things with the Zuinglians.

He had a son of both his names, who was born in 1677, studied historical painting under Bon Boulogne, and became a painter of some note, if we can judge from the number of prints engraved from his works. There is an altar picture by him at the abbey church at Paris, representing the death of Ananias. He was made a member of the royal academy of Paris in 1704, and died, aged eighty-six, in 1763. Another of his sons, Laurent Josse le Clerc, was a man of considerable learning, and published three volumes of remarks on Moreri’s Dictionary, which contributed to improve that work, and compiled the “Bibliotheque des Auteurs cites dans le Dictionnaire cle llichelet,” which was printed with it in the Lyons edition, 1729, 3 vols. fol. but omitted in the 4to Amsterdam edition. He wrote several essays in the literary journals of the time, and died May 6, 1736, in the fifty-ninth year of his age.

, was a physician in London, who resided in Coleman-street some years of his life. About 1556 1559 he lived at Norwich, and in 1563 he was a public lecturer in surgeons’-hall, London. Bishop Bull applauded him much for his knowledge in astronomy and physic. He was certainly a man of considerable learning, and much admired for his ingenuity in the art of engraving on copper. In 1559 he published his “Cosmographical Glass, conteyning the pleasant principles of Cosmographie, Geographic, Hydrographie, or Navigation,” fol. He executed several of the cuts in this book himself. The map of Norwich, Mr. Granger thinks, is curious and fine. He wrote also a Commentary on Hippocrates, “De Acre, Aquis et Regionibus,” and a “Treatise on the French Disease.”

, one of the professors of the academy of painting, &,c. was born May 22, 1700, at Aix in Provence, and was first intended for the study of the law, but dishknig it at the outset, he took lessons in painting from Vanloo and De Troy, and soon distinguished himself botli as a painter and as a writer. He succeeded more particularly in historical pictures, and undoubtedly had an affection for all the arts, was a man of considerable learning, and in society was sensible, upright, and friendly. He died at Marseilles, where he was director of the academy, April 14, 1783. Some of his writings gained him much reputation. The principal of them are, l. “De l'utilite” d‘un Cours d’Histoire pour les artistes,“1751. 2.” Principesdu Dessin,“1754, 12mo. 3.” Anecdotes sur la Mort de Bouchardon,“1764. 4.” Vie de Carle Vanloo,“1765, 12mo. 5.” Monumens de la ville de Reims,“1765, 12mo. 6.” Traite de Peinture,“1765, 2 vols. 12mo. 7.” Histoire universelle relative aux arts,“1769, 3 vols. 12mo. 8.” Costumes des anciens peuples," 1776, 4to. This curious collection was republishecl in a very enlarged form by Cochin, in 4 vols. 1786 and 1792, 4to. Dandre-Bardon wrote also some poetry, but that his countrymen seem inclined to forget.

, a man of considerable learning and singular character, was born in Scotland in 1579. He is said to have been descended from a noble family, and was instructed in grammar learning at Aberdeen; but being obliged at an early age to leave Scotland, on account of the commotions that then prevailed in that country, he went into England, where he studied for some time at Pembroke-hall in Cambridge. From thence he went to France, where he gave out, that he had left givat estates in his own country, on account of his attachment to the Roman catholic religion. He also assumed the title of Baron of Muresk, which is said to have been one of the titles of his father; but the low state of his finances obliged him to undertake to teach classical literature at Paris. In that city he also published, in 1613, in one volume, fol. “Antiquitatum Romanarum corpus absolutiss mum, in quo praeter ea quse Joannes Rosinus delineaverat, inlimta supplentur, mutantur, adduntur, ex criticis, et omnibus utriusque linguae auctoribus collectum: poetis, oratoribus, historicis, jurisconsultis, qui laudati, explicati, correctique.”

