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

was born at Riez in Provence, in 1648. He removed to Paris early in life, where he was much admired for the brilliancy of his wit. The marechai de Luxembourg took notice of him, and gave him the title of his secretary; and the poet followed the hero in his campaigns. The marshal gave him his confidence during his life, and at his death recommended him to his heirs as an estimable man. The prince of Conti and the duke de Vendome vouchsafed him their familiarity, and found great pleasure in his lively and animated conversation. The witticisms which would have been common in the mouth of any other man, were rendered striking in him by the turn he gave them, and by the grimaces with which he accompanied them. A countenance remarkably ugly and full of wrinkles, which he managed at pleasure, stood him instead of a variety of masks. Whenever he read a tale or a comedy, he made a ludicrous use of this moveable physiognomy for distinguishing the personages of the piece he was reciting. The abbe Abeille enjoyed a priory, and a place in the French academy. We have of him some odes, some epistles, several tragedies, one comedy, and two operas. A certain prince observed of his tragedy of Cato, that, if Cato of Utica should return from the grave, he would be only the Cato of the abbe Abeille. He understood well enough what was necessary to the formation of a good poet: but he was not one himself. His style is feeble, low, and languid. In his versification he discovers none of that dignity he had in his character. He died at Paris, the 21st of May, 1718. A French critic, speaking of the two tragedies, Solyman and Hercules, written by Jean Juvenon de la Thuillerie, says, the reader will be able to judge of their merit, when he is informed that they were attributed to the Abbé Abeille .

, an eminent lawyer and historian of the fifteenth century, and the first of that ancient Tuscan family who acquired a name for literary talents, was born at Arezzo, in 1415. His father was Michel Accolti, a civilian of Florence, and his mother a daughter of Roselli of Arezzo, also a lawyer. After a classical education, he studied the civil law, and was made professor at Florence, where his opinions acquired him much popularity. The Florentines, after conferring on him the rights of citizenship, chose him in 1459 to be secretary of the republic, in the room of Poggius, which office he retained until his death in 1466. The account of his transactions in public affairs are preserved in four books, with a great collection of his letters to foreign princes, which evince his sagacity as a statesman, and his politeness as a writer. He married Laura Frederigi, the daughter of a lawyer and patrician of Florence, by whom he had a numerous family, of whom Bernard and Peter will be noticed hereafter. His memory is said to have been so retentive, that on one occasion, after hearing the Hungarian ambassador pronounce a Latin address to the magistrates of Florence, he repeated the whole word for word. His inclination for the Study of history made him relax in the profession of the law, and produced: 1. “De bello a Christianis contra Barbaros gesto, pro Christi sepulchre et Judaea recuperandis, libri quatuor,” Venice, 1532, 4to, and reprinted at Basle, Venice, and Florence, the latter edition with notes by Thomas Dempster, 1623, 4to, and at Groninguen, by Henry Hoffnider, 1731, 8vo. It was also translated into Italian, by Francis Baldelli, and printed at Venice, 1549, 8vo. Yves Duchat of Troyes in Champagne, translated it into French and Greek, and printed it at Paris, 1620, 8vo. This is a work of considerable historical credit, and in the succeeding century, served as a guide to TorquatoTasso, in his immortal poem, the Gerusalemme liberata. It was dedicated to Piero de Medici, and not to Cosmo, as Moreri asserts. Paulo Cortesi, a severe censor, allows that it is a work of great industry, and that it throws considerable light on a very difficult subject. A more recent critic objects to the purity of his style, and the length of the speeches he puts in the mouths of his principal personages. 2. “De praestantia virorum sui aevi,” Parma, 1689, or 1692, the tendency of which is to prove that the moderns are not inferior to the ancients. It appeared originally in the Bibliotheque of Magliabechi, and has been often reprinted since, particularly at Coburg, in 1735, in the first volume of John Gerard Meuschen’s “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum.”

, a young man of great erudition, whom Baillet has enrolled among his “Enfans celebres,” and who would have proved one of the ablest critics of his time, had he enjoyed a longer life, was born at Wistock, in the march of Brandenburgh, in 1567. In his seventeenth year he composed some poetical pieces in Latin, which are not very highly esteemed. In 1589, he went to Helmstadt to pursue his studies, and there published some of his poems, which were reprinted after his death, at Leibnitz, in 1605, with those of Janus Lernutius and Janus Gulielmus. They are also inserted in the first volume of the “Delicise Poetarum Germanorum;” and several of his pieces are in the second volume of Caspar Dornavius’ “Amphitheatrum sapientiae Socraticae Jocoseriue,” Hanau, 1619. From Helmstadt, Acidalius went to Italy in 1590, and acquired the esteem and friendship of the most distinguished scholars; and here he studied medicine, but does not appear to have entered into practice. Before he went to Italy, he had begun his commentary on Paterculus, and published his edition of that author at Padua, in the above-mentioned year, 12mo. He adopted the text of Schegkius, but introduced corrections, and such new readings as appeared well founded. For this, however, he has been censured by Boeder, J. Mercier, and Burmann; and it has been said that he himself condemned this early production. His contemporaries appear to have thought more favourably of his labours, as his notes were adopted in the edition of Paterculus published at Lyons, 1595, 8vo; and they were again added to an edition of Tacitus printed after his death, at Paris, in 1608, folio. After remaining three years in Italy, he returned to Germany; and at Neiss, the residence of the bishop of Breslaw, he embraced the Roman Catholic religion. At this place he continued his critical researches on Quintus Curtius, Plautus, the twelve ancient Panegyrics, Tacitus, and some other authors. In 1594, he published, at Francfort, his “Animadversiones in Quintum Curtium,” 8vo; which have been adopted in the Francfort edition of that author, 1597, and Snakenburg’s edition, Leyden, 1724, 4to. His sudden death, May 25, 1595, at the age of 28, put a stop to his useful labours. At that time his observations on Plautus were in the press, and were published the following year at Francfort, 8vo, and again in 1607; and they are inserted in J. Gruter’s “Lampas Critica.” They conferred upon him a wellearned reptitation; and Barthius and Lipsius, with others, bore testimony to his growing merit as a critic. His remarks on the Ancient Panegyrics and on Tacitus were published in 1607, and the former were added to J. Gruter’s edition, Francfort, 1607, 12mo. They are, likewise, examined and compared with those of other scholars, in the fine edition of the Panegyrics published at Utrecht by Arntzenius, in 1790, 4to. His notes on Tacitus are in the edition of that author printed at Paris, 1608, fol. (where he is by mistake called Acidalus); in that of Gronovius, Amsterdam, 1635, 4to, and 1673, 2 vols. 8vo. We also owe to Acidalius, some notes on Ausonius, given in Tollius’ edition of that author, Amsterdam, 1671, 8vo. and notes on Quintilian’s dialogue de Oratoribus, added to Gronovius’ edition of Tacitus, Utrecht, 1721, 4to. It appears by his letters, that he had written observations on Apuleius and Aulus Gellius, but these have not been printed. His letters were published at Hanau, 1606, 8vo r by his brother Christian, under the title of “Epistolarum centuria una, cui accessemnt apologetica ad clariss. virum Jac. Monavium, et Oratio de vera carminis elegiaci natura et constitutione.” In the preface, his brother vindicates his character against the misrepresentations circulated in consequence of his embracing the Roman Catholic religion, particularly with regard to the manner of his death. Spme asserted that he became suddenly mad, and others that he laid violent hands on himself. It appears, however, that he died of a fever, brought on by excess i&f study. It still remains to be noticed, that he is said to have been the author of a pamphlet, published in 1595, entitled, “Mulieres non esse homines,” “Women are not men; i. e. not thinking and reasonable beings;” but he had no other hand in this work than in conveying it to his bookseller, who was prosecuted for publishing it. It was, in fact, a satire on the Socinian mode of interpreting the Scriptures; and a French translation of it appeared in 1744, 12mo.

, son of Dr. Addison mentioned in the last article, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of his time, was born May 1, 1672, at Milston near Ambrosbury, Wiltshire, where his father was rector. Appearing weak and unlikely to live, he was christened the same day. Mr. Tyers says, that he was laid out for dead as soon as he was born. He received the first rudiments of his education at the place of his nativity, under the rev. Mr. Naish; but was soon removed to Salisbury, under the care of Mr. Taylor; and thence to Lichfield, where his father placed him for some time, probably not long, under Mr. Shaw, then master of the school there. From Lichfield he was sent to the Charter-house, where he pursued his juvenile studies under the care of Dr. Ellis, and contracted that intimacy with sir Rich. Steele, which their joint labours have so effectually recorded. In 1687 he was entered of Queen’s college in Oxford; where, in 1689, the accidental perusal of some Latin verses gained him the patronage of Dr. Lancaster, by whose recommendation he was elected into Magdalen college as demy. Here he took the degree of M. A. Feb. 14, 1693; continued to cultivate poetry and criticism, and grew first eminent by his Latin compositions, which are entitled to particular praise, and seem to have had much of his fondness; for he collected a second volume of the Musæ Anglicanæ, perhaps for a convenient receptacle; in which all his Latin pieces are inserted, and where his poem on the Peace has the first place. He afterwards presented the collection to Boileau, who from that time conceived an opinion of the English genius for poetry. In his 22d year he first shewed his power of English poetry, by some verses addressed to Dryden; and soon afterwards published a translation of the greater part of the fourth Georgic upon Bees. About the same time he composed the arguments prefixed to the several books of Dry den’s Virgil; and produced an essay on the Georgics, juvenile, superficial, and uninstructive, without much either of the scholar’s learning or the critic’s penetration. His next paper of verses contained a character of the principal English poets, inscribed to Henry Sacheverell, who was then, if not a poet, a writer of verses; as is shewn by his version of a small part of Virgil’s Georgics, published in the Miscellanies, and a Latin encomium on queen Mary, in the Musae Anglicana?. At this time he was paying his addresses to SacheverelPs sister. These verses exhibit all the fondness of friendship; but, on one side or the other, friendship was too weak for the malignity of faction. In this poem is a very confident and discriminative character of Spenser, whose work he had then never read. It is necessary to inform the reader, that about this time he was introduced by Congreve to Montague, then chancellor of the exchequer: Addison was now learning the trade of a courtier, and subjoined Montague as a poetical name to those of Cowley and of Dryden. By the influence of Mr. Montague, concurring with his natural modesty, he was diverted from his original design of entering into holy orders. Montague alleged the corruption of men who engaged in civil employments without liberal education; and declared, that, though he was represented as an enemy to the church, he would never do it any injury but by withholding Addison from it. Soon after, in 1695, he wrote a poem to king William, with a kind of rhyming introduction addressed to lord Somers. King William had no regard to elegance or literature; his study was only war; yet by a choice of ministers whose disposition was very different from his own, he procured, without intention, a very liberal patronage to poetry. Addison was caressed both by Somers and Montague. In 1697 he wrote his poem on the peace of Ryswick, which he dedicated to Montague, and which was afterwards called by Smith “the best Latin poem since the Æneid.” Having yet no public employment, he obtained in 1699 a pension of 300l. a year, that he might be enabled to travel. He staid a year at Blois, probably to learn the French language; and then proceeded in his journey to Italy, which he surveyed with the eyes of a poet. While he was travelling at leisure, he was far from being idle; for he not only collected his observations on the country, but found time to write his Dialogues on Medals, and four acts of Cato. Such is the relation of Tickell. Perhaps he only collected his materials, and formed his plan. Whatever were his other employments in Italy, he there wrota the letter to lord Halifax, which is justly considered as the most elegant, if not the most sublime, of his poetical productions. But in about two years he found it necessary to hasten home; being, as Swift informs us, “distressed by indigence, and compelled to become the tutor of a travelling squire.” At his return he published his travels, with a dedication to lord Somers. This book, though a while neglected, is said in time to have become so much the favourite of the publick, that before it was reprinted it rose to five times its price. When he returned to England in 1702, with a meanness of appearance which gave testimony to the difficulties to which tie had been reduced, he found his old patrons out of power; but he remained not long neglected or useless. The victory at Blenheim 1704 spread triumph and confidence over the nation; and lord Godolphin, lamenting to lord Halifax that it had not been celebrated in a manner equal to the subject, desired him to propose it to some better poet. Halifax named Addison; who, having undertaken the work, communicated it to the treasurer, while it was yet advanced no further than the simile of the angel, and was immediately rewarded by succeeding Mr. Locke in the place of commissioner of appeals. In the following year he was at Hanover with lord Halifax; and the year after was made under-secretary of state, first to sir Charles Hedges, and in a few months more to the earl of Sunderland. About this time the prevalent taste for Italian operas inclining him to try what would be the effect of a musical drama in our own language; he wrote the opera of Rosajnond, which, when exhibited on the stage, was either hissed or neglected; but, trusting that the readers would do him more justice, he published it, with an inscription to the duchess of Marlborough. His reputation had been somewhat advanced by The Tender Husband, a comedy, which Steele dedicated to him, with a confession that he owed to him several of the most successful scenes. To this play Addison supplied a prologue. When the marquis of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, Addison attended him as his secretary; and was made keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower, with a salary of 300l. a year. The office was little more than nominal, and the salary was augmented for his accommodation. When he was in office, he made a law to himself, as Swift has recorded, never to remit his regular fees in civility to his friends “I may have a hundred friends; and if my fee be two guineas, I shall by relinquishing my right lose 200 guineas, and no friend gain more than two.” He was in Ireland when Steele, without any communication of his design, began the publication of the Tatler; but he was not long concealed: by inserting a remark on Virgil, which Addison had given him, he discovered himself. Steele’s first Tatler was published April 22, 1709, and Addison’s contribution appeared May 26. Tickell observes, that the Tatler began and was concluded without his concurrence. This is doubtless literally true; but the work did not suffer much by his unconsciousness of its commencement, or his absence at its cessation; for he continued his assistance to Dec. 23, and the paper stopped on Jan. 2. He did not distinguish his pieces by any signature.

, an eminent divine of a very ancient family in Cumberland (whose name was de Aguilon, corruptly Aglionby), the son of Edward Aglionby, esq. and Elizabeth Musgrave of Crookdayke, was admitted a student of Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1583. Being elected fellow, he went into orders, and became an eloquent and learned preacher. Afterwards he travelled abroad, and was introduced to the acquaintance of the famous cardinal Bellarmin. On his return he was made chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, and in 1600 took the degree of D. D. About that time he obtained the rectory of Islip, near Oxford, and in 1601 was elected principal of St. Edmund’s hall. He was likewise chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and, according to Wood, had a considerable share in the translation of the New Testament ordered by the king in 1604. The Biog. Brit, says, that Wood mentions no authority for this assertion; but Wood, in his Annals, gives his name among the other Oxford divines who were to translate the Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse. Dr. Aglionby died at Islip, Feb. 6, 1609-10, aged fortythree, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church. He was eminent for his learning, deeply read in the Fathers, and a distinguished critic in the languages. His son George Aglionby was eighth dean of Canterbury, byappointment of Charles I. but was never installed, nor reaped any advantage by it, as the parliament had then (1642) seized on the profits of those capitular bodies, which were within the power of their arms, and he survived his nomination but a few months, dying at Oxford Nov. 1643, aged forty. From this family probably descended William Aglionby, a gentleman of polite learning, who was envoy from Queen Anne to the Swiss Cantons, and author of a book entitled “Painting illustrated, in three dialogues, with the lives of the most eminent painters from Cimabue to Raphael,” Lond. 1685, 4to. In Macky’s Characters (really written by Mr. Davis, an officer in the customs) he is thus spoken of “He has abundance of wit, and understands most of the languages well knows how to tell a story to the best advantage; but has an affected manner of conversation is thin, splenetic, and tawny complexioned, turned of sixty years old;” to which Swift added in manuscript, “He had been a Papist.” In a collection of letters published some years ago, there are several from Dr. William Aglionby, F. R. S. dated from 1685 to 1691, principally written from different parts of the continent, and probably by the same person, who is styled Doctor in Swift’s Works.

His poems, published soon after his death in 4to and 8vo, consist of the “Pleasures of Imagination,” two books of “Odes,” a Hymn to the Naiads, and some Inscriptions. “The Pleasures of Imagination,” as before observed, was first published in 1744; and a very extraordinary production it was, from a man who had not reached his 23d year. He was afterwards sensible, however, that it wanted revision and correction, and he went on revising and correcting it for several years; but finding this task to grow upon his hands, and despairing of ever executing it to his own satisfaction, he abandoned the purpose of correcting, and resolved to write the poem over anew upon a somewhat different and enlarged plan. He finished two books of his new poem, a few copies of which were printed for the use of the author and certain friends; of the first book in 1757, of the second in 1765. He finished also a good part of a third book, and an introduction to a fourth; but his most munificent and excellent friend, conceiving all that is executed of the new work, too inconsiderable to supply the place, and supersede the republication of the original poem, and yet too valuable to be withheld from the public, has caused them both to be inserted in the collection of his poems. Dr. Akenside, in this work, it has been said, has done for the noble author of the “Characteristics,” what Lucretius did for Epicurus formerly; that is, he has displayed and embellished his philosophic system, that system which has the first-beautiful and the first-good for its foundation, with all the force of poetic colouring; but, on the other hand, it has been justly objected that his picture of man is unfinished. The immortality of the soul is not once hinted throughout the poem. With regard to its merit as a poem, Dr. Johnson has done ample justice to it, while he speaks with more severity of his other poems. It is not easy to guess, says that eminent critic, why he addicted himself so diligently to lyric poetry, having neither the ease and airiness of the lighter, nor the vehemence and elevation of the grander ode. We may also refer the reader to an elegant criticism prefixed by Mrs. Barbauld to an ornamented edition of the “Pleasures of Imagination,” 12mo, 1795.

Such is the account that has been commonly given of this extraordinary man. We shall now advert to some circumstances upon which modern research has thrown a new light. All the accounts represent Aldhelm as having been a very considerable man for the time in which he lived. It is evident, says Dr, Henry, from his works, which are still extant, that he had read the most celebrated authors of Greece and Rome, and that he was no contemptible critic in the languages in which these authors wrote. In the different seminaries in which he was educated, he acquired such a stock of knowledge, and became so eminent for his literature, not only in England but in foreign countries, that he was resorted to by many persons from Scotland, Ireland, and France. Artville, a prince of Scotland, sent his works to Aldhelm to be examined by him, and entreated him to give them their last polish, by rubbing off their Scotch rust. Besides the instructions which Aldhelm received from Maildulphus, in France and Italy, he had part of his education, and as it would seem the most considerable part, at Canterbury, under Theodore, archbishop of that city, and Adrian, the most learned professor of the sciences, who had ever been in England. The ardour with which he prosecuted his studies at that place, is well represented in a letter written by him to Hedda, bishop of Winchester; which letter also gives a good account of the different branches of knowledge in the cultivation of which he was then engaged. These were, the Roman jurisprudence, the rules of verses ard the musical modulation of words and syllables, the doctrine of the seven divisions of poetry, arithmetic, astronomomy, and astrology. It is observable, that Aldhelm speaks in very pompous terms of arithmetic, as a high and difficult attainment: though it is now so generally taught, as not to be reckoned a part of a learned education. In opposition to what has been commonly understood, that Aldhelm was the first of the Saxons who taught his countrymen the art of Latin versification, Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, informs us, that Conringius, a very intelligent antiquary in this sort of literature, mentions an anonymous Latin poet, who wrote the life of Charlemagne in verse, and adds that he was the first of the Saxons that attempted to write Latin verse. But it ought to have been recollected, that Aldhelm died above thirty years before Charlemagne was born. Aldhelm’s Latin compositions, whether in prose or verse, as novelties, were deemed extraordinary performances, and excited the attention and adruiration of scholars in other countries. His skill in music has obtained for hhn a considerable place in sir John Hawkins’s History of Music.