, another of the name, was an eminent musician of Alexandria, and, according to Suidas, cotemporary in the first century with the emperor Nero, by whom he was much honoured and esteemed. This proves him to have been younger than Aristoxenus, and more ancient than Ptolemy, though some have imagined him to have preceded Aristoxenus. He wrote upon grammar and medicine, as well as music; but his works are all lost, and every thing we know at present of his barmonical doctrines is from Ptolemy, who, by disputing, preserved them. However, this author confesses him to have been well versed in the canon and harmonic divisions; and if we may judge from the testimony, even of his antagonist, he must have been not only an able theorist in music, but a man of considerable learning. As this musician preceded Ptolemy, and was the first who introduced the minor tone into the scale, and, consequently, the practical major 3d -f, which harmonized the whole system, and pointed out the road to counterpoint; an honour that most critics have bestowed on Ptolemy, he seems to have a better title to the invention of modern harmony, or music in parts, than Guido, who appears to have adhered, both in theory and practice, to the old division of the scale into major tones and limmas. “The best species of diapason,” says Doni, “and that which is the most replete with fine harmony, and chiefly in use at present, was invented by Didymus. His method was this: after the major semitone E F T-f, he placed the minor tone in the ratio of V, between F G, and afterwards the major tone between G A; but Ptolemy, for the sake of innovation, placed the major tone where Didymus placed the minor.” Ptolemy, however, in speaking of Didymus and his arrangement, objects to it as contrary to the judgment of the ear, which requires the major tone below the minor. The ear certainly determines so with us, and it is therefore probable, that in Ptolemy’s time the major key was gaining ground. Upon the whole, however, it appears that these authors only differ in the order, not the quality of intervals.

, a man of considerable learning, but unfortunately connected with the French prophets, was a native of Switzerland, whither his family, originally Italians, were obliged to take refuge, for religion’s sake, in the beginning of the reformation. He was born Feb. 16, 1664. His father intending him for the study of divinity, he was regularly instructed in Greek and Latin, philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; learned a little of the Hebrew tongue, and began to attend the lectures of the divinity professors of Geneva: but his mother being averse to this, he was left to pursue his own course, and appears to have produced the first fruits of his studies in some letters on subjects of astronomy sent to Cassini, the French king’s astronomer. In 1682 he went to Paris, where Cassini received him very kindly. In the following year he returned to Geneva, where he became particularly acquainted with a count Fenil, who formed the design of seizing, if not assassinating the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. This design Faccio having learned from him communicated it to bishop Burnet about 1686, who of course imparted it to the prince. Bishop Burnet, in the first letter of his Travels, dated September 1685, speaks of him as an incomparable mathematician and philosopher, who, though only twenty-one years old, was already become one of the greatest men of his age, and seemed born to carry learning some sizes beyond what it had hitherto attained. Whilst Dr. Calamy studied at the university of Utrecht, Faccio resided in that city as tutor to two young gentlemen, Mr. Ellys and Mr. Thornton, and conversed freely with the English. At this time he was generally esteemed to be a Spinozist; and his discourse, says Dr. Calamy, very much looked that way. Afterwards, it is probable, that he was professor of mathematics at Geneva. In 1687 he came into England, and was honoured with the friendship of the most eminent mathematicians of that age. Sir Isaac Newton, in particular, was intimately acquainted with him. Dr. Johnstone of Kidderminster had in his possession a manuscript, written by Faccio, containing commentaries and illustrations of different parts of sir Isaac’s Principia. About 1704 he taught mathematics in Spitafnelds, and obtained about that time a patent fora species of jewel-watches. When he unfortunately attached himself to the new prophets, he became their chief secretary, and committed their warnings to writing, many of which were published. The connexion of such a man with these enthusiasts, and their being supported, likewise, by another person of reputed abilities, Maximilian Misson, a French refugee, occasioned a suspicion, though without reason, that there was some deep contrivance and design in the affair. On the second of December, 1707, Faccio stood in the pillory at Charing-cross, with the following words affixed to his hat: “Nicolas Fatio, convicted for abetting and favouring Elias Marion, in his wicked and counterfeit prophecies, and causing them to be printed and published, to terrify the queen’s people.” Nearly at the same time, alike sentence was executed upon Elias Marion, one of the pretended prophets, and John d'Ande, another of their abettors. This mode of treatment did not convince Faccio of his error; and, indeed, the delusion of a man of such abilities, and simplicity of manners, was rather an object of compassion than of public infamy and punishment. Oppressed with the derision and contempt thrown upon himself and his party, he retired at last into the country, and spent the remainder of a long life in silence and obscurity. He died at Worcester in 1753, about eightynine years old. When he became the dupe of fanaticism, he seems to have given up his philosophical studies and connections. Faccio, besides being deeply versed in all branches of mathematical literature, was a great proficient in the learned and oriental languages. He had read much, also, in books of alchymy. To the last, he continued a firm believer in the reality of the inspiration of the French prophets. Dr. Wall of Worcester, who was well acquainted with him, communicated many of the above particulars to Dr. Johnstone, in whose hands were several of Faccio’s fanatical manuscripts and journals; and one of his letters giving an account of count Fenil’s conspiracy, and some particulars of the author’s family was communicated to the late Mr. Seward, and published in the second volume of his Anecdotes. In the Republic of Letters, vol. I. we find a Latin poem by Faccio, in honour of sir Isaac Newton; and in vol. XVIII. a communication on the rules of the ancient Hebrew poesy, on which subject he appears to have corresponded with Whiston. There are also many of his original papers and letters in the British Museum; and among them a Latin poem, entitled “N. Facii Duellerii Auriacus Throno-Servatus,” in which he claims to himself the merit of having saved king William from the above-mentioned conspiracy.

, a man of considerable learning, was born about 1589, and becoming a Jesuit, was appointed professor of classics and rhetoric in the college of the Trinity at Lyons. The time of his death is not mentioned. He is known principally for an edition of the whole body of poets, which he corrected and published under the title of “Chorus Poetarum,” Lyons, 1616, adding several pieces of the lower empire, an ample index, and a “Musaeum rhetoricum et poeticum,” which seems to be a collection of the beauties of the poets. He published also, “Arcana studiorum omnium methodus, et bibliotheca scientiarum,” Lyons, 1649, 8vo, reprinted by Fabricius in 1710, with additions; “Favus Patrum,” a collection of the thoughts of the fathers, in 12mo, above 1000 pages, and some other works.

Hitherto we have seen onjy the laudable efforts of a young man to overcome the difficulties of adverse fortune. In what follows he is less entitled to respect. He now applied himself to the study of physic and astrology, and after having travelled to Holland for that purpose, set up in Philpot-lane, London, where his practice being opposed by the physicians, and himself four times fined and imprisoned, he went to study at Cambridge, where he took a doctor’s degree, and a licence to practise; and settling at Lambeth, openly professed the joint occupation of physician and astrologer. “Here he lived,” says Lilly, “with good respect of the neighbourhood, being very charitable to the poor, and was very judicious and fortunate in horary questions and sicknesses.” His charity to the poor, however, was not wholly disinterested. Quacks of this description are generally well repaid for their charity by the good report of the poor, wh.o are illiterate and credulous. In 1601 a complaint was made to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, against him for deluding the people, but it does not appear what steps were taken against him. In the mean time he was much resorted to by all ranks of people; among others the famous, or rather infamous, countess of Essex, applied to him for his assistance in her wicked designs, as appeared by the trials of that lady and of Mrs. Anne Turner, for the murder of sir Thomas Overbury. He died suddenly in a boat on the Thames, Sept. 12, 1611, and if we may believe Lilly, predicted his death on that day. He wrote a great many books, on the philosopher’s stone, magic, astronomy, natural history, and natural philosophy, two treatises on the plague, and some religious tracts, of which Anthony Wood has given a catalogue from the Ashmolean museum, where his Mss. were deposited, but it seems doubtful whether any of them were printed. There are also some of his Mss. on astrology in the British Museum. He was a man of considerable learning in all the above sciences, as they were then understood, but seems to have been either an egregious dupe, or unprincipled impostor, in the use he made of his knowledge.

, a Swiss artist, and a man of considerable learning, was born at Zurich in 1706. After acquiring the elements of painting from a very indifferent artist, he left his country in the eighteenth year of his age, and going to Vienna, associated himself with Sedelmeier. Gran and Meitens were his principal guides, if he could be said to have any other guide than his own genius. He became well known at court, but his love of independence induced him to refuse very advantageous offers. He would not, however, have probably ever left Vienna, had not the prince of Schwarzeuburg persuaded him to go to Kadstadt, where he became the favourite of the court. Among others whose portraits he painted was the margrave of Dourlach, who had a great affection for him, and advised him to go to Ludwigsbourg, which he did with letters of recommendation to the duke of Wirtemberg, who immediately took him into his service. Here he passed his time very agreeably, making occasional excursions to paint the portraits of persons of distinction, until the war of Poland, when the entrance of the French into Germany threw every thing into confusion. The duke his patron at the same time fell sick, and was removed to Stutgard, but on Fuessli’s leaving him to go to Nuremberg, his highness presented him with a gold watch, and requested him to return when the state of public affairs was changed. At Nuremberg he had a strong desire to see the celebrated artist Kupezki, of whose manners he had imbibed an unfavourable impression, but he was agreeably disappointed, and they became friends from their first interview. After remaining six months at Nuremberg, the duke of Wirtemberg died, and there being no immediate prospect of peace, Fuessli returned to his own country, and in 1740 married. Although his wife was a very amiable woman, he used to say that marriage was incompatible with the cultivation of the fine arts: if, however, he felt himself occasionally disturbed by domestic cares, he had the happiness to communicate his art to his three sons, Rodolph, who settled at Vienna; Henry, at present so well known in England; and Caspar, who died in the vigour of life, an entomologist of fidelity, discrimination, and taste.