, a German classical scholar critic, was born at Englesberg, in Silesia, in 1749, and died at Vienna March 29, 1804. He entered the society of the Jesuits, and was Greek teacher in the school of St. Anne, and the academy of Vienna, until his death. He has published two hundred and fifty volumes and dissertations, the titles of which are given in J. G. Meusel’s Allemagne Savante. One of his principal publications was “Novum Testamentum, ad codicem Vindobonensem Græce expressum: varietatem lectionis addidit Franc. C. Alter.” vol. I. 1786, vol. II. 1787, 8vo. The groundwork of this edition is the codex Lambecii in the imperial library at Vienna, with which the author has collated other manuscripts in that library, and the Coptic, Sclavonic, and Latin versions; the latter from the valuable fragments of the Vulgate, anterior to that of Jerome. It is thought that he would have succeeded better, if he had adopted as a basis the text of Wetstein or Griesbach, and if he had been more fortunate in arranging his materials. The merits of this edition are examined, with his usual acuteness, by Dr. Herbert Marsh in his supplement to Michaelis’s introduction to the New Testament. Of Alter’s other works, those in most esteem abroad are: 1. A German translation of Harwood’s View of the various editions of the Classics, with notes, Vienna, 1778, 8vo. 2. Various readings from the manuscripts in the imperial library, which he used in the editions printed at Vienna, of Lysias, 1785; Ciceroni’s Qusest. Acad. Tusc. 1780, 8vo; Lucretius, 1787, 8vo; Homeri Ilias, 1789—1790, 2 vols.; also with various readings from the Palatine library; Homeri Odyssea and min. poem. 1794. 3. Some of Plato’s Dialogues, 1784, 8vo. 4. Thucydides, 1785, 8vo. 5. The Greek Chronicle of George Phranza or Phranzes, not before printed, Vienna, 1796, fol. 6. Notices on the Literary history of Georgia, in German, 1798, 8vo. His numerous essays and dissertations, which are upon curious and recondite subjects, illustrations of Oriental and Greek manuscripts, &c. have appeared in the German literary journals at various periods, particularly in the Memorabilien of M. Paulus, and the Allg. Litt. Anzeiger da Leipzig.

were brothers who flourished in the early part of the sixteenth century, and distinguished themselves as men of letters. The place of their birth was Oderzo, a city of the Venetian territory. Hieronyrnus, the elder, united in his own person the characters of a skilful physician and a pleasing poet. His Latin poems are in general written in a style of singular elegance and purity. The celebrated French critic and commentator, Marc-Antoine Muret, in his correspondence with Lambin, classes them among the best productions of the Italians, in that species of composition. In poems of the light and epigrammatic kind, he particularly excelledThis learned man is also much commended for his urbanity of manners, and the suavity of his disposition. He cultivated his talent for poetry at an advanced age with undiminished spirit, as appears in his verses to his friend Melchior, notwithstanding the complaint they breathe of decaying powers. He died at the place of his nativity, in 1574, in his sixty-eighth year. His fellow-citizens are said to have inscribed an epitaph on his tomb, in which they represent him as another Apollo, equally skilled in poesy and the healing art. His poems, together with those of his brothers, were first collected and published entire by Hieronymns Aleander, at Venice, in the year 1627, and afterwards by Graevius with those of Sannazarius at Amsterdam in 1689.

, the son of Aristocles of Lampsacus, an orator, was the disciple of Diogenes the cynic, and of Zoilus of Amphipolis, the absurd critic on Homer. He was preceptor to Alexander of Macedon, and followed him to the wars. When the king was incensed against the people of Lampsacus, because they had taken the part of the Persians, and threatened them with grievous punishments, he saved them by a trick. The people, in danger of losing their wives, children, and country, sent Anaxixnenes to intercede for them, and Alexander knowing the cause of his coming, swore by the gods, that he would do the very reverse of what he desired of him. Upon this Anaximenes said to him, “Grant me the favour, O king, to enslave the wives and children of the people of Lampsacus, to burn their temples, and lay their city even with the ground.”, Alexander, not being able to retract his oath, pardoned Lampsacus against his will. Anaximenes revenged himself on his enemy Theopompus the son of Damostratus in a manner not much to his credit. Being a sophist, and able to imitate the style of sophists, he wrote a book against the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, carefully framing a railing story, and setting the name of Theopompus to it, sent it to those cities. Hence arose an universal hatred of Theopompus throughout all Greece. Anaximenes is said to be the inventor of speaking ex tempore, according to Suidas, although it is not easy to comprehend what he means by that being an invention. He wrote the lives of Philip and Alexander, and twelve books on the early history of Greece, but none of these have descended to us.

, or more properly Andrea Del Sarto, so called from his father’s trade, that of a tailor, but whose family name was Venucci, was born at Florence in 1488, and at first instructed in his art by Barile, a mean painter, with whom he spent three years, at the end of which Barile placed him with Peter Cosimo, then accounted one of the best painters in Italy. Under him, he made astonishing proficiency, and his abilities began to be acknowledged, but Cosimo' s morose temper obliged him to leave him, and seek instruction in the works of other artists. As he had, while with Cosimo, employed himself in designing after Vinci, Raphael, and Buonaroti, to whose works he had access at Florence, he persisted in the same practice, formed an admirable taste, and excelled his young rivals at home or abroad, in correctness, colouring, and knowledge of his art. Having contracted a friendship with Francesco Bigio, they determined to live together, and painted a great many works in the churches and convents of Florence, jointly, but Andrea’s reputation began to predominate, and seemed fixed by his representation of the preaching of St. John, executed for the Carmelites at Florence. Some time after this, he went to Rome to study the models of art in that city, but it is thought he did not remain there long enough to reap all the benefit which he might. The excellence of his pencil, and his power of imitation, were remarkably displayed in the copy he made of Leo X. between cardinal Medici and cardinal Rom, the head and hands by Raphael, and the draperies by Julio Romano. The imitation was so exact, that Julio, after the most minute inspection, and being told that it was a copy, could not distinguish it from the original. His superior talents might have raised him to opulence, if his imprudence had not reduced him to shame and poverty. The French king, Francis I. who was extremely partial to his works, invited him to his court, defrayed the expences of his journey, and made him many valuable presents. For a portrait, only, of the Dauphin, an infant, he received tjjree hundred crowns of gold, and he painted many other pictures for the court and nobility, for which he was liberally rewarded. While employed on a picture of St. Jerome, for the queen dowager, he received letters from his wife, soliciting his return to Florence, and, to indulge her, of whom he was excessively fond, he asked, and obtained a few months absence. It was on this occasion that the king, confiding in his integrity, made him several princely presents, and intrusted him with large sums of money to purchase statues, paintings, &c.; but Andrea instead of executing his commission, squandered away not only his own, but the money intrusted to him, became poor, and despised, and at last died of the plague, in his forty-second year, abandoned by his wife, and by all those friends who had partaken of his extravagance. His principal works were at Florence, but there were formerly specimens in many of the palaces and churches of Italy and France. All the biographers and critics of painters, except perhaps Baldinucci, have been lavish in their praises of Andrea. Mr. Fuseli, in his much improved edition of Pilkington, observes, that, on comparing the merits of his works, they seem to have obtained their full share of justice. As a Tuscan, says that judicious critic, the suavity of his tone, and facility of practice, contrast more strikingly with the general austerity and elaborate pedantry of that school, and gain-him greater praise than they would, had he been a Bolognese or Lombard. It cannot, however, be denied, that his sweetness sometimes borders on insipidity; the modesty, or rather pusillanimity of his character, checked the full exertion of his powers; his faults are of the negative kind, and defects rather than, blemishes. He had no notions of nature beyond the model, and concentrated all female beauty in his Lucrezia (his wife), and if it be true that he sacrificed his fortune and Francis I. to her charms, she must at least have equalled in form and feature his celebrated Madonna del Sacco; hence it was not unnatural that the proportions of Albert Durer should attract him more than those of Michael Angelo. His design and his conceptions, which seldom rose above the sphere of common or domestic life, kept pace with each other; here his observation was acute, and his ear open to every whisper of social intercourse or emotion. The great peculiarity, perhaps the great prerogative, of Andrea appears to be that parallelism of composition, which distinguishes the best of his historical works, seemingly as natural, obvious, and easy, as inimitable. In solemn effects, in alternate balance of action and repose, he excels all the moderns, and if he was often unable to conceive the actors themselves, he gives them probability and importance, by place and posture. Of costume he was ignorant, but none ever excelled, and few approached him in breadth, form, and style of that drapery which ought to distinguish solemn, grave, or religious subjects.

To this account of Apelles, taken principally from Bayle, it may be necessary to add the opinion of a very superior critic, who observes, that “The name of Apelles in Pliny is the synonime of unrivalled and unattainable excellence, but the enumeration of his works points out the modiiication which we ought to apply to that superiority: it neither comprises exclusive sublimity of invention, the most acute discrimination of character, the widest sphere of comprehension, the most judicious and best balanced composition, nor the deepest pathos of expression: his great prerogative consisted more in the unison than in the extent of his powers: he knew better what he could do, what ought to be done, at what point he could arrive, and what lay beyond his reach, than any other artist. Grace of conception and refinement of taste were his elements, and went hand in hand with grace of execution and taste in finish, powerful and seldom possessed singly, irresistible when united: that he built both on the firm basis of the former system, not on its subversion, his well-known contest of lines with Protogenes, not a legendary tale, but a well-attested fact, irrefragably proves; what those lines were, drawn with nearly miraculous subtlety in different colours, one upon the other, or rather within each other, it would be equally unavailing and useless to inquire; but the corollaries we may deduce from the contest, are obviously these: that the schools of Greece recognized all one elemental principle; that acuteness and fidelity of eye and obedience of hand form precision, precision proportion, proportion beauty: that it is the `little more or less’ imperceptible to vulgar eyes, which constitutes grace, and establishes the superiority of one artist over another; that the knowledge of the degrees of things, or taste, presupposes a perfect knowledge of the things themselves: that colour, grace, and taste, are ornaments, not substitutes of form, expression, and character, and when they usurp that title, degenerate into splendid faults. Such were the principles on which Apelles formed his Venus, or rather the personification of the birthday of love, the wonder of art, the despair of artists; whose outline baffled every attempt at emendation, whilst imitation shrunk from the purity, the force, the brilliancy, the evanescent gradations of her tints.”

, a celebrated grammarian of Athens, flourished in the 169th Olympiad, or about 104 years before the Christian aera, under the reign of Plotemy Euergetes, king of Egypt. He was the son of Asclepiades, and the disciple of Aristarchus the grammarian, and of the philosopher Panaetius. He composed a very voluminous work on the origin of the gods, of which Harpocration has quoted the sixth book, Macrobius the fourteenth, and Hermolaus the seventeenth. Besides this work he wrote a “Chronicle,” a “Treatise on legislators,” another “on the philosophical sects,” and others which we find mentioned in the writings of the ancients. There is, however, only now extant, an abridgement of his book on the origin of the gods, Rome, 1555, and Antwerp, 1565, of which M. le Fevre of Saumur (Tanaquil Faber), published a Latin ' translation, under the title of “Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecse, sive de Diis, libri tres,” Imperfect as this abridgement is, it is very useful in illustrating fabulous history. It commences with Inachus, and comes down to Theseus, prince of Athens, consequently comprising the space of 622 years, from A. M. 2177 to A. M. 2799. But we owe a very superior edition to the labours of that eminent classical scholar and critic, Heyne, who published in 1782, “Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecae Libri tres. Ad codd. Mss. fidem recensiti,” Gottingen, 8vo, and the following year, “Ad Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecam Notae, cum commentatione de Apollodoro argumento et consilio operis et cum Apollodori fragmentis,” ibid. 2 vols. 8vo. Four years before the first of these publications, Mr. Heyne gave a course of lectures on Apollodorus, which became very popular and interesting to young scholars. At the commencement of this undertaking, he found that the editions of Apollodorus were very scarce, and Gale’s, although the best, yet very inaccurate. He determined therefore to publish one himself, in executing which he was assisted by three manuscripts, one formerly belonging to Dorville, a second prepared for the press by Gerard James Vanswinden, and a third in the king’s library at Paris. None of his works do Heyne more credit, and his notes are highly valuable and entertaining to students of mythology.

Of late years his reputation has rather increased in this country. Mr. Hayley has bestowed great praise on him. “His poems,” says this excellent critic, “abound in animated description, and in passages of the most tender and pathetic beauty. How finely painted is the first setting forth of the Argo! and how beautifully is the wife of Chiron introduced, holding up the little Achilles in her arms, and shewing him to his father Peleus as he sailed along the shore! But the chief excellence in our poet, is the spirit and delicacy with which he has delineated the passion of love in his Medea. That Virgil thought very highly of his merit in this particular, is sufficiently evident from the minute exactness with which he has copied many tender touches of the Grecian poet.” The best editions of Apollonius are those printed at Oxford in 4to, by Dr. John Shaw, fellow of Magdalen college, 1777, and by the same in. 8vo, 1779, that of Brunck, Argeritora, 1780, 4to and 8vo; that of Flangini; Rome, 4to, 1794, and of Beck, Leipsic, 1797, 2 vols. 8vo. The princeps editio is a quarto, dated Florent. 1496, a copy of which sold at the Pinelli sale for seventeen guineas. Several English poets have contended for the honour of transfusing the heauties of Apollonius into our language. Dr. Broome published many years ago, the Loves of Jason and Medea, and the story of Talus. Mr. West also published some detached pieces. In 1771, Mr. Ekins translated the third Book of the Argonautics, and a part of the fourth, 4to, with very valuable preliminary matter. In 1780, two translations of the Argonautics appeared, the one, a posthumous work of Fawkes, the other by Edward Burnaby Green; and in 1803, another translation was published in 3 vols. 12mo, by Mr. Preston.

A little after, he was appointed minister of Arbuthnot and Logy-Buchan. The year following, viz. 1569, on a visitation of the King’s College at Aberdeen, Mr. Alexander Anderson, principal, Mr. Andrew Galloway, sub-principal, and three regents, were deprived. Their sentence was published on the third of July, and immediately Mr. Arbuthnot was made principal of that college. He was a member also of the general assembly which sat at St. Andrew’s in 1572, when a certain scheme of church-government was proposed and called the Book of Policy, an invention of some statesmen, to restore the old titles in the church, but with a purpose to retain all the temporalities formerly annexed to them, amongst themselves. The assemhly, being apprized of this, appointed the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and nineteen other commissioners, of whom Mr. Arbuthnot was one, to confer with the regent in his council; but these conferences either came to nothing, or, which is more probable, were never held. In the general assembly which met at Edinburgh the sixth of August 1573, Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot was chosen moderator. In the next assembly, which met at Edinburgh the sixth of March 1574, he was named one of the commissioners for settling the jurisdiction of the church, which seems to be no more than had been before done about the book of policy. This business required much time and pains, but at last some progress was made therein, and a plan of jurisdiction proposed. In the general assembly, which met at Edinburgh the first of April 1577, he was again chosen moderator. At this time the assembly were persuaded, upon some specious pretences, to appoint a certain number of their members to confer in the morning with their moderator, in order to prepare business. This committee had the name of the Congregation, and in a short time all matters of importance came to be treancd there, and the assembly had little to do but to approve their resolutions. At the close of this assembly, Mr. Arbuthnot, with other commissioners, was appointed to confer with the regent, on the plan of church policy before mentioned. In the general assembly held at Edinburgh the twenty-fifth of October 1578, he was again appointed of the committee for the same purpose, and in the latter end of the year, actually conferred with several noblemen, and other laycommissioners, on that important business. In 1582, Mr. Arbuthnot published Buchanan’s History of Scotland, in which, though he acted only as an editor, yet it procured him a great deal of ill-will, and in all probability gave his majesty king James VI. a bad impression of him. The practice of managing things in congregation still subsisting, the king forbad Mr. Arbuthnot to leave his college at Aberdeen, that he might not be present in the assembly, or direct, as he was used to do, those congregations which directed that great body. This offended the ministers very much, and they did not fail to remonstrate upon it to the king, who, however, remained firm. What impression this might make upon Mr. Arbuthnot’s mind, a very meek and humble man, assisting others at their request, and not through any ambition of his own, is uncertain; but a little after he began to decline in his health, and on the 20th of October 1583, departed this life in the forty -fifth year of his age, and was buried in the college church of Aberdeen. His private character was very amiable: he was learned without pedantry, and a great encourager of learning in youth, easy and pleasant in conversation, had a good taste in poetry, was well versed in philosophy and the mathematics, eminent as a lawyer, no less eminent as a divine; neither wanted he considerable skill in physic. In his public character he was equally remarkable for his moderation and abilities, which gained him such a reputation, as drew upon him many calls for advice, which made kim at last very uneasy. As principal of the college of Aberdeen, he did great service to the church in particular, and to his country in general, by bringing over many to the former, and reviving that spirit of literature which was much decayed in the latter. These employments took up so much of his time, that we have nothing of his writing, except a single book printed at Edinburgh, in 4to, 1572, under this title, “Orationes de origine et dignitate Juris;” “Orations on the origin and dignity of the Law.” It was esteemed a very learned and elegant performance, as appears by a fine copy of Latin yerses on its publication, by Mr. Thomas Maitland, who was equally admired as a poet and a critic. Arbuthnot’s countryman and contemporary, Andrew Melvil, wrote an elegant epitaph on him, (Delit. Poet. Scot. vol. II. p. 120.) which alone would have been sufficient to preserve his memory, and gives a very just idea of his character.

, a celebrated grammarian, who flourished 160 years B. C. was born in Samothracia, but chose Alexandria for the place of his residence. He was highly esteemed by Ptolemy Philometor, who intrusted him with the education of his son. He applied himself much to criticism, and made a revisal of Homer’s poems with great exactness, but without the equity or impartiality of critic cism, for such verses as he did not like he treated as spurious. He marked these with the figure of a dart, uStbixe: whence othieiv was used for to condemn in general. Some have said, that he'never would publish any thing, for fear of giving the world an opportunity of retorting upon him; but others assure us that he published several works. Cicero and Horace have used his name to express a very rigid critic, and it is employed to this day for the same purpose, but not without opprobrium, derived partly from himself, and perhaps yet more from the manner of modern verbal critics. Growing dropsical, he found no other remedy than to starve himself to death. Suidas relates, that he died in Cyprus, aged seventy-two. Villoison, in his edition of the Iliad, has afforded the moderns an opportunity of appreciating the value of Aristarchus’ s criticisms on Homer, as well as those of the first editors of that immortal bard.

In 1746, he was appointed one of the physicians to the hospital for lame and sick soldiers behind Buckinghamhouse. In 1751, he published his poem on “Benevolence,” in folio, a production which seems to come from the heart, and contains sentiments which could have been expressed with equal ardour only by one who felt them. His “Taste, an epistle to a young critic,” 1733, is a lively and spirited imitation of Pope, and the first production in which our author began to view men and manners with a splenetic eye. In 1758, he published “Sketches, or essays on various subjects,” under the fictitious name of Lancelot Temple, esq. In some of these he is supposed to have been assisted by the celebrated John Wilkes, with whom he lived in habits of intimacy. What Mr. Wilkes contributed we are not told, but this gentleman, with all his moral failings, had a more chaste classical taste, and a purer vein of humour than we find in these sketches, which are deformed by a perpetual flow of affectation, a struggle to say smart things, and above all a most disgusting repetition of vulgar oaths and exclamations. This practice, so unworthy of a gentleman or a scholar, is said to have predominated in Dr. Armstrong’s conversation, and is not unsparingly scattered through all his works, with the exception of his “Art of preserving Health.” It incurred the just censure of the critics of his day, with whom, for this reason, he could never be reconciled.

, a learned critic, was born at Franeker, Sept. 16, 1711, of a family who were French refugees. His father, Honort; d'Arnaud, was chosen, in 1728, pastor of the French church at Franeker, and was living in 1763. His son, the subject of this article, published, at the age of twelve, some very elegant and harmonious Greek and Latin poems, and went afterwards to study at the university of Franeker, under the celebrated Wesseling and Hemsterhuis. Encouraged by the latter, he publisaed in 1728, “Specimen Animad. criticarum ad aliquot scriptores Greecos, &c.” 8vo. Harling. The authors are, Anacreon, Callimachus, Æschylus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and the grammarian Hephestion. Two years after he produced another volume of criticisms, under the title of “Lectionum Grsecarum libriduo, &c.” 8vo, Hague, 1730, treating principally of Hesychius, Aratus, Theon, Appian, and Apollonius Rhodius. In 1732, appeared his learned dissertation, “De Diis adsessoribus et conjunctis,” 8vo, Hague. About the same time he went to Leyden to examine the library there for materials towards an edition of Sophocles, which he was preparing, but never completed. On his return to Franeker, his friend Hemsterhuis advised him to study law; his own inclination was to divinity, but a disorder in his chest rendered it improbable that he could have sustained the exertion of preaching. Abraham Weiling was his tutor in law studies, and under him he defended a thesis, Oct. 9, 1734, “De jure servorum apud Romanos,” and discovered so much talent and erudition, that in the month of June, next year, he was appointed law reader. In 1738, his “Variarum conjecturarum libri duo” were published at Franeker, 4to. They consist of disquisitions and questions on civil law. The second edition of 1744, Leu warden, contains his thesis above mentioned, and a second on a curious subject, “De iis qui prætii pariicipandi caussa semet venundari patiuntur.” In 1739, on Weiling’s leaving the university of Franeker for that of Leyden, d'Arnaud was appointed professor in his room, but died before he could take possession, June 1, 1740, scarcely twenty-nine years of age. Besides the works already enumerated, from the pen of this extraordinary young man, there are several lesser pieces by him in the 4th, 5th, and 6th vols. of the “Miscellaneæ Observat.” of Amsterdam; and he left in manuscript a dissertation on the family of Scievola, “Vitæ Scævolarum,” which was published by H. J. Arntzenius, at Utrecht, 1767, 8vo. His funeral eulogium was pronounced by Hemsterhuis, and is in the collection entitled, “T. Hemsterhusii et Valckenarii Orationes,” Leyden, 1784, 8vo.

, a musical critic, who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a native of Bologna, and a canon-regular of the congregation del Salvatore. Though he is ranked only among the minor writers on music, yet if his merit and importance are estimated by the celebrity and size of his volumes, he certainly deserves the attention of students and collectors of musical tracts. In his “Arte del Contrappunto ridotta in tavole,” published at Venice, in 1586, he has admirably analyzed and compressed the voluminous and diffused works of Zarlino and other anterior writers on musical composition, into a compendium, in a manner almost as clear and geometrical as M. d'Alembert has abridged the theoretical works of Rameau. In 1589, he published a second part of his “Arte del Contrappunto,” which is a oseful and excellent supplement to his former compendium. And in 1600, and 1603, this intelligent writer published at Venice, the first and second part of another work, “Delle Imperfettioni della moderna musica,” in which he gives a curious account of the state of instrumental music in his time, and strongly inveighs against the innovations then attempted by Monteverde. The time of Artusi’s decease is not known.

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, Dec. 12, 1724, embraced the clerical profession, and obtained the chair of the professor of belles lettres in the college of Rouen. The bishop of Lescar No6 made him his grand vicar, and usually called him his grand vicar in partibus Atheniensium, in allusion to his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, from which he had made translations of the greater part of the orators, with much purity. He was received into the academy of Inscriptions, where he was much esteemed for his learning and personal virtues. He lived, it is said, among the great, and told them truth, and to his opponents was remarkable for canckmr and urbanity. In his private character he appears to have been distinguished for a love of letters, and an independent and philosophic spirit which kept him from soliciting patronage or preferment. He died Feb. 7, 1791. His principal works were, “The Orations of Demosthenes and Eschines on the crown,” Rouen,. 1768, 12mo; “The whole works of Demosthenes and Eschines,” 6 vols. 8vo, 1777 and 1788. This is accompanied with remarks upon the genius and productions of these two great orators, with critical notes on the Greek text, a preliminary discourse concerning eloquence; a treatise on the jurisdiction and laws of Athens and other pieces, relative to Grecian laws and literature, which have great merit. His countrymen, however, do not speak highly of his translations, as conveying the fire and spirit of the original. They say he is exact and faithful, but cold. In 1781 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Isocrates.” This is thought preferable to the former, yet still the French critics considered the translator as better acquainted with Greek than French the truth perhaps is, that the French language is less capable of receiving the fire and sublimity of the great orators than those critics are willing to suspect. In 1783 he published the “Works of Lysias,” 8vo; in 1785 “The homilies, discourses, and letters ef S. John Chrysostom,” 4 vols. 8vo; in 1787, “Select orations of Cicero,” in 3 vols. 8vo; in 1788, “Orations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and the works of Xenophon,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1789, he published “Projet d' Education Publique” at least such is the title of the work, but we suspect it to be a re-publication of some “Discourses on Education, delivered in the Royal college at Rouen, to which are subjoined, Reflections upon Friendship,” which appeared first in 1775, and were commended for their spirit, taste, and judgment. Some political works were published in his name after his death, and a piece entitled De la Tragedie Grecque,“1792, 8vo. To his works also may be added an edition of” Isocrates, in Gr. and Lat." 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to, a very beautiful book. As an editor and critic, he discovers, in all his editions, much taste and judgment; but perhaps his countrymen do him no injury in supposing that the latter in general predomU nated.

In 1783 Mr. Ayscough published a small political pamphlet, entitled “Remarks on the Letters of an American Farmer or, a detection of the errors of Mr. J. Hector St. John pointing out the pernicious tendency of those letters to Great Britain.” But among his more useful labours must be particularly distinguished his “Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the British Museum, hitherto unclescribed, consisting of five thousand volumes, including the collections of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and the Rev. Thoraas Birch, D. D. and about five hundred volumes bequeathed, presented, or purchased at various times” 2 vqls 1782, 4to. This elaborate catalogue is upon a new plan, for the excellence of which an appeal may safely be made to every visitor of the Museum since the date of its publication. Mr. Ayscough assisted afterwards in the catalogue of printed books, 2 vols. folio, 1787, of which about twothirds were compiled by Dr. Maty and Mr. Harper, and the remainder by Mr. Ayscough. He was also, at the time of his death, employed in preparing* a new catalogue of the printed books, and had completed a catalogue of the ancient charters in the Museum, amounting to about sixteen thousand. As an index-maker his talents are well known by the indexes he made for the Monthly Review, the Gentleman’s Magazine, the British Critic, &c. and especially by a verbal index to Shakspeare, a work of prodigious labour. It remains to be* added, that his knowledge of topographical antiquities was very considerable, and that perhaps no man, in so short a space of time, emerging too from personal difficulties, and contending with many disadvantages, ever acquired so much general knowledge, or knew how to apply it to more useful purposes. The leading facts in this sketch are taken from the Gentleman’s Magazine for December 1804. To that miscellany, we believe, he was a very frequent contributor, and what he wrote was in a style which would not have discredited talents of which the world has a higher opinion.

, an eminent lawyer and critic, was born in 1721 at Hohendorp, and sent in his twelfth year to Leipsic, where he was educated under Gesner and Ernest, who was particularly fond of him, and encouraged his studies with a fatherly care. Having gone through a course of classical learning, philosophy, and mathematics, he applied to the study of law, and in 1750, he was created doctor in that faculty and professor of law, to which in 1753, was added the place of ecclesiastical assessor at Leipsic. All these offices he discharged with the highest public reputation and personal esteem, but was cut off by a premature death in 1756. He was a man of extensive learning, critically acquainted with Greek and Latin, and well versed in history and antiquities. His principal publications were, 1. “Dissertatio de Mysteriis Eleusinis,” Leipsic, 1745, 4to. 2. “Divus Trajanus, sive de legibus Trajani cornmentarius,” 1747, 8vo. 3. “Historia jurisprudent! Romany, 1754, 8vo. 4.” Xenophontis Oeconomicum,“1749, 8vo. 5.” JBrissonius de formulis,“1754, fol. 6.” Bergeri qeconomia Juris,“1755, 4tq. 7.” Opuscula ad historian! etjurisprudentiam spectantia," collected and published by Christ. Adolph. Klotz, Halle, 1767, 8vo.

, an eminent French critic, was born at Neuville near Beauvais in Picardy, June 13, 1649. His father, who was poor, and unable to give him a learned education, sent him to a small school in the neighbourhood, where he soon learned all that was taught there, and desirous of more, went frequently to a neighbouring convent, where, by his assiduities in performing little menial offices, he ingratiated himself with them, and by their interest was presented to the bishop of Beauvais. The bishop placed him in the college or seminary of that name, where he studied the classics with unwearied assiduity, borrowing books from his friends, and it is even said he took money privately from his father, in order to buy books. In the course of his reading, which was accurate and even- critical, he formed, about the age of seventeen, a commonplace book of extracts, which he called his “Juvenilia,” in two large volumes, very conducive to his own improvement, and afterwards to that of M. de Lamoignon, his patron’s son. He then studied philosophy, but with less relish, his predilection being in favour of history, chronology, and geography; yet in defending Ins philosophical theses, he always proved his capacity to be fully equal to his subject. In 1670 he went to one of those higher seminaries, formerly established by the French bishops for the study of divinity, which he pursued with his usual ardour and success, although here his early taste discovered itself, in his applying with most eagerness to the fathers and councils, as more nearly connected with ecclesiastical history. So intent was he on researches of this kind, that he fancied himself solely qualified for a life of studious retirement, and had a design of going, along with his brother Stephen, to the abbey La Trappe, but this was prevented by the bishop of Beauvai? bestowing upon him, in 1672, the appointment of teacher of the fifth form in the college, from which, in 1674, he was promoted to the fourth. This produced him about sixty pounds a-year, with part of which he assisted his poor relations, and laid out the rest in books, and had made a very good collection when he left the college. Among other employments at his leisure hours he compiled two volumes of notices of authors who had disguised their names, of which the preface only has been published.

, an eminent physician, was the son of the Rev. George Baker, who died in 1743, being then archdeacon and registrar of Totness. He was born in 1722, educated at Eton, and was entered a scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, in July 1742, where he took his degree of B. A. 1745, and M. A. 1749. He then began the study of medicine, and took the degree of doctor in 1756. He first practised at Stamford, but afterwards settled in London, and soon arrived at very extensive practice and reputation, and the highest honours of his faculty, being appointed physician in ordinary to the Jking, and physician to the queen. He was also a fellow of the Royal and Antiquary Societies, created a baronet Aug. 26, 1776, and in 1797 was elected president of the College of Physicians, London. Besides that skill in his profession, and personal accomplishments, which introduced him into the first practice, and secured him a splendid fortune, he was a good classical scholar and critic, and his Latin works are allowed to be written in a chaste and elegant style. He died June 15, 1809, in his eighty-eighth year, after having passed this long life without any of the infirmities from which he had relieved thousands.

, advocate in the parliament of Paris, and member of the French academy, was born at Langres, of poor parents, and drew himself out of obscurity by his talents. He was at first repetiteur in the college of Lisieux. He then applied himself to the bar but his memory having failed him at the outset of his first pleading, he promised never to attempt it again, though it was thought he might have pleaded with success. Colbert having given him charge of fhe education of one of his sons, Barbier lengthened his name by the addition of d'Aucour. But this minister dying without having done any thing for his advancement, he was obliged to return to the bar. Here he acquired great honour by the eloquent and generous defence he made for a certain le Brun, the valet of a lady in Paris, falsely accused of having assassinated his mistress, but this was his last cause. He died Sept. 13, 1694, at the age of 53, of an inflammation of the breast. The deputies of the academy, who went to see hirn in his last sickness, were concerned to find him so badly lodged “It is my comfort,” said he, “and a very great comfort it is, that I leave no heirs of my misery.” The abbe* de Choisi, one of them, having said, “You leave a name that will never die” “Alas, T do not flatter myself on that score,” returned cl'Aucour “if my works should have any sort of value in themselves, I have been wrong in the choice of my subjects. I have dealt only in criticism, which never lasts long. For, if the book criticised should fall into contempt, the criticism falls with it, since it is immediately seen to be useless and if, in spite of the criticism, the book stands it ground, then the criticism is equally forgotten, since it is immediately thought to be unjust.” He was no friend to the Jesuits, and the greater part of his works are against that society, or against the writers of it. That which does him the most honour is entitled “Sentirnens de Cleanthe sur les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene, par le pere Bouhours,” Jesuit, in 12mo. This book has been often quoted, and with good reason, as a model of just and ingenious criticism. D‘Aucour here distributes his bon-mots and his learning, without going too great lengths in his raillery and his quotations. Bouhours was supposed never to have recovered this attack. The abbe Granet gave an edition of this work in 1730, to which he has added two circumstances, which prove that Barbier would have been as good a lawyer as a critic. The other writings of d’Aucour are more frivolous, “Les Gaudinettes, l'Onguent pour la brdlure,” against the Jesuits “Apollon vendeur de Mithridate,” against Racine two satires in miserable poetry. It is not easy to conceive that he could rally Bouhours in so neat, and the others in so coarse a manner. It is said that his antipathy to the Jesuits arose from his being one day in their church, when one of the fathers told him to behave with decency, because locus erat sacer. D'Aucour immediately replied, Si locus est sacrus. This unfortunate blunder was repeated from mouth to mouth. The regents repeated it it was echoed by the scholars and the nickname of Lawyer Sacrus was fixed upon him.

, a very learned divine and antiquary, in the end of the sixteenth, and part, of the seventeenth century, was born in the parish of St. Mary the More, in the city of Exeter, about 1572. He was the second son of Lawrence Barkham, of St. Leonard’s, near that city, by Joan his wife, daughter of Edward Bridgeman of Exeter, a near relation of John Bridgeman, bishop of Chester. In Michaelmas term, 15^7, he was entered a sojourner.of Exeter college in Oxford; and on the 24th of August, the year following, admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college in the same university. He took the degre of B. A. February 5 1590-1, and that of M. A. December 12, 1594. On “the 21st of June, 1596, he was chosen probationer fellow of Corpus Christi college, being then in orders and July 7, 1603, took the degree of B. D. Some time after, he became chaplain to Ric. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury: and, after his death, to George Abbot, his successor in that see. On the llth of June, 1608, he was collated to the rectory of Finchleyin Middlesex, and on the 31st of October, 1610, to the prebend of Brownswood, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the 29th of March, 1615, to the rectory of Packlesham; the 27th of May following to the rectory of Lachingdon and, the 5th of December, 1616, to the rectory and deanery of Bocking, all in the county of Essex. But, in 1617, he resigned Packlesham, as he had done Finchley in 1615. March 14, 1615, he was created D. D. He had great skill and knowledge in most parts of useful learning, being an exact historian, a good herald, an able divine, a curious critic, master of several languages, an excellent antiquarian, and well acquainted with coins and medals, of which he had the best collection of any clergyman in his time. These he gave to Dr. Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, who presented them to the university of Oxford. He died at Bocking, March 25, 1642, and was buried in the chancel of that church. He was a man of strict life and conversation, charitable, modest, and reserved, but above all, exemplary in his duties as a clergyman. Dr. Barkham wrote nothing in his own name, but assisted others in their works, particularly Speed in his history of Great Britain, which that author gratefully acknowledges. In this work Barkham wrote” The life and reign of king John,“one of the most valuable in the book and” The life and reign of king Henry II.“in the same history. He is likewise the author of” The display of Heraldry,“&c. first published at London in 1610, folio, under the name of John Guillim. The learned author having mostly composed it in his younger years, thought it too light a subject for him (who was a grave divine) to own, and gave Guillim the copy, who, adding some trivial things, published it, with the author’s leave, under his own name. He published also Mr. Ric, Crakanthorpe’s book against the archbishop of Spalato, entitled” Defensio Ecclesiie Anglicanee,“Lond. 1625, 4to, with a preface of his own. It is said also that he wrote a treatise on coins, which was never published. Fuller, in his usual, way, says, that he was <fr a greater lover of coins than of money; rather curious in the stamps than covetous for the metal thereof.”

He bad a prodigious readiness in writing and speaking the Greek tongue and he himself tells us in the preface to his Esther, that “he found it much easier to him to write in that language, than* in Latin or even English, since the ornaments of poetry are almost peculiar to the Greeks, and since he had for many years been extremely conversant in Homer, the great father and source of the Greek Poetry However, that his verses were not mere Cantos from that poet, like Dr. Duport’s, but formed, as far as he was able, upon his style and manner since he had no desire to be considered as a rhapsodist of a rhapsody, but was ambitious of the title of a poet.” Dr. Bentley, we are told, used to say of Joshua Barnes, that “he understood as much Greek as a Greek cobler.” This bon mot, which was first related by Dr. Salter of the Charter-house, has been explained by an ingenious writer, as not insinuating, that Barnes had only some knowledge of the Greek language. Greek was so familiar to him that he could offhand have turned a paragraph in a newspaper, or a hawker’s bill, into any kind of Greek metre, and has often been known to do so among his Cambridge friends. But with this uncommon knowledge and facility in that language, being very deficient in taste and judgment, Bentley compared his attainments in Greek, not to the erudition of a scholar, but to the colloquial readiness of a vulgar mechanic. With respect to his learning, it seems agreed that he had read a great many books, retained a great many words, and could write Greek in what is called the Anacreontic measure readily, but was very far from being a judicious or an able critic. If he had some enemies at first, his abuse and vanity did not afterwards lessen their number, though it is probable, more men laughed at, than either envied or hated him. They said he was ovo$ trfo$ *v%<xv 9 Asinus ad Lyram and perhaps it is not the worst thing Barnes ever said in reply, that they who said this of him, had not understanding enough to be poets, or wanted the b vug Ts%Q$ huqav.

, an English artist of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John Barry and Julian Roerden, and was born in Cork, Oct. 11, 1741. His father was a builder, and in the latter part of his life a coasting trader between England and Ireland. James was at first destined to this last business, but as he disliked it, his father suffered him to pursue his inclination, which led him to drawing and reading. His early education he received in the schools at Cork, where he betrayed some symptoms of that peculiar frame of mind which became more conspicuous in his maturer years. His studies were desultory, directed by no regular plan, yet he accumulated a considerable stock of knowledge. As his mother was a zealous Roman Catholic, he fell into the company of some priests, who recommended the study of polemical divinity, and probably all of one class, for this ended in his becoming a staunch Roman Catholic. Although the rude beginnings of his art cannot be traced, there is reason to ^hink that at the age of seventeen he had attempted oil-painting, and between the ages of seventeen and twenty-two he executed a picture, the subject “St. Patrick landing on the sea-coast of Cashell,” which he exhibited in Dublin. This procured him some reputation, and, what was afterwards of much importance, the acquaintance of the illustrious Edmund Burke. During his stay in Dublin, he probably continued to cultivate his art, but no particular work can now be discovered. After a residence of seven or eight months in Dublin, an opportunity offered of accompanying some part of Mr. Burke' s family to London, which he eagerly embraced. This took place in 1764, and on his arrival, Mr. Burke recommended nim to his friends, and procured for him his first employment, that of copying in oil drawings by the Athenian Stuart. In 1765, Mr. Burke and his other friends furnished him with the means of visiting Italy, where he surveyed the noble monuments of art then in that country, with the eye of an acute, and often very just critic, but where, at the same time, his residence was rendered uncomfortable by those unhappy irregularities of temper, which, more or less, obscured all his prospects in life.

, an eminent grammarian and critic, and nephew to the preceding, was born in 1650, at Lanlugan in Shropshire. His education appears to have been more irregular and neglected than that of his uncle, since at the age of eighteen, when he went to Harrow school, he could not read, nor understood one word of any language but Welch, a circumstance very extraordinary at a time when education, if given at all, was given early, and when scholars went to the universities much younger than at present. Mr. Baxter, however, must have retrieved his loss of time with zeal and assiduity, as it is certain he became a man of great learning, although we are unacquainted with the steps by which he attained this eminence, and must therefore employ the remainder of this article principally in an account of his publications. His favourite studies appear to have been antiquities and physiology. His first publication was a Latin Grammar, entitled “I)e Analogia, sive arte Linguae Latinse Comrnentariolus, &c. in usum provectioris adolescentise,” 1679, 12mo. In 1695, he published his well-known edition of “Anacreon,” afterwards reprinted in 1710, with improvements, but those improvements are said to have been derived from Joshua Barnes’s edition of 1705. Dr. Harwood calls this edition “an excellent one,” but, according to Hades and Fischer, Baxter has been guilty of unjustifiable alterations, and has so mutilated passages, that his temerity must excite the indignation of every sober scholar and critic. Mr. Boswell, in his Life of Dr. Johnson, mentions a copy of Baxter’s edition, which his father, lord Auckinlech, had collated with the ms. belonging to the university of Leytlen, accompanied by a number of notes. This copy is probably still in the library of that venerable judge.

, LL. D. an eminent philosopher, critic, and poet, was born at Laurencekirk, in the county of Kincardine, Scotland, on the 25th day of October, 1735. His father, who was a farmer of no considerable rank, is said to have had a turn for reading and fur versifying; but, as he died in 1742, when his son was only seven years of age, could have had no great share in forming his mind. James was sent early to the only school his birth-place afforded, where he passed his time under the instructions of a tutor named Milne, whoin he used to represent as a “good grammarian, and tolerably skilled in the Latin language, but destitute of taste, as well as of some other qualifications essential to a good teacher.” He is said to have preferred Ovid as a school-author, whom Mr. Beattie afterwards gladly exchanged for Virgil. Virgil he had been accustomed to read with great delight in Ogi ivy’s and Dryden'g translations, as he did Homer in that of Pope; and these, with Thomson’s Seasons, and Milton’s Paradise Lost, of all which he was very early fond, probably gave him that taste for poetry which he afterwards cultivated with so much success. He was already, according to his biographer, inclined to making verses, and among his schoolfellows went by the name of The Poet.