, a learned French abbé, prior of St. George de Vigou, a member of the royal society of London (1742) and of the French academy of sciences, was born in Languedoc, in 1712, and was the son of John de Gua, baron of Halves, whose property was swallowed up in the unfortunate Missisippi Scheme. He was educated for the church, but appears to have had less ambition for promotion in that, than to render himself distinguished for scientific knowledge. When admitted into the academy of sciences in 1741, he gave a specimen of his skill in mathematics by publishing “Usages de l'analyse de Descartes,” and was the author of other papers on mathematical subjects in the Memoirs of the Academy, in one of which he endeavours to vindicate Descartes against our Wallis, who, in the abbe’s opinion, wrote his history of algebra for no other purpose than to bestow upon his coun ­tryman Hariot, the discoveries that belong to Viete and Descartes. (See Hariot.) The abbe* was, however, chiefly distinguished in France for having first given the plan of the Encyclopedic, although he wrote very little in it. In 1764 he presented a plan for exploring the mines of Languedoc, and was the author of some other projects whick bad little success. His necessities sometimes drove him to the business of translating for the booksellers. Amonothese publications we find bishop Berkeley’s “Hylas and Philonous,” “Locke’s Essay,” Anson’s Voyage, and Decker on trade. He died at Paris, June 2, 1735, leaving the character of a man of considerable learning and industry, but not very happy in his temper, and often pursuing trifling difficulties, which he made a great merit in surmounting, such as complicated anagrams; and on one occasion, in consequence of a sort of challenge, he perplexed himself in writing a very long poem, in which words only of one syllable were admitted.

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

, a protestant divine, of a considerable family, was born at Zurich in 1683, and was educated partly at home, and partly at Bremen, devoting his chief attention to the study of the Hebrew language and the writings of the Rabbins. From Bremen he went to Holland, where he published at Leyden a very curious book, not in 4to, as Moreri says, but in 8vo, -entitled “Sepher Toledot Jescho,” or the history of Jesus Christ, written by a Jew, full of atrocious calumnies, which Huldrich refutes in his notes. The work is in Hebrew and Latin. On his return to Zurich in 1706, he was made chaplain of the house of orphans, and four years after professor of Christian morals, in the lesser college, to which was afterwards added the professorship of the law of nature. This led him to write a commentary on Puffendorff “on the duties of men and citizens.” His other works are the “Miscellanea Tigurina,” 3 vols. 8vo, and some sermons in German. He died May 25, 1731. Zimmerman, who wrote his life, published also a Sermon of his on the last words of St. Stephen. He was a man of considerable learning, and of great piety, sincerity, and humility.

At Rotterdam, having nothing to fear, he gave full scope to his imagination, which was naturally too warm and sanguine. Jn this temper he applied himself to study the book of “the Revelations,” and thought he had certainly discovered the true meaning of it by a kind of inspiration, which shewed him, that France was the place of the great city, where the witnesses mentioned in the apocalypse lay dead, but not buried; and that they were to rise to life again in three yeafs and a half, namely, in 1689. He was unalterably fixed and confirmed in this persuasion by the revolution which happened in England in 16SS; and even addressed a letter upon the subject to king William, whom he considered as the instrument intended by God to carry his designs into execution. At home, however, all this was charged upon him as an artifice, only to prepare the people for a much greater revolution; and he was suspected to harbour no other design than that of exciting people to take up arms, and setting all Europe in a flame. The foundation of this belief was his not shewing any signs of confusion after the event had given the lye to his prophecies: they built likewise on this, that, after the example of Comenius, he had attempted to re-unite the Lutherans and Calvinists, in hopes of increasing the number of troops to attack Antichrist. But these accusations were brought only by the Romanists, his constant enemies, while his more indulgent friends attributed his prophecies to enthusiasm, and it is certain, that, under this period of mental delusion, he affected to believe a great number of prodigies, which he maintained were so many presages or forerunners of the accomplishment of the prophecies. Nor is it true that he was indifferent to the ill success of what he had predicted in his “L'accomplissement des Propheties,” Rotterdam, 1686 on the contrary, his chagrin was great; and it was not a little heightened when he thought himself insulted by some of his best friends, who opposed his sen-, timents. This drew him into violent disputes, and particularly with Bayle , who wrote against him. The opposition of Bayle was the more resented by him, as he had been a friend to him, and was instrumental in procuring him the philosophical chair at Sedan in 1675. They seem to have been very intimately connected; for, after the suppression of that university, they were preferred together to different professorships at Rotterdam in 1681; and they both wrote against Maimbourg’s “History of Calvinism” in 1682. But here, it is said, the first seeds of the quarrel between them were sown. Both the pieces excelled in different ways. Jurieu’s was more complete and full than Bayle' s, and he answered Maimbourg with a great deal of strength; but then the reader did not meet there with that easy and natural style, those lively and agreeable reflections which distinguished the latter. The preference given to Bayle was observed by Jurieu with disdain: he began to look upon Bayle as his competitor, conceived a jealousy and hatred for him; and to what length it was carried afterwards may be seen in our article of Bayle. In short, it must not be dissembled, that our author’s conduct was far from being commendable in regard to Bavle, or any of his antagonists. Even those synods, where his authority was the greatest, engaged in the contest, and justified Mr. Saurin, pastor of Utrecht, and other persons of merit, whom Jurieu had not spared to accuse of heterodoxy: nay, the matter was carried so far, that, in some of these church parliaments there passed decrees, in which, though his name was not mentioned, yet the opinions he had advanced upon baptism, justification, and the new system of the church, were absolutely condemned. These troubles continued while he lived, and at length threw him into a lowness of spirits, under which he languished for several years before his death; yet he continued to employ his pen, and revised and printed his history of opinions, and forms of religious worship, “Histoire des dogmes et des cultes,” which he had composed in his youth, a work of very considerable merit. In the two or three last years of his life he wrote only some devotional pieces. At length he sunk under a load of infirmities, at Rotterdam, Jan, 11, 1713. He was unquestionably a man of considerable learning, but peculiar in some of his own notions, and intolerant to those of others. Among his works, not mentioned above, are “Histoire du Calvinisme et du Papisrne mise en parallele,” &c. 1683, 3 vols. “Lettres Pastorales.” These letters are upon the subject of the accomplishment of the prophecies. In one of them, for Jan. 1695, having quoted, as proof of the favourable intentions of the allies, a proposal for peace, drawn up by the diet of Ratisbon, which had been forged by a speculative politician in Amsterdam, he was so ashamed of his having been imposed upon by this fictitious piece, that he instantly printed another edition of his letter, in which he omitted that article, 3. “Parallele de trois Lettres pastorales de Mr. Jurieu, c.” 1696, quoted in a “Dissertation concerning defamatory Libels,” at the end of Bayle’s Diet. 4. “Traite de TumlS del'eglise,” &c. 1688. 5> “Le vray systeme.de l'église et la veritable analyse de la foi,” &c. 1686. 6. “L'Esprit de Mr. Arnauld,” 1684. 7. “Abrege de i'Histoire du Concile de Trente,” &c. 1683. 8. “Les prejugez legitimos centre le papisme,” 1685. 9. “Le Janseniste convaincu de vaine sophistiquerie.” 10. “Le Philosophe de Rotterdam accuse, atteint, et convaincu.” 11. “Traite historique, contenant le jugement d'un Protestant sur la Theologie Mystique,” &c. 1700. 12. “Jugement sur les me*­thodes rigides et relache'es,” &c. 1686. 13. “Traite* de la Nature et la Grace.” 14. “Apologie pour Paccomplissement de Propbe'ties,” 1687. 15. “Quelque Sermons,” &C.

In 1757 he had an opportunity again of rendering himself conspicuous in a political capacity, by the part which he took in the famous convention of Closter-seven, entered into between the duke of Richelieu, commander of the French forces, and the duke of Cumberland, who was then at the head of the allied army. In this, however, he met with many difficulties, as the history of that convention shows; and the king of France and his Britannic majesty at last refused their ratification. In March 1763 he was invested with the order of the elephant by Frederic V. the highest honour his sovereign could bestow; but some complaints being made against him on account of his administration, which were not altogether groundless, he resigned in Oct. 1765. The remainder of his life he passed in retirement at Lubennau, where he died of a dropsy of the breast, Nov. 1781, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was a man of considerable learning, elegant address, and various accomplishments. His works are, I. A translation of “Seneca de Beneficiis,” Hamburgh, 1753, 8vo. 2. A translation of Seneca on “The Shortness of Life,” 1754. 3. “Der Sonderling,” or “The Singular Man,” Hanover, 1761, 8vo, and in French, Copenhagen, 1777, 8vo, a work which, according to his biographer Busching, is well worth a perusal. 4. “Historical, Political, and Moral Miscellanies,” in four parts, 1775 1777, 8vo. 5 Paraphrases on “The Epistles,” printed at various times, 1754 1770. 6. “The real state of Europe in the year 1737,” and several other articles in Busching’s Magazine for History and Geography.