Mr. Warton justly observes, that Beda’s knowledge, if we consider his age, was extensive and profound: and it is amazing, in so rude a period, and during a life of no considerable length, he should have made so successful a progress, and such rapid improvements, in scientifical and philological studies, and have composed so many elaborate treatises on different subjects. It is diverting to see the French critics censuring Be da for credulity: they might as well have accused him of superstition. There is much perspicuity and facility in his Latin style: but it is void of elegance, and often of purity; it shews with what grace and propriety he would have written, had his mind been formed on better models. Whoever looks for digestion of materials, disposition of parts, and accuracy of narration, in this writer’s historical works, expects what could not exist at that time. He has recorded but few civil transactions: but, besides that his history professedly considers ecclesiastical affairs, we should remember, that the building of a church, the preferment of an abbot, the canoniza T tion of a martyr, and the importation into England of the shin-bone of an apostle, were necessarily matters qf m,uch more importance in Bede’s conceptions than victories or revolutions. He is fond of minute description; but particularities are the fault and often the merit of early historians. The first catalogue of Beda’s works, as vye liare before observed, we have from himself, at the end of his Ecclesiastical history, which contains all he had written before the year 731. This we find copied by Leland, who also mentions some other pieces he had met with of Beda’s, and points out likewise several that passed under his name, though in his judgment spurious. John Bale, in the first edition of his book, which he finished in 1548, mentions ninety-six treatises written by Beda; and in his last edition he swells these* to one hundred and forty-five tracts; and declares at the close of both his catalogues, that there were numberless pieces of our author’s besides, which he had not seen. Pits, according to his usual custom, has much enlarged even this catalogue; though, to do him justice, he appears to have taken great pains in drawing up this article, and mentions the libraries in which many of these treatises were to be found. The catalogues given by Trithemius, Dempster, and others, are much inferior to these. Several of Beda’s books were printed very early, and, for the most part, very incorrectly; but the first general coU lection of his works appeared at Paris in 1544, in three volumes in folio. They were printed again in 1554, at the same place, in eight volumes. They were published in the same size and number of volumes, at Basil, in 1563, reprinted at Cologne in 1612, and lastly at the same place in 1688. A very clear and distinct account of the contents of these volumes, the reader may find in the very learned and useful collection of Casimir Otidin. But the most exact and satisfactory detail of Beda’s life and writings, we owe to that accurate, judicious, and candid Benedictine, John Mabillon. Neither has any critic exerted his skill more effectually than he, though largely, and with copious extracts interspersed. But, perhaps, the easiest, plainest, and most concise representation of Beda’s writings, occurs in the learned Dr. Cave’s “Hist. Literaria,” which has been followed by the editors of the Biog. Britannica.

Mr. Iloscoe, whose researches into the literature of this age, entitle his opinions to great respect, observes that the high commendation bestowed on the writings of Bembo by almost all his contemporaries, have been confirmed by the best critics of succeeding times; nor can it be denied that by selecting as his models Boccaccio and Petrarch, and by combining their excellences with his own correct and elegant taste, he contributed in an eminent degree to banish that rusticity of style, which charactersed the writings of most of the Italian authors at the commencement of the sixteenth century. His authority and example produced an astonishing effect, and among his disciples and imitators may be found many of the first scholars and most distinguished writers of the age. It must, however, be observed, that the merit of his works consists rather in purity and correctness of diction, than in vigour of sentiment or variety of poetical ornament; and that they exhibit but little diversity either of character or subject, having for the most part been devoted to the celebration of an amorous passion. In the perusal of his poetical works we perceive nothing of that genuine feeling, which proceeding from the heart of the author makes a direct and irresistible appeal to that of the reader; and but little even of that secondary characteristic of genius which luxuriates in the regions of fancy, and by its vivid and rapid imagery delights the imagination. In this respect his example wat hurtful, as his numerous imitators soon inundated Italy with writings which seldom exhibit any distinction either of character or merit. It is also thought that in his Latin writings he has too closely followed the ancients; and in his verse as well as his prose, has too often endeavoured to imitate Cicero. Tenhove remarks how ridiculously he adopted the phrases of Cicero on ecclesiastical subjects, and Erasmus has ridiculed this practice with great wit in his Ciceronianus. The same critic adds that Bembo’s Latin style is forced and laboured; words and things are perpetually at war: and if he always triumphs, it is sometimes by the dint of excessive pains, and sometimes at the expence of judgment. The Roman orator is to Bembo, what a graceful dancer is to a posture-master. The whole of Bembo’s works, Latin and Italian, were published at Venice in 1729, 4 vols. fol.

, a learned German divine, principally known in this country for his excellent edition of the Greek Testament, was born June 24, 1687, at Winneden in the duchy of Wirtemberg. He was, says the writer of the meagre account in the Diet. Hist, the first of the Lutheran divines who published a learned, profound, and complete criticism on the New Testament, or rather an accurate edition. He became a critic from motives purely conscientious. The various and anxious doubts which he entertained, from the deviations exhibited in preceding editions, induced him to examine the sacred text with great care and attention, and the result of his labours was, 1. his “Novi Testarmenti Graeci recte cauteque adornandi prodromus,” Stutgard, 1725, 8vo. 2. “Notitia Nov. Test. Grrcc. recte cauteque adornati,” ibid. 1731, 8vo, and 3. his edition entitled “Novum Test. Grace, cum introdnctione in Crisin N. T. Apparatu Critico, et Epilogo,” ibid. 1734, 4to. He afterwards published, 4. “Gnomon Nov. Test, in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas sensuum ccelestium indicatur,” ibid. 1742, and 1759, and lastly in 1763, at Ulm, in which same year, a new edition of his “Apparatus Criticus” was published, with many additions, by Phil. D, Burkius, 4to. Bengal’s most formidable enemies were Ernesti and Wet stein, neither of whom treated him with the courtesy that becomes men of letters. His edition of the New Testament is unquestionably a lasting monument of the author’s profound learning and solid piety, and has often been reprinted to gratify the public demand. In 1745, Bengel published “Cyclus, sive de anno magno solis, luna?, stellarum consideratio, ad incrementum doctrinse propheticre atque astronomies accommodata,” Ulm, 8vo, and after his death, which took place in 1752, appeared his “Ordo temporifm, a principio per periodos ceconomise divinoe historicas atque propheticas, at finem usque ita deductus, ut tota series et quarumvis partium analogia sempiternae virtutis ac sapientiae cultoribus ex script. Vet. et Nov. Test, tanquam uno revera documento proponatur,” Stutgard, 1753. Bengel maintained the doctrine of the millenium, or second appearance of Christ upon earth to reign with his saints a thousand years. His “Introduction to his Exposition to the Apocalypse,” was translated and published by John Robertson, M. D. London, 1757.

, an English critic, once of some fame, the son of sir William Benson, formerly sheriff of London, was born in 1682. After receiving a liberal education, he made a tour on the continent, during which he visited Hanover and some other German courts, and Stockholm. In 1710, he served the office of high sheriff of Wilts; and soon after wrote a celebrated letter to sir Jacob Banks of Mihehead, by birth a Swede, but naturalized, in which he represented the miseries of the Swedes, after they had made a surrender of their liberties to arbitrary power; which, according to his account, was then making great advances at home. When summoned for this letter before the privy council, he avowed himself the author, but no prosecution appears to have followed, as he put his name to the subsequent editions, of which 100,000 are said to have been sold in English, or in translations. He afterwards wrote “Two letters to sir Jacob Banks, concerning the Minehead doctrine,” 1711, 8vo.

He became member of parliament for Shaftesbury in the first parliament of George I. and in 17 Is was made surveyor general, in the place of sir Christopher Wren, on which occasion he vacated his seat in parliament. Why such a disgrace should be inBicted on sir Christopher Wren, now full of years and honours, cannot be ascertained. Benson, however, gained only an opportunity, and that soon, to display his incapacity, and the amazing contrast between him and his predecessor. Being em-­ployed to survey the house of lords, he gave in a report that that house and the painted-chamber adjoining were in immediate danger of falling. On this the lords were about to appoint some other place for their meeting, when it was suggested that it would be proper to take the opinion of some other builders, who reported that the building was in very good condition. The lords, irritated at Benson’s ignorance and incapacity, were about to petition the king to remove him, when the earl of Sunderland, then secretary, assured them that his majesty would anticipate their wishes. Benson was accordingly dismissed. He was in some measure consoled, however, by the assignment of a considerable debt due to the crown in Ireland, and by the reversion of one of the two offices of auditor of the imprests, which he enjoyed after the death of Mr, Edward Harley. In 1724, he published “Virgil’s Husbandry, with notes critical and rustic;” and in 1739, “Letters concerning poetical translations, and Virgil’s and Milton’s arts of verse.” This last was followed by an edition of “Arthur Johnston’s Psalms,” accompanied with the Psalms of David, according to the translation in the English Bible, printed in 4to, 8vo, and 12mo; with a “Prefatory discourse,” 1740; in 1741 “A conclusion to his prefatory discourse” and in the same year, “A supplement to it, in which is contained, a comparison betwixt Johnston and Buchanan.” In this comparison, given in favour of Johnston, he was so unlucky, or, rather for the sake of taste, so lucky as to excite the indignation of the celebrated Ruddiman, who wrote an elaborate and unanswerable defence of Buchanan, in a letter to Mr. Benson, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,” Edinburgh, 1745, 8vo. Benson, although a man who had spent the greater part of his life among books, yet a short time before his death, contracted an unconquerable aversion to them, and perhaps to society likewise, as the latter years of his life were passed in close retirement at his house at Wimbledon, where he died Feb. 1754. His character has been variously represented. It was his misfortune, if not his fault, in the outset, that he was placed in the invidious situation of suc-s cessor to sir Christopher Wren, who was most improperly dismissed; and this procured him a place in the Dunciad, which probably served to keep up the remembrance of whaj he would willingly have forgot. Dr. Warton, however, has endeavoured to do him justice in his notes on Pope. “Benson,” says that amiable critic, “is here spoken of too contemptuously. He translated faithfully, if not very poetically, the second book of the Georgics, with useful notes he printed elegant editions of Johnston’s psalms; he wrote a discourse on versification he rescued his country from the disgrace of having no monument erected to the memory of Milton in Westminster-abbey; he encouraged and urged Pitt to translate the yEneid; and he gave Dobson of.1000 for his Latin translation of Paradise Lost.” Another testimony we have of his liberality which ought not to be suppressed. In 1735, a book was published, entitled “The cure of Deism.” The author, Mr. Elisha Smith, was at that time confined in the Fleet prison for a debt of ^^Oo. Benson, pleased with the work, inquired who was the author, and having received an account of his unfortunate state, not only sent him a handsome letter, but discharged the whole debt, fees, &o. and set him at liberty.

, regius professor of divinity, and master of Trinity college, Cambridge, a very eminent critic of*he last age, was born January 27, 1661-2, at Oulton, in the parish of Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His ancestors, who were of some consideration, possessed an estate, and had a seat at Hepenstall, in the parish of Halifax. His grandfather, James Bentley, was a captain in king Charles I.'s army, at the time of the civil wars, and being involved in the fate of his party, had his house plundered, his estate confiscated, and was himself carried prisoner to Pomfret castle, where he died. Thomas Bentley, the son of James, and father of Dr. Bentley, married the daughter of Richard Willis of Oulton, who had been a major in the royal army. This lady, who was a woman of exceeding good understanding, taught her son Richard his accidence. To his grandfather Willis, who was left his guardian, he was, in part, indebted for his education; and having gone through the grammar-school at Wakefield with singular reputation, both for his proficiency and his exact and regular behaviour, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Johnson, on the 24th of May, 1676, being then only four months above fourteen years of age. On the 22d of March, 1681-2, he stood candidate for a fellowship, and would have been unanimously elected, had he not been excluded by the statutes, on account of his being too young for priest’s orders. He was then a junior bachelor, and but little more than nineteen years old. It was soon after this that he became a schoolmaster at Spalding. But that he did not continue Jong in this situation is certain from a letter of his grandfather Willis’s, still preserved in the family, from which it appears that he was with Dr. Stillingfleet, at the deanery of St. Paul’s, on the 25th of April, 1683. He had been recommended by his college to the dean, as preceptor to his son and Dr. Stillingfleet gave Mr. Bentley his choice, whether he would carry his pupil to Cambridge or Oxford. He fixed upon the latter university, on account of the Bodleian library, to the consulting of the manuscripts of which he applied with the closest attention. Being now of age, he made over a small estate, which he derived from his family, to his elder brother, and immediately laid out the money he obtained for it in the purchase of books. It is recorded of him, that having, at a very early age, made surprising progress in the learned languages, his capacity for critical learning soon began to display itself. Before the age of twenty-four, he had written with his own hand a sort of Hexapla, a thick volume in 4to, in the first column of which was every word of the Hebrew bible, alphabetically disposed, and in five other columns all the various interpretations of those words, in the Chalclee, Syriac, Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodosian, that occur in the whole Bible. This he made for his own private use, to know the Hebrew, not from the late rabbins, but the ancient versions, when, excepting Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, he must then have read over the whole Polyglott. He had also at that time made, for his own private use, another volume in 4 to, of the various lections and emendations of the Hebrew text, drawn out of those ancient versions, which, though done at such an early age, would have made a second part to the famous Capellus’s “Critica Sacra.”

The life of this eminent scholar and critic, as given in the Biographia Britannica, although professedly corrected from the first edition of that work, remains a confused collection of materials, from which we have found it difficult to form anything like a regular sketch. Few names were more familiar to the scholar and the wit in the first three reigns of the eighteenth century, than that of Bentley, but no approach has yet been made to a regular and impartial narrative of his life. This is the more to be regretted, because he occupied a large space of the literary world, and was connected by friendship or controversy with some of the most eminent writers of his age, both at home and abroad. It has been justly observed, that when we consider the great abilities and uncommon eruvlition of Dr. Bentley, it reflects some disgrace on our country, that even his literary reputation should so long be treated with contempt, that he should be represented as a mere verbal critic, and as a pedant without genius. The unjust light in which he was placed, was not entirely owing to the able men who opposed him in the Boylean controversy. It arose, perhaps, principally from the poets engaging on the same side of the question, and making him the object of their satire and ridicule. The “slashing Bentley” of Pope will be remembered and repeated by thousands who know nothing of the doctor’s real merit. Perhaps it may be found that this asperity of Mr. Pope was not entirely owing to the combination of certain wits and poets against Dr. Bentley, but to personal resentment. We are told that bishop Atterbury having Bentley and Pope both at dinner with him, insisted on knowing what opinion the doctor entertained of the English Homer; he for some time eluded the question, but, at last, being urged to speak out, he said: “The verses are good verses; but the work is not Homer, it is Spondanus.”

In 1732, he published “The Minute Philosopher,” in f vols. 8vo. This masterly work is written in a series of dialogues on the model of Plato, a philosopher of whom he is said to have been very fond; and in it he pursues the freethinker through the various characters of atheist, libertine, enthusiast, scorner, critic, metaphysician, fatalist, and sceptic.

, a learned critic and astronomer, was born at Perry St. Paul, commonly called Pauler’s Perry, near Towcester in Northamptonshire, the 2d of May 1638. He received some part of his education at Northampton but his father dying when he was very young, his mother sent him to an uncle in London, who entered him at Merchant-taylors-school, in 1648 here he continued tillJune 1655, when he was elected scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford, of which also he became afterwards fellow. DuTing his stay at school, he had accumulated an uncommon fund of classical learning, so that when he went to the university, he was a great master of the Greek and Latin tongues, and not unacquainted with the Hebrew. He had also previously acquired a good Latin style, could compose verses well, and often used to divert himself with writing epigrams, but he quitted these juvenile employments when at the university, and applied himself to history, philology, and philosophy, and made himself master of the Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic. He applied himself next to the mathematics, under the famous Dr. J. Wallis. He took the degree of B. A. Feb. the 12th, 1659 that of master, April 16, 1662 and that of B. D. June 9, 1668. Decem,ber following he went to Leyden, to consult several Oriental manuscripts left to that university by Joseph Scaliger and Levinus Warner, and especially the 5th, 6th, and 7th books of Apollonius Pergieus’s conic sections; the Greek text of which is lost, but which are preserved in the Arabic version of that author. This version had been brought from the East by James Golius, and was in the possession of his executor, who, pleased that Mr. Bernard’s chief design in coming to Holland was to examine this manuscript, allowed him the free use of it. He accordingly transcribed these three books, with the diagrams, intending to publish them at Oxford, with a Latin version, and proper commentaries; but was prevented from completing this design. Abraham Echellensis had published a Latin translation of these books in 1661, and Christianus Ravius gave another in 1669: but Dr. Smith remarks, that these two authors, though well skilled in the Arabic language, were entirely ignorant of the mathematics, which made it regretted that Golius died while he was preparing that work for the press; and that Mr. Bernard, who understood both the language and the subject, and was furnished with all the proper helps for such a design, was abandoned by his friends, though they had before urged him to. undertake it. It was, however, at last published by Dr. Halley in 1710.

Upon his return to the university, he applied himself to his former studies and though, in conformity to the obligation of his professorship, he devoted the greatest part of his time to mathematics, yet his inclination was now more to history, chronology, and antiquities. He undertook a new edition of Josephus, but it was never completed. The history of this undertaking is somewhat curious. Several years before, bishop Fell had resolved, with our author’s assistance, to print at the theatre at Oxford a new edition of Josephus, more correct than any of the former. But, either for want of proper means to complete that work, or in expectation of one promised by the learned Andrew Bosius, this design was laid aside. Upon the death of Bosius, it was resumed again and Mr. Bernard collected all the manuscripts he could procure out of the libraries of Great Britain, both of the Greek text and Epiphanius’s Latin translation, and purchased Bosius’s valuable papers of his executors at a great price. Then he published a specimen of his edition of Josephus, and wrote great numbers of letters to his learned friends in France, Holland, Germany, and other countries, to desire their assistance in that work. He laboured in it a good while with the utmost vigour and resolution, though his constitution was much broken by intense application. But this noble undertaking was left unfinished, for these two reasons. First, many persons complained of Epiphanius’s translation, because it was defective, and not answerable to the original in many places, and required a new version, or at least to have that of Gelenins revised and corrected. Secondly, objections were made to the heap of various readings that were to be introduced in this edition, and with the length of the commentaries, in which whole dissertations were inserted without any apparent necessity, that ought to have been placed at the end of the work, or printed by themselves. These things occasioning a contest between Mr. Bernard and the curators of the Oxford press, the printing of it was interrupted and at last the purpose of having it done at the expence of the university, was defeated by the death of bishop Fell. However, about six or seven years after, Mr. Bernard was prevailed upon by three booksellers of Oxford to resume the work, and to publish it in a less form upon the model of his specimen but they not being able to bear the expence of it, on account of the war, after a few sheets were printed off, desisted from their undertaking. These repeated discouragements hindered the learned author from proceeding further than the four first books, and part of the fifth, of the Jewish Antiquities and the first book, tmd part of the second, of the Destruction of Jerusalem; which were printed at the Theatre at Oxford in 1686 and 1687, and published in 1700, fol. In the notes, the learned author shews himself an universal scholar and discerning critic and appears to have been master of most of the Oriental learning- and languages. These notes have been incorporated into Havercamp’s edition.

, a French writer of considerable note, was born at Issoudun en Berri April 7, 1704, and entered among the Jesuits in 1722. He was professor of humanity at Blois, of philosophy at Rennes and Rouen, and of divinity at Paris. The talents he displayed in these offices made him be chosen in 1742 to succeed father Brumoy, in the continuation of his “History of the Gallican Church.” This he executed with general approbation. In 1745 his superiors employed him on the Journal de Trevoux, which he conducted for seventeen years, to the satisfaction of the learned and the public in general. This employment, says the abbé de Fontenay, procured him a high reputation, by the care and accuracy evident in the analysis of the works that came before him, and by the style of a masterly, impartial, and intrepid critic. But this exact impartiality was displeasing to several writers, and especially to Voltaire. When that poet published, without his name, his panegyric on Louis XV. pere Berthier saw it in no other light than as the attempt of a young man who was hunting after antitheses, though not destitute of ingenuity. So humiliating a critique was sensibly felt by Voltaire, who made no hesitation to declare himself the author of the work so severely handled. His mortification was increased when pere Berthier having given an account of a publication, wherein the poet was characterised under the title of “the worthy rival of Homer and Sophocles,” the journalist put coldly in a note, “We are not acquainted with him.” But what raised the anger of Voltaire to its utmost pitch, was a very just censure of several reprehensible passages in his essay on general history. The irritated poet declared openly in 1759 against the Jesuit in a sort of diatribe, which he placed after his ode on the death of the margravine of Bareith. The Jesuit repelled his shafts with a liberal and manly spirit in the Journal de Trevoux. Upon this the poet, instead of a serious answer, brought out in 1760 a piece of humour, entitled “An account of the sickness, confession, and death of the Jesuit Berthier.” The learned Jesuit did not think proper to make any reply to an adversary who substituted ridicule for argument, and continued the Journal de Trevoux till the dissolution of the society in France. He then quitted his literary occupations for retirement. At the close of 1762 the dauphin appointed him keeper of the royal library, and adjunct in the education of Louis XVI. and of monsieur. But eighteen months afterwards, when certain events occasioned the dismission, of all ex-jesuits from the court, he settled at Ossenbourg, from which the empress queen invited him to Vienna and he was also offered the place of librarian at Milan, but he refused all and after residing here for ten years, obtained permission to go to Bourges, where he had a brother and a nephew in the church. Here he died of a fall, Dec. 15, 1782, just after being informed that the French clergy had decreed him a pension of a thousand livres. The chapter of the metropolitan church gave him distinguished honours at his interment; a testimony due to a man of such eminent piety, extensive erudition, and excellent judgment.

His principal works, according to his own arrangement in the edition above mentioned are, 1. “Ragionamend filosofici” con anuotazioni,“a work both religious, moral, and philosophical. 2.” Dell' entusiasmo delle belle arti“the professed design of which was to maintain and revive the studies of imagination; but Bettinelli was not himself a decided enthusiast, and instead of the fire of imagination, we have here much of the coldness of method. 3. Eight” Dialoghi d'amore,“in which he expatiates on the influences which imagination, vanity, friendship, marriage, honour, ambition, science, &c. produce on that passion. In this work is an eloge on Petrarch, one of his most happy compositions. 4.” Risorgirnento negli stucii, nelle arti e ne' costumi dopo il mille.“This in Italy is considered as a superficial view of the revival of arts and sciences after the tenth century, and as interfering with Tiraboschi, who was then employed on the same subject, but to those who may think Tiraboschi’s work, what it certainly is, insufferably tedious, this will afford much useful information in a shorter compass. The dissertation on Italian poetry is particularly valuable. 5.” Delle lettere e delle arti Mantovane lettere ed arti Modenesi,“an excellent work as far as regards the literary history of Mantua, which was now, if we mistake not, written for the first time. 6.” Lettere dieci di Virgilio agli Arcadi.“Of these letters we have already spoken, and his attack on Dante and Petrarch, although not altogether without such a foundation as strict and cold criticism may lay, will not soon be forgiven in Italy. 7.” Letters on the Fine Arts from a lady to her friend, &c.“8. His” Poetry,“containing seven small poems, or” poemetti,“six epistles in familiar verse, sonnets, &c. In all these he is rather an elegant, easy, and ingenious poet, than a great one. His” Raccolte“is a spirited satire on the insipid collections of verses so common in Italy. 9.” Tragedies,“entitled Xerxes, Jonathan, Demetrius, Poliorcetes, and Rome saved, with some French letters, and an Italian dissertation on Italian tragedy. The” Rome saved“is a translation from Voltaire, indifferently performed. He also wrote three other tragedies, but inferior to the former, in which there is an evident attempt at the manner of Racine. 10.” Lettere a Lesbia Cidonia sopra gli epigrammi,“consisting of twenty-five letters, with epigrams, madrigals, and other small pieces, some translated and some original. 11. An” Essay on Eloquence,“with other essays, letters, miscellanies,” &c. As a poet, critic, metaphysician, and historian, Bettinelii’s merit is esteemed by his countrymen as of the first rate and with respect to the art of composition, they account him one of the purest and most elegant writers of the last century, one of the few who laboured to preserve the genuine Italian idiom from any foreign mixture.

Although the popularity of Dr. Blair’s “Sermons” exceeds all that we read of in the history of literature, yet it does not appear to us to be of that species arising from judgment as well as taste, which leads to permanent reputation. They happened to hit the taste of the age, to whom compositions so highly polished, were somewhat new and they were introduced by that fashionable patronage which common readers find irresistible. They differ from all other compositions under the same title, in being equally adapted to readers of every class; and they were recommended to the perusal of the young of every religious persuasion, as containing nothing that could interfere with their opinions. Their character is that of moral discourses, but as such they never could have attained their popularity without that high polish of style which was the author’s peculiar object. Under this are concealed all the defects which attach to them as sermons, a name which they can never deserve when compared with the works of the most eminent English and Scotch divines. It may be doubted, therefore, whether his “Lectures” will not prolong his fame to a much later period. Although he possessed a sound judgment rather than a vigorous mind, and had more taste than genius, yet, perhaps, on the former account his lectures may always be recommended as an useful introduction to polite literature. “They contain,” says an excellent critic, “an accurate analysis of the principles of literary composition, in all the various species of writing a happy illustration of those principles by the most beautiful and apposite examples, drawn from the best authors both ancient and modern; and an admirable digest of the rules of eiocution, as applicable to the oratory of the pulpit, the bar, and the popular assembly. They do not aim at the character of a work purely original for this, as the author justly considered, would have been to circumscribe their utility; neither in point of style are they polished with the same degree of care that the author has bestowed on some of his other works, as for example, his” Sermons.“Yet, so useful is the object of these lectures, so comprehensive their plan, and such the excellence of the matter they contain, that, if not the most splendid, they will, perhaps, prove the most durable monument of their author’s reputation.”

, D. D. an eminent Hebrew critic, canon of Christ church, regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Oxford, 1787, and rector of Polshot, was first of Worcester college, where he proceeded M. A. 1753; afterwards fellow of Hertford college, where he took the degree of B. D. 1768, and of D. D. 1787 and was installed Hebrew professor Dec. 7. of that year. He was also some time a Whitehall preacher. He distinguished himself greatly as a scriptural commentator and translator. He published, 1. “A dissertation, by way of enquiry into the true import and application of the Vision related Dan. is. 20 to the end, usually called Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks with occasional remarks on Michaelis’s letters to sir John Pringle on the same subject, 1775,” 4to. 2. “Jereiniah and Lamentations, a new translation, with notes critical, philosophical, and explanatory, 1784,” 8vo. 3. “The Sign given to Ahaz, a discourse on Isaiah vii. 14, 15, 16, delivered in the church of St. John, Devizes, at the triennial visitation of Shute, lord bishop of Sarum, July 26, 1786 with a proposed emendation of a passage in his dissertation on Daniel,” 1786, 4to. 4. “Christ the greater glory of the temple, a sermon, preached before the university of Oxford, at Christ church, Nov. 9, 1788,” 4to. J. “Zechariah, a new translation, with notes critical, philosophical, and explanatory and an Appendix, in reply to Dr. Eveleigh’s Sermon on Zechariah i. S 1 1 (to which is added, a new edition, with alterations, of the dissertation on Daniel), 1797,” 4to. In this dissertation on Daniel the study and criticism of this learned divine produced a translation very different from that in the common English Bible, as well as from that of Michaelis. It . is less liable to objection, particularly as it has no recourse to that ingenious but uncertain and unsatisfying method of computation by lunar years; it extends also to those verses of the chapter which Dr. Michaelis seemed to give up as inexplicable, almost in despair of ever attaining a probable solution of the difficulty. The translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations is on the plan of Dr. Lowth’s Isaiah, and does credit to its author both as a translator and a critic. The same may be said respecting the translation of Zechariah and it may be added, that the candour and liberality which Dr. Blayney opposes, in this instance, to the intemperance and acrimony of one of his antagonists, do him great honour. The doctor also took uncommon pains in correcting the text of the edition of the common version of the English Bible, which was printed at the Clarendon press in 1769, 4to. He made a great number of additional references in the margin, and produced the most correct Bible in our language; but, unfortunately, a large part of the impression was soon after burned at the Bible warehouse in Paternoster row, and it is now ranked among the most scarce and valuable editions.

His “Censura Celebrium Authorum” was first printed at London, 1690, fol. and was reprinted at Geneva, 1694, 4to, and 1710, 4to. This compilation, a work of great erudition and labour, is well known to the critic and the literary historian, but cannot be compared, as Niceron has attempted, with Baillet’s “Jugement des Savans,” Baillet reporting the opinions of others in his own words, but Blount transcribes them literally, which adds considerably to their value. His “Essays,” which were published 1697, 8vo, are on the following subjects: popery, learning, education and custom, the ancients, passion, &c. His “Natural History, containing many, not common observations, extracted out of the best modern authors,” was published 1693, 12mo and his “Remarks on Poetry,” 1694, 4to. This is a species of Censura confined to the poetical class, and was honoured with the approbation of lord Mul grave, the most elegant critic of that age. Upon the whole, sir Thomas Pope Blount, as he was the most learned, appears to have been the most useful of the family, and most deserving the veneration of posterity.

In order to appreciate these editions, it is necessary to advert to the fate of this extraordinary work in the press. For about a century, it was circulated in manuscript, and liberties of every kind were taken at every transcription. At length it was printed for the first time, as has been supposed, in 1470, and run through various editions to the end of the fifteenth, and for more than sixty years of the sixteenth century. During this period it was prohibited by the popqs Paul IV. and Pius IV. who were in this respect more scrupulous than their twenty-five or twenty-six predecessors in the papal chair. Two grand dukes of Tuscany, Cosmo I. and Francis I. applied one after the other to two other popes, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. in consequence of which the academicians were employed to reform the Decameron important corrections were made, and many passages suppressed, and in this state various editions were permitted to be printed. But with respect to the ancient editions, it is now necessary to observe that there are two opinions, which we shall state, without attempting to reconcile. We have already noticed that the first edition has been supposed to have been printed in 1470, without a date but on the other hand, it is contended that the edition of 1471, by Valdarfer, is not only the first with a date (which those who maintain the existence of the edition of 1470 are disposed to allow), but that in fact there was no previous edition. Those who are of this latter opinion very naturally ask their antagonists to produce the edition of 1470, or an edition without date that can be supposed of that period. In England it is certain that no such edition is known but the French bibliographers seem to be of a different opinion. Ginguene 1 to whom we are indebted for the greater part of this life of Boccaccio, who has written the literary history of Italy, and is considered in France, we apprehend justly, as their first critic and bibliographer in Italian literature this writer speaks of the first edition without a date in the following terms “Elle est sans date et sans nom de lieu ni d'imprimeur, in-fol. en caracteres inegaux et mal formes.” (Hist. Litt. d'ltalie, vol. III. p. 129). It remains, therefore, for the reader to determine whether this is the language of a man who has seen the book, and describes what he has seen; and if this be decided in the affirmative, the existence of the edition is proved, as far as his authority goes. But it must be confessed Ginguene goes no fa ther. He says nothing of any library which possesses this treasure, nor of its supposed value but when he comes to speak of Valdarfer’s edition of 1471, he informs us that it- has been valued by bibliomaniacs (bibliomanes) at 3000 francs, or 125l. And this brings us to notice the copy of this edition recently sold from the duke of Roxburgh’s library, to the marquis of Blandford, for the immense (and with respect to the value of books, the unprecedented) sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Pounds. In the catalogue of this library, it is stated that “no other perfect copy is yet known to exist, after all the fruitless researches of more than three hundred years;” but, notwithstanding this, we find that the French bibliographers set a value on the edition, as if copies, however rare, were still occasionally to be found. We cannot suppose that the French booksellers or collectors would fix a price-current on an article which had not been seen, for three hundred years, still less that our authority is speaking of imperfect copies, the value of which can only be estimated by the quantum of imperfection. It remains also to be noticed that the French bibliographers speak precisely with the same familiarity of the Junti edition of Florence, 1527, 4to, which they value at 600 francs, or 25l. and which sold at the Roxburgh sale for 29 1. no great advance upon the French price. They certainly speak both of this edition, and of the 1471, as of rare occurrence, but by no means hint that the latter is of that extreme rarity imputed to it in this country .

In 1576 he was chosen deputy to the states-general of Blois, by the tiers-etat of Vermandois, and ably contended for the rights of the people, and particularly opposed those who would have all the king’s subjects constrained to profess the Catholic religion, which we can easily suppose effectually prevented the king from being reconciled to him. He after this appears to have resided at Laon, where, in 1589, he persuaded that city to declare for the league, and at the same time wrote to the president Brisson, a letter severely reflecting on Henry III. but this fault he afterwards repaired by securing the allegiance of Laon to Henry IV. He died of the plague at Laon, in 1596, leaving a character more dubious than that of any man in his time, and the light thrown upon it in his works is certainly not of the most favourable kind. It may be said, that although toleration was a word not known in his time, he appears to have cherished some liberal notions on the subject, but, as to religious principles, he had so little steadiness, that he was by turns accounted, perhaps not always justly, a Protestant, Papist, Deist, Sorcerer, Jew, and Atheist; D'Aguessau, however, pronounces him a worthy magistrate, a learned author, and a good citizen. His first work was a commentary on Oppian’s “Cynogeticon,” Paris, 1549, 4to, in which he is supposed to have availed himself rather too freely of the notes of Turnebus. He then published an introduction to the study of history, under the title “Methodus ad facilem Historiarum cognitionem,” Paris, 1566, 4to, the principal fault of which is that it does not correspond with the title, being very desultory and immethodical. But that which procured him most reputation, was his six books on “The Republic,” a work equally immethodical with the other, and abounding in digressions and irrelevant matter, yet, for the time, an extraordinary collection of facts and reflections on political government. It was soon translated into other languages, and was read with much interest in an age when the principles of government were seldom discussed in books. When in England with the duke of Alenc,on, we are told that he found the English had made a Latin translation of it, bad enough, but, bad as it was, the subject of lectures at London and Cambridge. Bodin reports thus far himself; but that “it became a classic at Cambridge” has been supplied by his biographers, who were probably not aware that lectures on political government were then no part of Cambridge education, and if his book was explained and commented on there or at London, it must have been by individuals. In this work he introduces the influence of climate on the principles of government; and as Montesquieu has done the same, La Harpe, the French critic, terms Bodin’s book the “germ of the Spirit of Laws,” but this notion is far more ancient than either, and not indeed of much consequence, whether old or new. The first edition of these “Livres de la Republique” was printed at Paris, 1577, fol. and was followed by three' others, 1577, 1578, and 1580 but the edition of Lyons, 1593, and that of Geneva, 1600, are preferred, because they contain Bodin’s Treatise on Coins. He afterwards translated it into Latin, Paris, 1586, fol. an edition often reprinted, and more complete than the French, and several abridgements were published of it, both in Latin and French. His tables of law, entitled “Juris Universi Distributio,” were printed in 1578, and in the following year, his “”Demonomanie des Sorciers,“to which was annexed” A refutation of the book, de Lamiis,“of John Wier, physician to the duke of Cleves, who had undertaken to prove that the stories of witchcraft and sorcery have chiefly arisen from imposture or delusions of fancy. The literary character of Bodin, who defended this kind of superstition, incurred reproach, and he himself was suspected of being a magician. A work written by him, but never printed, and entitled” Heptaplomeron, sive de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis,“is said to have been an attack upon religion, and designed to invalidate the authority of revelation. By the seeming advantages which he gave in this work to the Jewish religion, he was suspected of being a convert to it; but it is more probable that he was a sceptic with regard to religion, and alike indifferent to all modes of faith. A little while before his death he published a Latin treatise, entitled” Theatrum Universae Naturae," in which he professes to pursue the causes and effects of things to their principles.

His other works were, a German translation of Milton, Zurich, 1769; and of Homer, ibid. 1769; of Apollonius Rhodius, ibid. 1779; Collections for the history of the Allies, ibid. 1739 Dissertation on the wonderful in poetry, 1749; Critical observations on portraits in poetry Letters on Criticism A collection of all his smaller epic poems, entitled Calliope; A collection of critical and poetical works, the fountain of the German language, 1768; a magnificent edition, already noticed, of the '^Minnisinger,“or Old German Bards, 1758. He also wrote parodies on Lessing’s Fables, and the Tragedies of Weiss, both very inferior, to his other works. In 1767 his” Noah“was translated by Mr. Collier, and partakes of all the faults of such compositions as the” Death of Abel." Bodmer’s great fault, indeed, was that inflated and bombast style, which has been since his time so popular in Germany, and which, in the dramatic form, some years ago, threatened to debase the taste of this country. His imagination is fertile, and occasionally bursts into something like sublimity, but is rarely under the guidance of judgment or taste. Having something of both, however, at the time his countrymen had neither, he cannot be denied the merit of giving a more favourable direction to their studies but it was his misfortune to acquire fame when there was none to dispute it, and as his country increased in its number of scholars and critics, he in vain endeavoured to preserve his superiority by being jealous of rising merit. The first critic when German criticism was in its infancy, he would also be the first when she was advanced to maturity but he outlived his authority, and was no longer the first, although he might rank among the best. He died Jan. 2, 1783.

, an eminent German critic and historian, and counsellor to the emperor and to the elector of Mentz, was born in 1611, at Cronheim in Franconia, and was during a long life reputed one of the ablest men Germany had produced, particularly in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, in history, and political and legal knowledge. He was only twenty when thought worthy of being appointed professor of eloquence at Strasburgh, and in 1640 was made a canon of St. Thomas. Christina, queen of Sweden, invited him to Upsal in 1648, to be professor of eloquence, and the following year conferred on him the place of historiographer of Sweden, with a pension of eight hundred crowns, which she generously continued when his health obliged him to return to Strasburgh. He was then elected professor* of history at Strasburgh, and in 1662 the elector of Mentz appointed him his counsellor. The year after, the emperor Ferdinand III. bestowed the' same honour upon him, with the title of count Palatine. Louis XIV. offered him a pension pf two thousand livres, but the court of Vienna, unwilling to lose him, induced him to decline it, and made up his loss by another pension of six hundred rix-dollars. Boeder, honoured and enriched by so many favours, pursued his studies with unremitting ardour, until his death in 1692. He published with notes or commentaries, editions of Herodian, Strasburgh, 1644, 8vo Suetonius, ibid. 1647, 4to Manilius, ibid. 1655, 4to Terence, ibid, 1657, 8vo Cornelius Nepos, Utrecht, 1665, 12mo; Polybius, 1666, 1670, 1681, 4to; part of Tacitus, Velleius Paterculus, Virgil, Herodotus, and Ovid. His other works were 1 “De Jure Galliae in Lotharingiam,” Strasburgh, 1663, 4to, a refutation of the treatise on the rights of the French king to Lorraine. 2. “Annotationes in Hippolytum a Lapide,” ibid. 1674, 4to, a refutation of the work entitled “De ratione status imperii Romano-Germanici,” by Chemnitz or James de Steinberg. 3. “Dissertatio de scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis, ab Homero usque ad initium XVI seculi,” ibid. 1674, 8vo, and reprinted by Gronovius in the tenth vol. of his Grecian antiquities. 4. “Bibliographia historico-politico-philologica,” 1677, 8vo. 5. “Historia Belli Sueco-Danici annis 1643 1645,” Stockholm, 1676, Strasburgh, 1679, 8vo. 6. “Historia universalis ab orbe comlito ad J. C. nativitatem,” ibid. 1680, 8vo, with a dissertation on the use of history. 7. “Notitia sacri imperii Romani,” ibid. 1681, 8vo. 8. An edition with notes and improvements, of Picolomini’s Latin history of Frederic III. ibid. 1685, fol. reprinted 1702. 9. “De rebus saeculi post Christum XVI. liber memorialis,” Kiel, 1697, 8vo: 10. “Historia universalis IV saeculorum post Christum,” 1699, 8vo, reprinted at Rostock, 4to, with a life of the author, by J. Theophilus Moller. 11. Various “Letters” in Jaski’s collection, Amsterdam, 1705, 12mo. 12. “Commentatio in Grotii librum de jure belli ac pacis,” Strasburgh, 1705, 1712, 4to. He was a most enthusiastic admirer of Grotius. 13. “Bibliographia critica,” Leipsic, 1715, 8vo, enlarged by J. Gottlieb Krause the former editions of this work were very defective. 14. “Dissertations, and smaller pieces,” published by J. Fabricius, ajt Strasburgh, 1712, 4 vols. 4to, on history, politics, morals, criticism, many of them very valuable.

, or Boha-Eddyn, an Arabian historian of great note, born March 1145, was celebrated for his Life of Saladin, in whose court he flourished in the twelfth century. What makes his history particularly valuable, is his being contemporary to the events he writes and his being also a favourite of Saladin’s, constantly about his person, and high in office. He is very accurate in his account of the crusades, and Saladin’s taking of Jerusalem and mentions our Richard I. who made such a figure as Saladin’s antagonist. The accurate Schultens has published a very excellent edition in folio, with much erudition, Leyden, 1732 the same was published in 1755, but only with a new title of that date. It has been observed by an able critic, that this historian, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda, bear much resemblance to Plutarch; as they have enriched their histories with so many striking anecdotes and curious information on the progress and state of literature in their respective ages and countries.