, an industrious French translator, was born in 1600. He was the son of Claude de Marolles, a military hero, but entered early into the ecclesiastical state, and by the interest of his father, obtained two abbeys. He early conceived an extreme ardour for study, which never abated; for from 1610, when he published a translation of Lucan, to 168 1, the year of his death, he was constantly employed in writing and printing. He attached himself, unfortunately, to the translating of ancient Latin writers; but, being devoid of all classical taste and spirit, they sunk miserably under his hands, and especially the poets. If, however, he was not the most elegant, or even the most faithful of translators, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and discovered all his life a love for the arts. He was one of the first who paid any attention to the collection of prints, and formed a series amounting to about an hundred thousand, which made afterwards one of the ornaments of the king’s cabinet. There are by him translations of “Plautus,” “Terence,” “Lucretius,” “Catullus,” “Virgil,” “Horace,” “Juvenal,” “Per&ius,” “Martial” (at the head of which Menage wrote “Epigrammes centre Martial”); also “Statius,” “Aurelius Victor,” “Ammianus Marcellinus,” “Athena3us,” &c. He composed “Memoirs of his own Life,” which were published by the abbe Goujet, in 1775, in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain, like such publications in general, some interesting facts, but many more which are trifling. His poetry was never much esteemed. He said once to Liniere, “My verses cost me very little,” meaning little trouble. “They cost you quite as much as they are worth,” replied Liniere.

Sir Robert Naunton, for so he was created by James I. was a man of considerable learning, and well qualified for political affairs; and his letters contain many curious facts and just observations on the characters and parties of his day. His “Fragmenta Regalia” continues to preserve his memory. This tract, printed first in 1641, 4to, contains some interesting observations on queen Elizabeth, and her principal courtiers, apparently written with impartiality; but in an uncouth and rugged style.

, a celebrated divine of the reformed religion, was born Dec. 30, 1548, at Frankenstein in Silesia, and put to the grammar-school there, apparently with a design to breed him to learning; but his father marrying a second time, a capricious and narrow-minded woman, she prevailed with him to place his son apprentice to an apothecary at Breslau; and afterwards changing her mind, the boy was, at her instigation, bound to a shoemaker. Some time after, however, his father resumed his first design, and his son, about the age of sixteen, was sent to the college-school of Hirchberg, in the neighbourhood of Frankenstein, to prosecute his studies under Christopher Schilling, a man of considerable learning, who was rector of the college. It was customary in those times for young students who devoted themselves to literature, to assume a classical name, instead of that of their family. Schilling was a great admirer of this custom, and easily persuaded his scholar to change his German name of Wangler for the Greek one of Pareus, from wa^ice, a cheek, which Wangler also means in German. Pareus had not lived above three months at his father’s expence, when he was enabled to provide for his own support, partly by means of a tutorship in the family, and partly by the bounty of Albertus Kindler, one of the principal men of the place. He lodged in this gentleman’s house, and wrote a poem upon the death of his eldest son, which so highly pleased the father, that he not only gave him a gratuity for it, but encouraged him to cultivate his poetical talents, prescribing him proper subjects, and rewarding him handsomely for every poem which he presented to him.

, an antiquary and critic, was born in the North of England, and educated at the grammar-school of Northallerton, whence he was admitted a scholar at Sidney college, Cambridge. On quitting the university, he became a member of Gray’s-inn; and in 1692 succeeded Mr. Shadwell as historiographer to king William III. He rendered himself known first as a writer for the stage, by his production of “Edgar,” a tragedy, in 1673, which excited little approbation or inquiry until he became the author of “A View of the Tragedies of the last age,” which occasioned those admirable remarks by Dryden, preserved in the preface to Mr. Colman’s edition of “Beaumont and Fletcher,” and since by Dr. Johnson in his “Life of Dryden.” Rymer was a man of considerable learning, and a lover of poetry; but had few requisites for the character of a critic; and was indeed almost totally disqualified for it, by want of candour and the liberties he took with Shakspeare, in his “View of the Tragedies of the last age,” drew upon him the severity of every admirer of that poet. His own talents for dramatic poetry were extremely inferior to those of the persons whose writings he has with so much rigour attacked, as appears very evidently by his tragedy of “Edgar.” But, although we cannot subscribe either to his fame or his judgment as a poet or critic, it cannot be denied that he was a very useful compiler of records, and his “Fœdera” will ever entitle his memory to respect. While collecting this great work, he employed himself, like a royal historiographer, as one of his biographers says, in detecting the falsehood, and ascertaining the truth of history. In 1702, he published his first letter to bishop Nicolson, in which he endeavours to free king Robert III. of Scotland, beyond all dispute, from the imputation of bastardy. He soon after published his second letter to bishop Nicolson, “containing an historical deduction of the alliances between France and Scotland; whereby the pretended old league with Charlemagne is disproved, and the true old league is ascertained.”