Boileau 1 s character as a poet is now generally allowed to be that of taste, judgment, and good sense, which predominate in the best of his works as they do in the most popular of Pope’s writings. The resemblance between these two poets is in many respects very striking, and in one respect continues to be so; they are, in France and England, more read and oftener quoted than any other poets. Both were accused of stealing from the ancients; but says an elegant critic of our nation, those who flattered themselves that they should diminish the reputation of Boileau, by printing, in the manner of a commentary at the bottom of each page of his works, the many lines he has borrowed from Horace and Juvenal, were grossly deceived. The verses of the ancients which he has turned into French with so much address, and which he has happily made so homogeneous, and of a piece with the rest of the work, that every thing seems to have been conceived in a continued train of thought by the very same person, confer as much honour on him, as the verses which are purely his own. The original turn which he gives to his translations, the boldness of his expressions, so little forced and unnatural, that they seem to be born, as it were, with his thoughts, display almost as much invention as the first production of a thought entirely new. The same critic, Dr. Warton, is of opinion that Boileau’s “Art of Poetry” is the best composition of that kind extant. “The brevity of his precepts,” says this writer, “enlivened by proper imagery, the justness of his metaphors, the harmony of his numbers, as far as alexandrine lines will admit, the exactness of his method, the perspicuity of his remarks, and the energy of his style, all duly considered, may render this opinion not unreasonable. It is to this work he owes his immortality, which was of the highest utility to his nation, in diffusing a just way of thinking and writing, banishing every species of false wit, and introducing a general taste for the manly simplicity of the ancients, on whose writings this poet had formed his taste.”

Being an excellent classical scholar, and warmly attached to literary pursuits, he published, in 1793, the first volume of a new translation of Horace, containing the “Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare.” This being much approved, was followed, in 1798, by his translation of the “Satires, Epistles, and Art of Poetry,” thus completing a work, which, though Francis’s translation still holds its popularity, is, in the judgment of all classical men, very greatly superior to it, in many essential points of merit. In 1801 he published a small volume of original poems, in which, if he does not take a lead among his contemporaries, he at least discovers an elegant taste, a poetical mind, and a correct versification. He was for several years before his death a constant and able assistant in the “British Critic.” He is also the supposed writer of“The Progress of Satire, an essay, in verse, with notes, containing remarks on ‘The Pursuits of Literature’,” 1798, and “A Supplement to the same,” 1799, two pamphlets occasioned by some freedoms taken with eminent characters in the “Pursuits.”

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, March 16, 1631. He began his studies at Nanterre, where he discovered an early taste for polite literature, and soon made surprising progress in all the valuable parts of learning In 1649 he left Nanterre, was admitted a canon regular in the abbey of St. Genevieve, and after a year’s probation took the habit in this abbey. Here he applied to philosophy and divinity, in which he made great proficiency, and took upon him priest’s orders in 1657; but, either from inclination, or in obedience to his superiors, he resumed the belles letters, and taught polite literature in several religious houses. After twelve years, being tired of the fatigue of such an employment, he gave it up, with a resolution to lead a quiet and retired life. Here he published his “Parallel, or comparison betwixt the principles of Aristotle’s natural philosophy, and those of Des Cartes,” Paris, 1674. His intention in tnis piece was not to shew the opposition betwixt these two philosophers, but to prove that they do not differ so much as is generally thought; yet this production of his was but indifferently received, either because these two philosophers differ too widely to be reconciled, or because Bossu had not made himself sufficiently acquainted with their opinions, and it is of little consequence now, since both have given way to a more sound system. The next treatise he published was that on “epic poetry,” which gained him great reputation: Boileau says it is one of the best compositions on this subject that ever appeared in the French language. Bossu having met with a piece wrote by St. Sorlin against this poet, he wrote a confutation of it, for which favour Boileau was extremely grateful; and it produced an intimate friendship betwixt them, which continued till our author’s death, March 14, 1680. He left a vast number of manuscript volumes, which are kept in the abbey of St. John de Chartres.

, a celebrated French critic, was born at Paris in 1628; and has by some been considered as a proper person to succeed Malherbe, who died about that time. He entered into the society of Jesuits at sixteen, and was appointed to read lectures upon polite literature in the college of Clermont at Paris, where he had studied; but he was so incessantly attacked with the head-ach, that he could not pursue the destined task. He afterwards undertook the education of two sons of the duke of Longueville, which he discharged to the entire satisfaction of the duke, who had such a regard for him, that he would needs die in his arms; and the “Account of the pious and Christian death” of this great personage was the first work which Bouhours gave the public. He was sent to Dunkirk to the popish refugees from England; and, in, the midst of his missionary occupations, found time to compose and publish many works of reputation. Among these were “Entretiens d‘Ariste & d’Eugene,” a work of a critical nature, which was printed no less than five times at Paris, twice at Grenoble, at Lyons, at Brussels, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, &c. and embroiled him with a great number of critics, and with Menage in particular; who, however, lived in friendship with our author before and after. There is a passage in this work which gave great oifence in Germany, where he makes it a question, “Whether it be possible that a German could be a wit” The fame of it, however, and the pleasure he took in reading it, recommended Bouhours so effectually to the celebrated minister Colbert, that he trusted him with the education of his son, the marquis of Segnelai. The Remarks and Doubts upon the French language has been reckoned one of the most considerable of our author’s works; and may be read with great advantage by those who would perfect themselves in that tongue. Menage, in his Observations upon the French language, has given his approbation of jt in the following passage: “The book of Doubts,” says he, “is written with great elegance, and contains many fine observations. And, as Aristotle has said, that reasonable doubt is the beginning of all real knowledge; so we may say also, that the man who doubts so reasonably as the author of this book, is himself very capable of deciding. For this reason perhaps it is, that, forgetting the tide of his work, he decides oftener than at first he proposed.” Bouhours was the author of another work, “The art of pleasing in conversation,” of which M. de la Grose, who wrote the eleventh volume of the Bibliotheque Universelle, has given an account, which he begins with this elogium upon the author “A very little skill,” says he, “in style and manner, will enable a reader to discover the author of this work. He will see at once the nice, the ingenious, and delicate turn, the elegance and politeness of father Bouhours. Add to this, the manner of writing in dialogue, the custom of quoting himself, the collecting strokes of wit, the little agreeable relations interspersed, and a certain mixture of gallantry and morality which is altogether peculiar to this Jesuit. This work is inferior to nothing we have seen of father Bouhours. He treats in twenty dialogues, with an air of gaiety, of every thing which can find a way into conversation; and, though he avoids being systematical, yet he gives his reader to understand, that there is no subject whatever, either of divinity, philosophy, law, or physic, &c. but may be introduced into conversation, provided it be done with ease, politeness, and in a manner free from pedantry and affectation.” He died at Paris, in the college of Clermont, upon the 27th of May 1702; after a life spent, says Moreri, under such constant and violent fits of the head-ach, that he had but few intervals of perfect ease. The following is a list of his works with their dates: 1. “Les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene,” 1671, 12ro. 2. “Remarques et Doutes sur la langue Franchise,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “La Manier de bien penser sur les ouvrages d' esprit,” Paris, 1692, 12mo. 4. “Pensees ingenieuses des anciens et des modernes,” Paris, 1691, 12mo. In this work he mentions Boileau, whom he had omitted in the preceding; but when he expected Boileau would acknowledge the favour, he coolly replied, “You have, it is true, introduced me in your new work, but in very bad company,” alluding to the frequent mention of some Italian and French versifiers whom Boileau despised. 5. “Pensees ingenieuses des Peres de l'Eglise,” Paris, 1700. This he is said to have written as an answer to the objection that he employed “too much of his time Oh profane literature. 6.” Histoire du grandmaitre d'Aubusson,“1676, 4to, 1679, and lately in 1780. 7. The lives of St. Ignatius, Paris, 1756, 12mo, and of St. Francis Xavier, 1682, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo. Both these are written with rather more judgment than the same lives by Ribadeneira, but are yet replete with the miraculous and the fabulous. The life of Xavier was translated by Dryden, and published at London in 1688, with a dedication to king James II. 's queen. Dryden, says Mr. Malone, doubtless undertook this task, in consequence of the queen, when she solicited a son, having recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. 8.” Le Nouveau Testament," translated into French from the Vulgate, 2 vols. 1697 1703, 12mo.

, a learned French critic, who distinguished himself in the republic of letters by writing notes upon Lucian, Petronius, and Heliodorus, lived at the end of the 16th, and in the beginning of the 17th century, was of a good family of Sens, and educated with care. He applied himself to the study of the belles lettres and of the learned languages; and Baillet tells us, that he passed for a great connoisseur in the oriental tongues, and in the knowledge of manuscripts. These pursuits did not hinder him from being consummate in the law. He exercised the office of advocate to the parliament of Paris in 1627, when Mary of Medicis, hearing of his uncommon merit, made him master of the requests. He died suddenly at Paris in 1638. His edition of Heliodorus, which is one of the best, was published in 1619, 8vo That of Lucian at Paris, 1615, fol. with the notes of Micyllus, Guerinus, Marsilius, and Cognatus, and some short and learned ones by himself, at that time a very young man. Among the sources from which Bourdelot professes to have compiled his edition, are two ancient Mss. in the royal library at Paris, the existence of which Faber (ad Luciani Timonem, c. 1.) denies in the most positive terms. His Petronius was first published at Paris, 12mo, in 1618, a very scarce edition, and reprinted in 1645, 1663, and 1677.

He was very desirous that Mr. Clarke’s book should be translated and reprinted in France; and he took some pains, though without success, to get it accomplished. In 1773, three little tracts were published by him, under the title of “Select Discourses 1. Of the Correspondence of the Hebrew months with the Julian, from the Latin of Professor Michaelis. 2. Of the Sabbatical years, from the same. 3. Of the years of Jubilee; from an anonymous writer, in Masson’s Histoire Critique de la Republique des Lettres.” In 1774, he corrected a new edition of Schrevelius’s Greek Lexicon, to which he added a number of words (distinguished by an asterisk) he had himself collected in the course of his own studies. Considerable additions, which are still in manuscript, were made by him to the Lexicons of Hederic and of Buxtorf, the Latin ones of Faber and of Littleton, and the English Dictionary of Bailey; and he left behind him many other proofs of his critical skill in the learned languages. His Greek and Latin grammars in general are filled with such curious explanatory notes, as bear the most convincing proofs of consummate critical knowledge in those languages, and that knowledge he applied particularly to the advancement of sacred learning. It was his constant custom, in the course of his reading, to note down every thing which he thought might contribute to illustrate any passage of Scripture, esper cially of the Greek Testament. In pursuance of this method, it is hardly to be conceived what a number of useful and curious remarks stand inserted in the margins of his theological books, which may greatly contribute to improve future editions. In 1774, was published “The Origin of Printing, in two essays. 1. The substance of Dr. Middleton’s Dissertation on the Origin of Printing in England. 2. Mr. Meerman’s Account of the Invention of the Art at Harlem, and its progress to Mentz, with occasional remarks; and an appendix.” (See Richard Atkins.) The original idea of it was Mr. Bowyer’s; but it was completed by Mr. Nichols. The two learned friends, whose assistance is acknowledged in the preface, were the rev. Dr. Henry Owen, and the late Mr. Cæsar de Missy. Though this work appeared without a name, it was immediately judged to be Mr. Bowyer’s, and was well received in the world of letters, and justly spoken of in terms of great commendation, both at home and abroad. A second edition, with very considerable improvements, was published in 1776, and a Supplement in 1781. When Mr. Nichols was engaged in printing the “Original Works of Dr. King of the Commons,” and the “Supplement to Swift,” Mr. Bowyer, by suggesting useful hints, and adding some illustrations, assisted him in both these undertakings. Our eminent printer now drew to the end of his literary career, which he closed with a new edition, in 1777, of Dr. Bentley’s “Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris.” Dr. Bentley was a writer whom he had always held in the highest estimation. In the republication of this great critic’s Dissertation, Mr. Bowyer inserted the remarks which had occurred to him in the course of many years attention to the subjects there treated of; and ascribed them to the respective authors irom whose books or personal communication they were selected. He was much indebted, on this occasion, to the friendly assistance of Dr. Salter and Dr. Owen.

Boyd, at length, returned into Scotland, where he soon after died, of a slow fever, in April 1601, at Pinkill, his father’s seat, in the 38th or 39th year of his age; and was buried with his ancestors in the church of Dalie or Darlie. Among the manuscripts which he left behind him, the following were in sir Robert Sibbald’s possession: “In Institutiones Imperatoris Commenta,” 1591, folio. “L‘Estat du Royaume d’Escosse a present,” foj. “ Politicus, ad Joannem Metellanum, cancellariutn Scotiae.” w Scriptum de Jurisconsulto, ad Franciscum Balduinum.“”Poeta, ad Cornelium Varum Florentinum.“” Poemata varia.“” Epistolae.“But of these, the only works now known are his” Epistolae Heroidum,“and his” Hymni.“These are inserted in the” Delitiae Poetarum Scotorum,“Amst. 1637, in two volumes 12mo; and a great character has been given of them by several authors. His biographer questions whether any of the ancients have excelled him in elegiac poetry, and is positive that none of the Latins have equalled his hymns. Olaus Borrichius, an eminent critic, in his” Dissertationes Academic de Poetis,“says,” In Marco Alexandra Bodio, Scoto, redivivum spectamus Nasonem; ea est in ejusdem Epistolis Heroidum, lux, candor, dexteritas." The same critic speaks as highly of Boyd’s Hymns, but modern taste will not coincide with these praises. Boyd undoubtedly was a man of genius and elegant accomplishments, yet we learn this rather from his history than his writings.

In June 1686, his friend Dr. Gilbert Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, transmitted to him from the Hague the manuscript account of his travels, which he had dra.vn up in the form of letters, addressed to Mr. Boyle: who, in his answer to the doctor, dated the 14th of that month, expresses his satisfaction in “finding, that all men do not travel, as most do, to observe buildings and gardens, and modes, and other amusements of a superficial and almost insignificant curiosity; for your judicious remarks and reflections, says he, may not a little improve both a statesman, a critic, and a divine, as well as they will make the writer pass for all three.” In 1687, Mr. Boyle published, 36. “The martyrdom of Theodora and Dydimia,” 8vo; a work he had drawn up in his youth. 37. “A disquisition about the final causes of natural things; wherein it is enquired, whether, and, if at all, with what caution, a naturalist should admit them.” With an appendix, about vitiated light, 1688, 8vo.

, whom Meister calls the greatest reformer of the Swiss schools which the last century produced, was born at Zurich March 1, 1701, and after going through a course of academical instruction, was admitted into orders in 1720. The space which usually intervenes between the ordination of young ministers and their establishment in a church, he employed principally in the study of the ancient authors, familiarizing himself with their language and sentiments, an employment which, like Zuinglius, he did not think unworthy of the attention of an ecclesiastic. Persius was his favourite poet, whom, he studied so critically as to furnish the president Bouhier with some happy elucidations, which the latter adopted, Breitinguer, however, was not merely a verbal critic, and considered such criticism as useful only in administering to higher pursuits in philosophy and the belles-lettres. The “Bibliotheque Helvetique” which he and Bodmer wrote, shews how criticism and philosophy may mutually assist each other. He formed an intimacy with Bodmer in early life, (see Bodmer), and both began their career as reformers of the language and taste of their country. Breitinguer found a liberal patron in the burgomaster Escher, who himself proved that the study of the Greek language is a powerful counterpoise to a bad taste, and was the person who encouraged Breitinguer principally to produce a new edition of the Septuagint translation. In 1731 he was chosen professor of Hebrew, and in ordeir to facilitate the study of that language to his pupils, he wrote his treatise on the Hebrew idioms. Some time after he was appointed vice-professor of logic and rhetoric, and from that time began the reformation which he thought much wanted in the schools, with a treatise “De eo quod nimium est in studio grammatico,” and a system of logic in Latin and German, which soon took the place of that ofWendelin. He contributed also various papers to the “Tempe Helvetica,” and the “Musaeum Helveticum,” and at the request of the cardinal Quirini drew up an account of a ms. of the Greek psalms which was found in the canons’ library. He published also the “Critical art of Poetry.” His biographer bestows great praise on all those works, and different as the subjects are, assures us that he treated each as if it had been the exclusive object of his attention. His literary acquaintance was also very extensive, and he numbered among his correspondents the cardinals Passionei and Quirini, the president Bouhier, the abbe“Gerbert de St. Blaise, with Iselin, Burmann, Crusius, le Maitre, Vernet, Semler, Ernesti, &c. But he chiefly excelled as a teacher of youth, and especially of those intended for the church, having introduced two regulations, the benefit of which his country amply acknowledges. The one was that young divines should preach, in turn, twice a week, on which occasion the sermon was criticised by the whole body of students, aided also by Breitinguer’s remarks. The other respects an institution or society of Ascetics, as they were called. This was composed of the clergy, who assembled at stated hours, to discuss subjects relative to their profession, and compose sermons, prayers, hymns, &c. Some of them also were employed in visiting the hospitals, others qualified for schoolmasters, and all were to assist the poor with advice or pecuniary aid. Breitinguer also prepared a catechism for the young, on an improved plan, and a little before his death, published” Orationes Carolina? d'Hottinguer,“dedicated to Semlin. He continued his active exertions almost to the last hour of his life, being present at an ecclesiastical council, on Dec. 13, 1776, but on his return was seized with an apoplexy, of which he died the following day. Breitinguer had as much learning as Bodmer, though not as much natural fire; and was an excellent critic. To the works already noticed, we may add his” Diatribe historico-Jiteraria in versus obscurissimos a Persio Satir. I citatos," 1740, 8vo. His edition of the Septuagint, in 4 vols. 4to, wa.t published at Zurich, (TigUnim,) 1730. The text is accurately compiled from the Oxford edition of Grabe: to which are added at the bottom of each page the various readings of the Codex Vaticanus. Nothing is altered except a few typographical errors, and some emendations of Grabe, which did not coincide with the editor’s opinion. The clearness of the type and beauty of the paper recommend it to the reader’s attention; and the care, accuracy, and erudition displayed throughout the work, may entitle it to bear, away the palm even from Grabe’s edition. Such at least is the opinion of Masch.

, in Latin Brod&Us, an eminent critic, on whom Lipsius, Scaliger, Grotius, and all the learned of his age, have bestowed high encomiums, was descended from a noble family in France, and born at Tours in 1500. He was liberally educated, and placed under Alciat to study the civil law; but, soon forsaking that, he gave himself up wholly to languages and the belles-lettres. He travelled into Italy, where he became acquainted with Sadolet, Bembus, and other eminent characters; and here he applied himself to the study of philosophy, mathematics, and the sacred languages, in which he made no small proficiency. Then returning to his own country, he led a retired but not an idle life; as his many learned lucubrations abundantly testify. He was a man free from all ambition and vain-glory, and suffered his works to be published rather under the sanction and authority of others, than under his own: a singular example, says Thuanus, of modesty in this age, when men seek glory not only from riches and honours, but even from letters; and that too with a vanity which disgraces them. He died in 1563, at Tours, where he was a canon of St. Martin. His principal works are, 1. his “Miscellanea, a collection of criticisms and remarks, the first six books of which are published in Gruter’s” Lampas, seu fax artium,“vol. II. and the four latter in vol. IV. 2.” Annotationes in Oppianurn, Q. Calabrum, et Coluthum,“Basil, 1552, 8vo. 3.” Notae in Martialem,“ibid. 1619, 8vo. 4.” Annot. in Xenophontem, Gr. et Lat.“ibid. 1559, fol. 5.” Epigrammata Grseca cum Annot. Brodaei et H. Steph." Francfort, 1600, fol. Many of these epigrams were translated into Latin by Dr. Johnson, and are printed with his works.

, an eminent physician, son of sir Thomas Browne, hereafter mentioned, was born about 1642. He was instructed in grammar learning at the school of Norwich, and in 1665 took the degree of bachelor of physic at Cambridge. Removing afterwards to Mertori college, Oxford, he was admitted there to the same degree in 1666, and the next year created doctor. In 1668, he visited part of Germany, and the year following made a wider excursion into Austria, Hungary, and Thessaly, where the Turkish sultan then kept his court at Larissa. He afterwards passed through Italy. Upon his return, he practised physic in London; was made physician first to Charl-es II. and afterwards in 1682 to St. Bartholomew’s hospital. About the same time he joined his name to those of many other eminent men, in a translation of Plutarch’s Lives. He was first censor, then elect, and treasurer of the college of physicians; of which in 1705 he was chosen president, and held this office till his death, which happened in August 1708, after a very short illness, at his seat at Northfleet, near Greenhithe in Kent. He was acquainted with Hebrew, was a critic in Greek, and no man of his age wrote better Latin. German, Italian, French, &c. he spoke and wrote with as much ease as his mother tongue. Physic was his business, and to the promotion thereof all his other acquisitions were referred. Botany, pharmacy, and chemistry, he knew and practised. King Charles said of him, that “he was as learned as any of the college, and as well-bred as any at court.” He was married, and left a son and a daughter; the former, Dr. Thomas Browne, F. R. S. and of the royal college of physicians, died in JiJy 17 Jo. The daughter married Owen Brigstock, of Lechdenny, in the county of Carmarthen, esq. to whom the public is indebted for part of the posthumous works of sir Thomas Browne.