, a learned English divine, was born in South wark about 1641, and educated at Eton 1 school, where he distinguished himself by the vigour of his genius and application to his studies. Thence he removed to Peter-house in Cambridge in May 1657, where he took a bachelor of arts degree in 1660, and a master’s in 1665. He now went into holy orders, and officiated as a curate until 1669, when he was preferred to the rectory of St. George’s, Botolph-lane, in London. In this parish he discharged the duties of his function with great zeal, and was esteemed an excellent preacher. In 1673, he.published “A discourse concerning the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him,” which involved him in a controversy with the celebrated nonconformist Dr. John Owen, and with Mr. Vincent Alsop. In 1680, he took the degree of D. D. and about the same time published some pieces against the nonconformists. Soon after he was collated to a prebend of St. Paul’s, was appointed master of the Temple, and had the rectory of Therfield in Hertfordshire. In 1684 he published a pamphlet, entitled “The case of Resistance to the Supreme Powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures;” and continued to preach the same opinion after the accession of James II. when it was put to the test. He engaged also in the controversy with the papists, which shews that he was not a servile adherent to the king, but conscientious in his notions of regal power. This likewise he shewed at the Revolution, when he refused to take the oaths to William and Mary, and was therefore suspended from all his preferments. During his suspension, he published his celebrated treatise, entitled “A practical discourse on Death,” 1690, which has passed through at least forty editions, and is indeed the only one of his works now read. But before the expiration of that year, he thought proper to comply with the new government, and taking the oaths, was reinstated in all his preferments, of which, though forfeited, he had not been deprived. Being much censured for this step by those who could not yield a like compliance, he endeavoured to vindicate himself in a piece entitled “The Case of the Allegiance due to the Sovereign Princes stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the principles of the Church of England, with a more particular respect to the Oath lately enjoined of Allegiance to their present Majesties king William and queen Mary, 1690,” quarto. This was followed by twelve answers. His design was to lay down such principles as would prove the allegiance due to William and Mary, even supposing them to have no legal right, which the celebrated Mr. Kettlewell could by no means agree with, and therefore wrote, upon another principle, “The duty of Allegiance settled upon its true grounds.” The dispute is perhaps now of little consequence; but Sherlock persisted in preaching his doctrine of non-resistance in the new reign, and had undoubtedly some merit in this kind of consistency, and in rendering that plausible in any degree, which the other nonjurors thought contradictory in every degree. In 1691, he published his “Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity;” but his attempt to explain this mystery was not satisfactory, and involved him in a controversy with Dr. South. What was more mortifying, a fellow of University-college, Oxford, having preached his doctrine in a sermon at St. Mary’s, the university issued a decree, censuring that doctrine as false, impious, and heretical, and warned all persons under their jurisdiction not to preach or maintain any such notions. The controversy being exasperated by this indignity, the king at last interposed, and issued directions “to the archbishops and bishops,” ordaining, that “all preachers should carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of explanation as have been commonly used in the church.” After this, it is but fair to state Dr. Sherlock’s notion: he thought that there were three eternal minds 9 two of these issuing from the father, but that these three were one by a mutual consciousness in the three to every one of their thoughts. Dr. Sherlock was promoied to the deanery of St. Paul’s in 1691. He died at Hampstead June 19, 1707, in his 67th year; and was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul. He left two sons and two daughters; the eldest of his sons was Dr. Thomas SherLck, bishop of London. Burnet says, that “he was a clear, polite, and a strong writer, but apt to assume too much to himself, and to treat his adversaries with contempt. This created him many enemies, and made him pass for an insolent haughty man.” He was, however, a man of considerable learning and abilities, and conscientious, however mistaken, in those peculiar opinions which engaged him in such frequent controversies with his brethren.