His works exhibit abundant specimens of true inspiration; and had his judgment been equal to his powers of invention, or had he yielded less to the bad taste of his age, or occasionally met with a critic instead of a flatterer, he would have been entitled to a much higher rank in the class of genuine poets. His Pastorals form a vast storehouse of rural imagery and description, and in personifying the passions and affections, he exhibits pictures that are not only faithful, but striking, just to nature and to feeling, and frequently heightened by original touches of the pathetic and sublime, and by many of those wild graces which true genius only can exhibit. It is not improbable that he studied Spenser, as well as the Italian poets. To the latter he owes something of elegance and something of extravagance. From the former he appears to have caught the idea of a story like the Faery Queene, although it wants regularity of plan; and he follows his great model in a profusion of allegorical description and romantic landscape. His versification, which is so generally harmonious, that where he fails it may be imputed to carelessness, is at the same time so various as to relax the imagination with specimens of every kind, and he seems to pass from the one to the other with an ease that we do not often find among the writers of lengthened poems. Those, however, who are in search of faulty rhimes, of foolish conceits, of vulgar ideas, and of degrading imagery, will not lose their pains. He was, among other qualities, a man of humour, and his humour is often exceedingly extravagant. So mixed, indeed, is his style, and so whimsical his flights, that we are sometimes reminded of Swift in all his grossness, and sometimes of Milton in the plenitude of his inspiration. Mr. Warton has remarked that the morning landscape of the L* Allegro is an assemblage of the same objects which Browne had before collected in his Britannia’s Pastorals, B. IV. Song IV. beginning

Without offering any objection to these remarks, it may still be necessary to remind the reader of a circumstance to which this excellent critic has not adverted, namely, that the Inner Temple Mask appears to have been exhibited about the year 1620, when Milton was a boy of only twelve years old, and remained in manuscript until Dr. Farmer procured a copy for the edition of 1772 and that Milton produced his Comus at the age of twenty-six. It remains, therefore, for some future conjecturer to determine on the probability of Milton’s having seen Browne’s manuscript in the interim.

, a French physician, was born at Bealivais about the end of the seventeenth century, and after studying medicine, acquired considerable reputation by his practice and his writings. He also arrived at the honour of being royal censor of the college, and a member of the academy or Angers. He died in 1756, after having written or edited some works of merit in his profession: 1. “Observations sur le manuel des Accouchments,” Paris, 1733, 4tc, a translation from Daventer. 2. “La Medicine Raisonnee,” from Hoffman, ibid. 1739, 9 vols. 12mo. 3. “Caprices d'imagination, on Lettres sur differens sujets,” ibid. 1746, in which he appears as a physician, metaphysician, moralist, and critic. 4. “Memoires pour servir a la vie de M. Silva,” ibid. 1744, 8vo. 5. “Traite des Fievres,” from Hoffman, ibid. 1746, 3 vols. 12mo. 6. “La Pohtique du Medicin,” from the same, ibid. 1751, 12mo, 7. “Traite des Alimens,” by Lemery, ibid. 1755, 2 vols. 12mo. 8. “Dissertations surPincertitude des signesde lamort, et Tabus des enterremens et embaumemens precipites,” ibid. 1742, often reprinted, and translated into many European languages. This is’the most useful of all his works, and has been the means of saving many lives. He wrote also some papers in the Journal des Savans.

, a celebrated Greek scholar and critic, a member of the inscriptions and belles iettres, and of the institute, was born at Strasburgh, Dec. 30, 1729, and died in that city June 12, 1803. Of his history no detailed account has yet appeared in this country, as far as we have been able to learn. We are only told that he was first educated in the college of Louis le Grand at Paris, and that having afterwards engaged in the civil administration of affairs, he had long neglected the cultivation of letters, when, in the course of the campaigns in Hanover, he happened to lodge at Gie^sen, in the house of a professor of the university. With him he read several Latin and Greek authors, and was soon inspired with a great predilection for the latter language; but the most remarkable particular is, that some time before his death he lost on a sudden all taste for the critical and classical pursuits which he had followed so eagerly and successfully for upwards of half a century, and this without any visible decay of his powers either intellectual or physical. Yet, such was the change, that he totally abandoned all study of his favourite Greek, and could not be prevailed upon to cast even a glance on any of his favourite authors, nor did he appear to take the smallest interest in the discovery of a manuscript of Aristophanes, which happened to confirm the greater part of his notes and conjectures on that author, a circumstance, which, at any other period of his life, would have excited his warmest enthusiasm. The works for which the learned world is indebted to his pen are, 1. “Analecta veterum Poetarum Graecorum,” Strasburgh, 1772—1776, 3 vols 8vo, reprinted 1785. There is also a quarto edition. 2. “Anacreontis Carmina,” ibid. 1778, 12mo, and 1786, beautiful and accurate editions. 3. “Æschyli Tragcedioe, Prometheus, Persae, Septem ad Thebas: Sophoclis Antigone: Euripidis Medea,” ibid 1779, 8vo. 4. “Sophoclis Elettra, et Euripidus Andromache,” ibid. 1779, 8vo. 5. “Sophoclis Oedipus Tyrannus, et Euripidis Orestes,” ibid. 1779, 8vo. 6. “Euripidis Tragediae quatuor, Hecuba, Phcenissa?, Hyppolytus et Bacchae,” ibid. 1780, 8vo, with illustrations from a Parisian ms. an excellent edition. 7. “Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica,” ibid. 1780, 8vo, the notes and emendations more valuable than those of any preceding author, but Brunck is accused of employing conjecture rather too freely. 8. “Aristophanis Comœdiæ in Latinum Sermonem conversæ,” ibid. 1781, 3 vols. 9. “Aristophanis Comcediae ex optimis exemplaribus emendatae,” ibid. 1783, 8vo, and 4to, containing the preceding Latin translation and notes and emendations, one of the best editions of Aristophanes. 10. “G-nomici Poetae Graeci,” ibid. 1784, 8vo. 11. “Virgilius,” ibid. 1785, 8vo. 12. “Sophoclis qua; extant omnia, cum veterum Grammaticorum scholiis,” ibid. 1786, 4to, 2 vols. and 3 vols. 8vo, 1786 9, an edition of acknowledged superiority and value. 13. “Plautus,” Bipont. 1788, 2 vols. 8vo. 14. “Terentius,” 1787, from the press of Dannbach, but Mr. Dibdin mentions a Basil edition of 1797, said to have been superintended by Brunck, and printed in the same manner with his Virgil of 1789. Brunck’s enthusiastic admiration of the authors he edited was such, that he conceived their writings to have been originally immaculate, and therefore attributed to the copyists whatever errors he discovered. He is, as we have noticed, accused of taking some bold freedoms in the restoration of what he conceived defective, but he was more remarkable for this in the notes which he wrote on the margins of his books, and the manuscript copies of some Greek poets which he left behind him. Of Apollonius Rhodius only he wrote out five copies.

, or Bude’ (William), an eminent scholar and critic, the descendant of an ancient and illustrious family in France, lord of Marli-la-ville, king’s counsellor, and master of requests, was born at Paris in 1467. He was the second son of John Budé, lord of Yere and Villiers, secretary to the king, and one of the grand officers of the French chancery. In his infancy he was provided with masters; but such was the low state of Parisian education at that time, that when sent to the university of Orleans to study law, he remained there for three years, without making any progress, for want of a proper knowledge of the Latin language. Accordingly, on his return home, his parents had the mortification to discover that he was as ignorant as when he went, disgusted with study of any kind, and obstinately bent to pass his time amidst the gaieties and pleasures of youth, a coarse which his fortune enabled him to pursue. But after he had indulged this humour for some time, an ardent passion for study seized him, and became irresistible. He immediately disposed of his horses, dogs, &c. with which he followed the chace, applied himself to study, and in a short time made very considerable progress, although he had no masters, nor either instruction or example in his new pursuit. He became, in particular, an excellent Latin scholar, and although his style is not so pure or polished as that of those who formed themselves in early life on the best models, it is far from being deficient in fluency or elegance. His knowledge of the Greek was so great that John de Lascaris, the most learned Grecian of his time, declared that Budé might be compared with the first orators of ancient Athens. This language is perhaps complimentary, but it cannot be denied that his knowledge of Greek was very extraordinary, considering how little help he derived from instructions. He, indeed, employed at a large salary, one Hermonymus, but soon found that he was very superficial, and had acquired the reputation of a Greek scholar merely from knowing a little more than the French literati, who at that time knew nothing. Hence Budé used to call himself ανἶομαθης & οψιμαϑης i. e. self-taught and late taught. The work by which he gained most reputation, and published under the title “De Asse,” was one of the tirst efforts to clear up the difficulties relating to the coins and measures of the ancients; and although an Italian, Leonardus Portius, pretended to claim some of his discoveries, Budé vindicated his right to them with spirit and success. Previously to this he had printed a translation of some pieces of Plutarch, and “Notes upon the Pandects.” His fame having reached the court, he was invited to it, but was at first rather reluctant. He appears to have been one of those who foresaw the advantages of a diffusion of learning, and at the same time perceived an unwillingness in the court to entertain it, lest it should administer to the introduction of what was called heresy. Charles VIII. was the first who invited him to court, but died soon after: his successor Louis XII. employed him twice on embassies to Italy, and made him his secretary. This favour continued in the reign of Francis I. who sent for Budé to court when it was held at Arches at the interview of that monarch with Henry VIII. the king of England. From this time Francis paid him much attention, appointed him his librarian, and master of the requests, while the Parisians elected him provost of the merchants. This political influence he employed in promoting the interests of literature, and suggested to Francis I. the design of establishing professorships for languages and the sciences at Paris. The excessive heats of the year 1540 obliging the king to take a journey to the coast of Normandy, Budé accompanied his majesty, but unfortunately was seized with a fever, which carried him off Aug. 23/1540, at Paris. His funeral was private, and at night, by his own desire. This circumstance created a suspicion that he died in the reformed religion; but of this there is ho direct proof, and although he occasionally made free with the court of Rome and the corruptions of the clergy in his works, yet in them likewise he wrote with equal asperity of the reformers. Erasmus called him porttntum Gallic, the prodigy of France. There was a close connection between these two great men. “Their letters/' says the late Dr. Jortin,” though full of compliments and civilities, are also full of little bickerings and contests: which shew that their friendship was not entirely free from some small degree of jealousy and envy; especially on the side of Budé, who yet in other respects was an excellent person." It is not easy to determine on which side the jealousy lay; perhaps it was on both. Budé might envy Erasmus for his superior taste and wit, as well as his more extensive learning; and perhaps Erasmus might envy Budé for a superior knowledge of the Greek tongue, which was generally ascribed to him.

Although our author at this time had no parochial cure, he did not refuse his attendance to any sick person who desired it, and was sent for, amongst others, to one wha had been engaged in a criminal amour with Wilmot, earl of Rochester. The manner he treated her, during her illness, gave that lord a great curiosity of being acquainted with him, and for a whole winter, in a conversation of at least one evening in a week, Burnet went over all those topics with him, upon which sceptics, and men of loose morals, are wont to attack the Christian religion. The effect of these conferences, in convincing the earl’s judgment, and leading him to a sincere repentance, became the subject of a well-known and interesting narrative which he published in 1680, entitled “An Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.” This work has lately been reprinted more than once, perhaps owing to the character Dr. Johnson gave of it in his Life of Rochester: he there pronounces it a book “which the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint for its piety.”

In these particulars we have chiefly followed the account drawn up by Dr. Johnson for his edition of the English Poets, and must refer to the same for that eminent critic’s masterly dissertation on the merit of Butler as a poet. In 1744, Dr. Grey published an edition of Hudibras, 2 vols. 8vo, with plates by Hogarth, and notes illustrative of those passages and allusions which, from the lapse of time, were becoming obscure. This long remained the standard edition, until in 1794, Dr. Nash, the historian of Worcestershire, published a new edition in 2 vols. 4to, and one of notes, abridged, improved, and corrected from Dr. Grey’s edition; with an inquiry into the life of Butler, containing, however, few particulars that are not generally known.

Camoens wrote a variety of poetical compositions, some of which have been lately very elegantly translated into English by lord viscount Strangford, who has also prefixed a life of the author, from which we have extracted some remarks. According to the researches his lordship has made into the character of Camoens, he appears to have possessed a lofty and independent spirit, with a disposition to gallantry which may probably have involved him in difficulties. His genius, however, appears principally io the “Lusiad,” the subject of which is the first discovery of the East Indies by Vasco de Gama the poem is conducted according to the epic plan: both the subject and the in r cidents are magnificent, but the machinery is perfectly extravagant. Not only, says Blair, is it formed of a singular mixture of Christian ideas and pagan mythology, tout it is so conducted, that the pagan gods appear to be the true deities, and Christ and the blessed Virgin, to be subordinate agents. One great scope of the Portuguese expedition, our author informs us, is to propagate the Christian faith, and to extirpate Mahometanism. In this religious undertaking, the great protector of the Portuguese is Venus, and their great adversary is Bacchus, whose displeasure is excited by Vasco’s attempting to rival his tame in the Indies. Councils of the gods are held, in which Jupiter is introduced, as foretelling the downfall of Mahometanism, and the propagation of the gospel Vasco, in a great distress from a storm, prays most seriously to God; implores the aid of Christ and the Virgin; and begs for such assistance as was given to the Israelites, when they were passing through the Red Sea; and to the apostle Paul, when he was in hazard of shipwreck. In return to this prayer, Venus appears, who, discerning the storm to be the work of Bacchus, complains to Jupiter, and procures the winds to be calmed. Such strange and preposterous machinery, shews how much authors have been misled by the absurd opinion, that there could be no epic poetry without the gods of Homer. Towards the end of the work, indeed, the author gives us an awkward salvo for his whole mythology: making the goddess Thetis inform Vasco, that she, and the rest of the heathen deities, are no more than names to describe the operations of Providence. There is, however, says the same judicious critic, some fine machinery of a different kind in the Lusiad. The genius of the river Ganges, appearing to Emanuel king of Portugal, in a dream, inviting that prince to discover his secret springs, and acquainting him that he was the destined monarch for whom the treasures of the East were reserved, is a happy idea. But the noblest conception of this sort is in the fifth canto, where Vasco is recounting to the king of Melinda all the wonders which he met with in his navigation. He tells him, that when the fleet arrived at the Cape of Good Hope, which never before had been doubled by any navigator, there appeared to them on a sudden, a huge and monstrous phantom rising out of the sea, in the midst of tempests and thunders, with a head that reached the clouds, and a countenance that filled them with terror. This was the genius, or guardian, of that hitherto unknown ocean. It spoke to them with a voice like thunder: menaced them for invading those seas which he had so long possessed undisturbed, and for daring to explore those secrets of the deep, which never had been revealed to the eye of mortals; required them to proceed no farther: if they should proceed, foretold all the successive calamities that were to befall them: and then, with a mighty noise, disappeared. This is one of the most solemn and striking pieces of machinery that ever was employed, and is sufficient to show that Camoens is a poet, though of an irregular, yet of a bold and lofty imagination. The critical student will find a more severe censure of Canioens in Rapin, Dryden, and Voltaire. But the Lusiad lias generally been considered as a poem of very superior merit, and has been often reprinted and translated into several languages, once into French, twice into Italian, four times into Spanish; and lately, with uncommon excellence, into English, by Mr. Mickle; but it had beea translated in the 17th century by sir Richard Fanshaw. Mickle’s translation will be considered in his life. It was translated into Latin by Thomas de Faria, bishop of Targa in Africa; who, concealing his name, and saying nothing of its being a translation, made some believe that the Lusiadas was originally in Latin. Large commentaries have been written upon the Lusiadas; the most considerable of which are those of Emanuel Faria de Sousa, in 2 vols. folio, Madrid, 1639. These commentaries were followed the year after with the publication of another volume in folio, written to defend them; besides eight volumes of observations upon the miscellaneous poems of Camoens, which this commentator left behind him in manuscript.

While he held this charge, the powers of his mind began more fully to unfold themselves, and his character rose in the opinion of men of learning. Here he prosecuted the study of the holy scriptures, and instructed others with great success. In the church of Scotland, it is the practice to explain a chapter, or large portion of scripture, every Lord’s day, or at least every other Sunday. Mr. Campbell paid so much attention to this, and was so much master of it, that his character as a scripture critic, and lecturer of holy writ, was deservedly very high. It was while explaining the New Testament to his parishioners, that he first formed a plan of translating that part of it, viz. the four gospels, which he afterwards published. And it was in this country parish, long before any attention was paid, in the north of Scotland, to the niceties of grammar, that he composed a part of the philosophy of rhetoric.

After remaining nine years in this country parish, he was chosen one of the ministers of Aberdeen in June, 1757, where his various and extensive talents were appreciated by those who knew best their worth, and where his fame was most likely to be rewarded. Accordingly in 1759, he was presented by his majesty to the office of principal of Marischal college, and soon made it appear that he was worthy of this dignity. Hume had recently published his “Essay on Miracles,” and despised his opponents until principal Campbell published his celebrated “Dissertation on Miracles,” which deservedly raised his character as an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This “Dissertation” was originally drawn up in the form of a sermon, which he preached before the provincial synod of Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1760, and which, on their requesting him to publish it, he afterwards enlarged into its present form. Some circumstances attended the publication which are rather singular, and which we shall relate in the words of his biographer. “Before it was published, he sent a copy of his manuscript to Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, with a request that, after perusing it, he would communicate the performance to Mr. Hume. The learned aud judicious Blair read the dissertation both as a friend, and as a critic, then showed it to his opponent, and afterwards wrote to Mr. Campbell both what had occurred to himself, and what Mr. Hume chose at first to write on the subject. It soon appeared, that this sceptical philosopher, with all his affected equanimity, felt very sensibly, on reading so acute, so learned, and so complete an answer to his essay on miracles. He complained of some harsh expressions, and stated a few objections to what Mr. Campbell had advanced, shewing, in some cases, where his meaning had been misunderstood. Instead of being displeased, his generous adversary instantly expunged, or softened, every expression that either was severe, or was only supposed to be offensive, removed every objection that had been made to his arguments, and availed himself of the remarks both of his friend, and of his opponent, in rendering his dissertation a complete and unanswerable performance. Thus corrected and improved, it was put to the press, and a copy of it sent to Mr. Hume. That philosopher was charmed with the gentlemanly conduct of Mr. Campbell, confessed that he felt a great desire to answer the dissertation, and declared that he would have attempted to do something in this way, if he had not laid it down as a rule, in early life, never to return an answer to any of his opponents. Thus principal Campbell, from a rnanly and well-bred treatment of his adversary, rendered his own work more correct, gained the esteem of his opponent, and left an example worthy to be imitated by all polemical writers.” How far such an example is worthy to be imitated, may surely be questioned; in Mr. Campbell’s conduct we see somewhat of timidity and irresolution, nor does he seem to have been aware of the impropriety of gratifying Hume by personal respect; and after all no good was produced, for Hume reprinted his essay again and again without any notice of Campbell or any other of his opponents, a decisive proof that in this respect he had no title to the character of philosopher. The “Dissertation on Miracles” was published in 1763, previously to which the author received the degree of D.D. from King’s college, Old Aberdeen. The sale of the work was in proportion to its merit, most extensive in Great Britain, and being translated into the French, Dutch, and nan languages, the name of Dr. Campbell was from this time always mentioned with the highest respect among the learned men of Europe.

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

This character may be seen enlarged, with many interesting and instructive particulars of the private and public life of Dr. Campbell, in an excellent account of him written by the rev. Dr. George Skene Keith, and prefixed to Dr. Campbell’s “Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,” published in 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. These lectures have since been the subject of much ingenious criticism, particularly in the British Critic, vol. XX. As their object is to give a preference to the church government of Scotland, it was thought necessary by the advocates for the church of England to bestow particular notice on an attack on the latter coining from a man of so high talents and literary fame. In Scotland Dr. Campbell’s opinions were opposed by Dr. Skinner, a prelate of the Scotch episcopal church, in a volume entitled “Primitive Truth and Order vindicated,' 1 and in England, by archdeacon Daubeny, in his” Eight Discourses,“&c. Dr. Campbell’s” Lectures on Systematic Theology,' 1 and on “The Pastoral character,” have also been recently published, which, if inferior in popularity, are yet worthy of the pen which produced the “Essay on Miracles,' 1 the” Philosophy of Rhetoric, 11 and the “Translation of the Gospels.”