, a man of considerable learning, was born at Hackney in Middlesex, and admitted scholar of King’s-college, Cambridge, Nov. 25, 1645. Before he was made junior fellow, he turned Grotius’s “Baptizatorum puerorum institutio,” from the original Latin verse into Greek verse, which was published by his schoolmaster at Eton, Dr. Nicholas Grey, under the title, “Hugonis Grotii baptizatorum puerorum institutio; cui accesserunt Graeca ejusdem metaphrasis a Christophero Wase Regalis Coll. Cantab, et Anglicana versio a Francisco Goldsmith, Ar­* This seems doubtful. See Granger’s Letters, published by Malcolm, pp. 385, 387, 889. migero, una cum luculentis e S. S. testimoniis, a N. G. scholae Etonensis informatore,” Lond. 1647, 8vo. A second edition of this appeared in 1650, and a third in 1668, with a somewhat different title, and the addition of a “Praxis in Graecam metaphrasin per Barthol. Beale.”

, one of four divines of the name of Wilkinson, who made considerable noise at Oxford during the usurpation, was born in the vicarage of Halifax in Yorkshire, Oct. 9, 1566, and came to Oxford in 158], where he was elected a probationer fellow of Merton college, by the interest of his relation Mr. afterwards sir Henry Savile, the warden. In 1586 he proceeded in arts, and studying divinity, took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty. In 1601 he was preferred to the living of Waddesdon in Buckinghamshire, which he held for forty-six years. He was a man of considerable learning and piety, and being an old puritan, Wood says, he was elected one of the assembly of divines in 1643. He was the author of “A Catechism for the use of the congregation of Waddesdon,” 8vo, of which there was a fourth edition in 1647. He published also “The Debt-Book; or a treatise upon. Romans xiii. 8. wherein is handled the civil debt of money or goods,” Lond. 1625, 8vo and other things, the names of which Wood has not mentioned. He died at Waddesdon March 19, 1647, aged eighty-one, and was buried in his own church, with a monumental inscription. By his wife Sarah, the daughter of Mr. Arthur Wake, another puritan, he had six sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Edward, was born in 1607, and educated at Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which he entered when little more than eleven years old, and completed his degrees in arts at the age of eighteen. He must have been of extraordinary parts, or extraordinary interest, for in 1627, when only twenty, he was chosen professor of rhetoric in Gresham college. All that Ward has been able to discover of him, is, that he held this office upwards of eleven years, and resigned it in 1638. Another of the rector of Waddesdon’s sons, a more distinguished character, is the subject of our next article.

, an English divine of uncommon parts and learning, was the son of Mr. Henry Wotton, rector of Wrentham, in Suffolk, a man of considerable learning also, and well skilled in the Oriental tongues. He was born at Wrentham the 13th of August, 1666, and was educated by his father. He discovered a most extraordinary genius for learning languages; and, though what is related of him upon this head may appear wonderful, yet it is so well attested that we know not how to refuse it credit. Sir Philip Skippon, who lived at Wrentham, in a letter to Mr. John Ray, Sept. Is, 1671, writes thus of him: “I shall somewhat surprise you with what I have seen in a little boy, William Wotton, five years old the last month, the son of Mr. Wotton, minister of this parish, who hath instructed his child within the last three quarters of a year in the reading the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, which he can read almost as well as English; and that tongue he could read at four years and three months old as well as most lads of twice his age. I could send you many particulars about his rendering chapters and psalms out of the three learned languages into English,” &c. Among sir Philip’s papers was found a draught of a longer letter to Mr. Ray, in which these farther particulars are added to the above: “He is not yet able to parse any language, but what he performs in turning the three learned tongues into English is done by strength of memory; so that he is ready to mistake when some words of different signification have near the same sound. His father hath taught him by no rules, but only uses the child’s memory in remembering words: some other children of his age seem to have as good a fancy and as quick apprehension.” He was admitted of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, in April 1676, some months before he was ten years old; and upon his admission Dr. John Eachard, then master of the college, gave him this remarkable testimony: Gulidmns Wottonus infra decem annos nee Ilammondo nee Grotio secundus. His progress in learning was answerable to the expectations conceived of him; and Dr. Duport, the master of Magdalen-college, and dean of Peterborough, has described it in an elegant copy of verses; “In Gulielmum Wottanum stupendi ingenii et incomparabilis spei puerum vixdum duodecim annorum.” He then goes on to celebrate his skill in the languages, not only in the Greek and Latin, which he understood perfectly, but also in the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee; his skill too in arts and sciences, in geography, logic, philosophy, mathematics^ chronology.