, a gentleman well known by his indefatigable attention to the works of Shakspeare, was born at Troston, near Bury, Suffolk, June 11, 1713, and received his education at the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. In the dedication of his edition of Shakspeare, in 1768, to the duke of Grafton, he observes, that “his father and the grandfather of his grace were friends, and to the patronage of the deceased nobleman he owed the leisure which enabled him to bestow the attention of twenty years on that work.” The office which his grace bestowed on Mr. Capell was that of deputy inspector of the plays, to which a salary is annexed of 200l. a year. So early as the year 1745, as Capell himself informs us, shocked at the licentiousness of Hanmer’s plan, he first projected an edition of Shakspeare, of the strictest accuracy, to be collated and published, in due time, “ex fide codicum.” He immediately proceeded to collect and compare the oldest and scarcest copies; noting the original excellencies and defects of the rarest quartos, and distinguishing the improvements or variations of the first, second, and third folios. But while all this mass of profound criticism was tempering in the forge, he appeared at last a self-armed Aristarchus, almost as lawless as any of his predecessors, vindicating his claim to public notice by his established reputation, the authoritative air of his notes, and the shrewd observations, as well as majesty, of his preface. His edition, however, was the effort of a poet, rather than of a critic; and Mr. Capell lay fortified and secure in his strong holds, entrenched in the black letter. Three years after (to use his own language) he “set out his own edition, in ten volumes, small octavo, with an introduction,” 1768, printed at the expence of the principal booksellers of London, who gave him 300l. for his labours. There is not, among the various publications of the present literary aera, a more singular composition than that “Introduction.” In style and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking the new pavement in all the trappings of romance; but, like lord Herbert, it displays many valuable qualities accompanying this air of extravagance, much sound sense, and appropriate erudition. It has since been added to the prolegomena of Johnson and Steevens’s edition. In the title-page of this work was also announced, “Whereunto will be added, in some other volumes, notes, critical and explanatory, and a body of various readings entire.” The introduction likewise declared, that these “notes and various readings” would be accompanied with another work, disclosing the sources from which Shakspeare “drew the greater part of his knowledge in mythological and classical matters, his fable, his history, and even the seeming peculiarities of his language to which,” says Mr. Capell, “we have given for title, The School of Shakspeare.” Nothing surely could be more properly conceived than such designs, nor have we ever met with any thing better grounded on the subject of “the learning of Shakspeare” than what may be found in the. long note to this part of Mr. Capell’s introduction. It is more solid than even the popular essay on this topic. Such were the meditated achievements of the critical knight-errant, Edward Capell. But, alas! art is long, and life is short. Three-andtvventy years had elapsed, in collection, collation, compilation, and transcription, between the conception and production of his projected edition: and it then came, like human births, naked into the world, without notes or commentary, save the critical matter dispersed through the introduction, and a brief account of the origin of the fables of the several plays, and a table of the different editions. Cenain quaintnesses of style, and peculiarities of printing and punctuation, attended the whole of this publication. The outline, however, was correct. The critic, with unremitting toil, proceeded in his undertaking. But while he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his way under ground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon his plan, and, digging out the promised treasures, laid them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect of our critic’s discoveries by anticipation. Steevens, Malone, Farmer, Percy, Reed, and a whole host of literary ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose map had been delineated by Edward Capell. Such a contingency nearly staggered the steady and unshaken perseverance of our critic, at the very eve of the completion of his labours, and, as his editor informs us for, alas! at the end of near forty years, the publication was posthumous, and the critic himself no more! we say then, as his editor relates, he was almost determined to lay the work wholly aside. He persevered, however (as we learn from the rev. editor, Mr. Collins), by the encouragement of some noble and worthy persons: and to such their Cih couragement, and his perseverance, the public was, in 1783, indebted for three large volumes in 4to, under the title of “Notes and various readings of Shakspeare; together with the School of Shakspeare, or extracts from divers English books, that were in print in the author’s time; evidently shewing from whence his several fables were taken, and some parcel of his dialogue. Also farther extracts, which contribute to a due understanding of his writings, or give a light to the history of his life, or to the dramatic history of his time.”

It does not appear that any of his poems were published during his life-time, except such as were set to music. The first collection was printed in 1640, 12mo, the second in 1642, the third (not in 1654 as Cibber asserts, but) in 1651, and a fourth in 1670. In 1772 Mr. Thomas Davies published an edition, with a few notes, and a short character, in which the writer has taken for granted some particulars for which no authority can be found. Carew’s Ccelum Britannicum, at one time erroneously attributed to Davenant, was printed with the first editions of his poems, and afterwards separately in 1651. Langbaine, and Cibber after him, say that our author placed the Lathi motto on the front, when printed, but no edition printed in his life-time is now known. The distich, however, might have been prefixed to the music of the masque. Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, informs us, that “Garew’s sonnets were more in request than any poet’s of his time that is, between 1630 and 1640. They were many of them set to music by the two famous composers, Henry and William Lawes, and' other eminent masters, and sunoat. court in their masques.” It may be added, that Carew was one of the old poets whom Pope studied, and from, whom he borrowed. Dr. Percy honours him with the compliment of being an “elegant, and almost forgotten writer, whose poems deserve to be revived.” But no modern critic appears to have estimated his merit with more liberality than Mr. Head ley: his opinion, however, is here copied, not without suspicion that. his enthusiasm may be thought to have carried him too far.

, an Italian poet, was born in 1507, at Civita Nova, in the march of Ancona, of poor parents. After his first studies he obtained the patronage of the illustrious house of Gaddi in Florence, a branch of which, John Gaddi, legate of Romania, appointed him secretary of legation, and retained him in his service, with some interval, until his death. On this event Caro determined on a life of independence; but unable to resist the liberal offers of Peter Louis Farnese, accepted the place of confidential secretary in 1543. While with him, Caro had an opportunity of forming a very fine collection of medals, and wrote a treatise on the subject. Such was his reputation at this time that Onufrius Pauvinius dedicated his work “De Antiquis Romanorum nominibus” to him, as the ablest antiquary in Italy. With the study of medals, Caro united that of the sciences, the belles lettres, languages, and the Italian particularly, which owes great obligations to him. He composed in that language several works of the light kind, such as the “Ficheide del P. Siceo (i. e Francis Maria Molza) col Commento dr Ser Agresto (Annibal Caro) sopra la prima Ficata,” 1539, 4to; “La diceria de nasi;” and a prose comedy, “Gli Straccioni,” Venice, 1582, 12mo. These works procured him the friendship of persons of rank at tfome, and the esteem of the learned throughout Italy. All the academies were opened to him, and the most celebrated poets acknowledged him as their master. Sonnets being then the fashionable poetry of Italy, Caro acquired great reputation by his performances in this style, and was compared to Petrarch rnd Bembo. Nor were his talents less conspicuous as a negvciaior. In 1544 he executed a very important commission of this kind, with wh?ch he was intrusted by the house of Farnese at the court of Charles V. After the death of his patron Peter Lewis Farnese, the cardinals Alexander and Kanutius, and the duke Octavius Farnese, vied with each other in presenting him with ecclesiastical preferments, and even with the order of Malta, of which he was made commander. It was on this occasion, in order to pay his court to cardinal Alexander Farnese, that he composed an ode in honour of the royal family of France, which was almost universally applauded. Castelvetro the critic, however, attacked it with much asperity, and Caro answered him with spirit; but the controversy unfortunately became personal, and Caro, in 1548, published a gross and scandalous attack on, Castelvetro, and even denounced him to the inquisition, from which he narrowly escaped, as will be noticed in his life. After this dispute which did so little honour to either party, Caro resumed his studies, and at the request of cardinal St. Croix, afterwards pope Marcellus II. translated some parts of the works of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Cyprian. He likewise translated Aristotle’s Rhetoric, but infirmities coming upon him, and being tired of a court life, he requested permission of his patrons to retire, and the cardinal Ranutius gave him a small house at Frescati, to which he removed his library. In this retreat he meditated the composition of an epic poem, but was diverted from the design by his friends, and made a translation of Virgil into bkink verse, which has been very much admired. He had scarcely finished this when he died, Nov. 21, 1566. After his death his works were published by his nephews; his poetry and the translations from Gregory of Nazianzen and St. Cyprian in 1568; Aristotle’s Rhetoric in 1570; and his letters, vol. I. and II. in 1572 and 1575, much admired for ease and elegance. The translation of Virgil was not published until 1581. One of the best editions is that of Paris, 1765, 2 vols. 8vo; and in 1725, his “Letters” were reprinted at Padua, with a life of the author, by Alexander Zalioli, and notes by the editor, 2 vols. 8vo; but the most complete edition is in 6 vols. Padua, 1765. Caro also translated the Pastorals of Longus, of which Bodoni printed a fine edition at Parma in 1786, 4to. Among his unpublished works are a translation of Aristotle’s “History of Animals,” and his treatise above mentioned on medals.

, one of the sons of the preceding, was born in 1595, succeeded to his father’s employments, which he held for forty-six years, and died in 1666, He was accounted one of the ablest lawyers and law-writers of his time, and may likewise be praised as a legal antiquary, as he rescued from the archives, where they were unknown or forgot, many constitutions and decisions of great curiosity and importance. In his latter days he retired to Leipsic, and devoted his time entirely to the study of the Bible, which he is said to have read over fifty-three times, besides making notes as he went on, and consulting the commentators. The chief of his published works are, 1. “Practica rerum criminalium,” 1635, fol. often reprinted, and abridged by Suerus, Leipsic, 1655, 4to, 1669, 8vo. 2. “Detinitiones forenses,” 1638, fol.; also often reprinted, and abridged by Schroterus, with the author’s consent, Jena, 166 4-, 4to, and 1669, 8vo. 3. “Comment, ad legern regiam Germanorum,” 1640. 4. “Responsa juris Electoralia,” 1642, fol. 5. “Definitiones ecclesiastics,” 1649. 6. “Decisiones Saxonicae,” 1646 1654, 3 vols. folio, often reprinted. 7. “Processus Juris Saxonici,” 1657, folio. Other branches of this family acquired distinction as divines and philologists; but our accounts of them are too imperfect to be interesting, and those in the Diet. Historique evidently erroneous. The last upon record, John Benedict Carpzovius, was a very eminent classical scholar and critic. He published an excellent edition of Musaeus, Gr. and Lat. in 1775.

, LL. D. many years an eminent schoolmaster at Hertford, and known to the literary world as the translator of Lucian, was born at Muggleswick, in the county of Durham, in 1722. His father was a fanner, and had a small estate of his own, which the doctor possessed at his death. He was first educated at the village school, and privately by the rev. Daniel Watson, who was then a young man, and curate of that place. Afterwards he was sent to St. Paul’s school, where he continued longer than boys usually do, as his father could not afford to send him to either of the universities. He is supposed to have been once a candidate for the mastership of St. Paul’s, but the want of a degree was fatal to his application. When still young, however, he became usher to Dr. Hurst, who was master of the grammar-school at Hertford, and succeeded him in that situation, which he held for many years with the highest credit. He was honoured with the degree o/ LL. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, by the influence of Dr. Beattie. He died June 6, 1807, after experiencing a gradual decay for nearly a year before, but on the day of his death was, as he supposed, in much better health than usual. He was buried in St. John’s church, Hertford, with an epitaph in Latin, written by himself, in which he seems to reflect a little on time lost, “studits inanibus.-” This may probably allude to his “Translation of Lucian,” on which he employed many of his leisure hours, and which was published in 5 vols. 8vo. from 1773 to 1798. It procured him considerable fame, which, however, lias been diminished, in the opinion of many, since the appearance of Dr. Francklin’s more classical translation. Dr. Carr’s other publications were trifles, on which himself perhaps set no very high value “Vol. III. of Tristram Shandy,” in imitation of Sterne, but soon detected, 1760 “Filial Piety,” a mock heroic, 1763, fol ts Extract of a Private Letter to a Critic,“1764, fol. and” Eponi-na, a Dramatic Essay, addressed to the ladies," 1765.

, a learned critic, was of a Spanish family, but born at Bruges, in Flanders. He began to study at Louvain, where he had Lipsius for his school-fellow, of whom he often speaks with respect in various parts of his “Antiquae lectiones,” and his “Ernendationes,” although it has been insinuated that he felt some degree of jealousy of the fame of Lipsius. He prosecuted his studies at Doway and at Paris, and returning to Louvain, was made doctor of laws in 1586, and about the same time lectured on the Institutes of Justinian. He was afterwards appointed royal professor of law, and had some church preferment, but he died young at Louvaine, June 23, 1595, being then president of the college of St. Ives. His classical and critical taste is displayed in 1. “Histojriarum Sallustii fragmenta,” with notes, Antwerp, 1573, 8vo. 2. “Censorinus de die natali,” with the fragment of an unknown author on the same subject, attributed to Censorinus, but which Carrio proves was not his, Paris, 1583, 8vo. Lindenbrog, in his own edition of Censorinus, Leyden, 1642, 8vo, bestows high praise on Carrio, and adopts most of his readings. 3. “M. A. Cassiodori de ortographia libellus,” Antwerp, 1579, 8vo. 4. “V. Flacci Argonautica, cum castigationibus,” Antwerp, 8vo, and 16mo, and Lyons, 1617, 8vo. 5. “Antiquarum lectionum libri tres,” Antwerp, 1576, 8vo, and inserted in Grater’s “Thesaurus” as is his other work, 6. “Emendationum et observationum libri duo,” Paris, 4to.

, a very learned critic, was born at Geneva, February 18, 1559, being the son of Arnold Casaubon, a minister of the reformed church, who had taken refuge in Geneva, by his wife Jane Rosseau. He was educated at first by his father, and made so quick a progress in his studies, that at the age of nine he could speak and write Latin with great ease and correctness. But his father being obliged, for three years together, to be absent from home, on account of business, his education was neglected, and at twelve years of age he was forced to begin his studies again by himself, but as he could not by this method make any considerable progress, he was sent in 1578 to Geneva, to complete his studies under the professors there, and by indefatigable application, quickly recovered the time he had lost. He learned the Greek tongue of Francis Portus, the Cretan, and soon became so great a master of that language, that this famous man thought him worthy to be his successor in the professor’s chair in 1582, when he was but three and twenty years of age. In 1586, Feb. 1, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at Dil, aged sixty- three. The 28th of April following he married Florence, daughter of Henry Stephens the celebrated printer, by whom he had twenty children. For fourteen years he continued professor of the Greek tongue at Geneva; and in that time studied philosophy and the civil law under Julius Pacius. He also learned Hebrew, and some other of the Oriental languages, but not enough to be able to make use of them afterwards. In the mean time he began to be weary of Geneva; either because he could not agree with his father-in-law, Henry Stephens, who is said to have been morose and peevish; or that his salary was not sufficient for his maintenance; or because he was of a rambling and unsettled disposition. He resolved therefore, after a great deal of uncertainty, to accept the place of professor of the Greek tongue and polite literature, which was offered him at Montpelier, with a more considerable salary than he had at Geneva. To Montpelier he removed about the end of 1596, and began, his lectures in the February following. About the same time, the city of Nismes invited him to come and restore their university, but he excused himself, and some say he had an invitation from the university of Franeker. At his first coming to Montpelier, he was much esteemed and followed, and seemed to be pleased with his station. But this pleasure did not last long; for what had been promised him was not performed; abatements were made in his salary, which also was not regularly paid, and upon the whole, he met there with so much uneasiness that he was upon the point of returning to Geneva, when a journey he took to Lyons in 1598, gave him an opportunity of taking another, that proved extremely advantageous to him. Having been recommended by some gentlemen of Montpelier to M. de Vicq, a considerable man at Lyons, this gentleman took him into his house, and carried him along with him to Paris, where he caused him to be introduced to the first- president de Harlay, the president de Thou, Mr. Gillot, and Nicolas le Fevre, by whom he was very civilly received . He was also presented to king Henry IV. who being informed of his merit, requested him to leave Montpelier for a professor’s place at Paris. Casaubon having remained for some time in suspense which course to take, went back to Montpelier, and resumed his lectures. Not long after, he received a letter from the king, dated January 3, 1599, by which he was invited to Paris in order to be professor of polite literature, and he set out the 26th of February following. When he came to Lyons, M. de Vicq advised him to stay there till the king’s coming, who was expected in that place. In the mean while, some domestic affairs obliged him to go to Geneva, where he complains that justice was not done him with regard to the estate of his father-in-law. Upon his return to Lyons, having waited a long while in vain for the king’s arrival, he took a second journey to Geneva, and then went to Paris; though he foresaw, as M. de Vicq and Scaliger had told him, he should not meet there with all the satisfaction he at first imagined. The king gave him, indeed, a gracious reception; but the jealousy of some of the other professors, and his being a protestant, procured him a great deal of trouble and vexation, and were the cause of his losing the professorship, of which he had the promise. Some time after, he was appointed one of the judges on the protestants’ side, at the conference between James Davy du Perron, bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and Philip du Plessis-Mornay f. As Casaubon was not favourable to the latter, who, some think, did not acquit himself well in that conference, it was reported that he would soon change his religion; but the event showed that this report was groundless. When Casaubon came back to Paris, he found it very difficult to get his pension paid, and the charges of removing from Lyons to Paris, because M. de Rosny was not his friend; and it was only by an express order from the king that he obtained the payment even of three hundred crowns. The 30th of May 1600, he returned to Lyons, to hasten the impression of his “Athenseus,” which was printing there; but he had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of his great friend M. de Vicq, who had all along entertained him and his whole family in his own house when they were in that city, because he refused to accompany him into Switzerland. The reason of this refusal was, his being afraid of losing in the mean time the place of library-keeper to the king, of which he had a promise, and that was likely soon to become vacant, on account of the librarian’s illness. He returned to Paris with his wife and family the September following, and was well received by the king, and by many persons of distinction. There he read private lectures, published several works of the ancients, and learned Arabic; in which he made so great a progress, that he undertook to compile a dictionary, and translated some books of that language into Latin. In 1601 he was obliged, as he tells us himself, to write against his will to James VI. king of Scotland, afterwards king of England, but does not mention the occasion of it. That prince answered him with great civility, which obliged our author to write to him a second time. In the mean time, the many affronts and uneasinesses he received from time to time at Paris, made him think of leaving that city, and retiring to some quieter place, but king Henry IV. in order to fix him, made an augmentation of two hundred crowns to his pension: and granted him the reversion of the place of his library-keeper. He took a journey to Dauphine in May 1603, and from thence to Geneva about his private affairs; returning to Paris on the 12th of July. Towards the end of the same year he came into possession of the place of king’s library-keeper, vacant by the death of Gosselin. His friends of the Roman catholic persuasion made now frequent attempts to induce him to forsake the protestant religion. Cardinal du Perron, in particular, had several disputes with him, after one of which a report was spread that he had then promised the cardinal he would turn Roman catholic: so that, in order to stifle that rumour, the ministers of Charenton, who were alarmed at it, obliged him to write a letter to the cardinal to contradict what was so confidently reported, and took care to have it printed. About this time the magistrates of Nismes gave him a second invitation to their city, offering him a house, and a salary of six hundred crowns of gold a year, but he durst not accept of it for fear of offending the king. In 1609 he had, by that prince’s order, who was desirous of gaining him over to the catholic religion, a conference with cardinal du Perron, but it had no effect upon him.

His writings are 1 “In Diogenem Laertium Notae Isaaci Hortiboni,” Morgiis, 1583, 8vo. He was but twenty-five years old when he made these notes, and intended to have enlarged them afterwards, but was hindered. He dedicated them to his father, who commended him, but told him at the same time, “He should like better one note of his upon the holy Scriptures, than all the pains he could bestow upon profane authors.” These potes of Casaubon were inserted in the editions of Diogenes Laertius, printed by H. Stephens in 15l>4 and 1598, in 8vo, and in all the editions published since. The name of Hortibonus, which Casaubon took, is of the same import as Casaubon, i. e. a good garden; Casait, in the language of Dauphiné, signifying a garden, and bon, good. 2. “Lectiones Theocriticæ,” in Crispinus’s edition of Theocritus, Genev. 1S84, 12mo, reprinted several times since. 3. “Strabonis Geographiae Libri XVII. Grsece & Latine, ex Guil. Xylandri Interpretatione,” Genevae, 1587, fol. Casaubon’s notes were reprinted, with additions, in the Paris edition of Strabo in 1620, and have been inserted in all other editions since. 4. “Novurn Testamentum. Grace urn,” Geneva;, 1587, 16 to, with notes which were reprinted afterwards, at the end of Whitaker’s edition of the New Testament, Lond. and inserted in the “Critici Sacri.” V. “Animadversiones in Dionysium Halicarnassensem,” in the edition of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, published by our author with Æmilius Portus’s Latin version, Genev. 1588, fol. These were written in haste, and are of no great value. 6. “Polyseni Stratagematum,” Libri VIII.“Lugduni, 1589, 16to. Casaubon was the first who published the Greek text of this author. The Latin version, joined to it, was done by Justus Vulteius, and first published in 1550. 7.” Dicsearchi Geographica quaedam, sive de Statu Grascise; ejusdem descriptio Grrcciae versibus Greeds jambicis, ad Theophrastum; cum Isaaci Casauboni & Henrici Stephani nods,“Genevac, 1589, 8vo. 8.” Aristotelis Opera Grasce, cum variorum Interpretatione Latina, & variis Lectionibus & Castigationibus Isaaci Casauboni,“Lugduni, 1590, fol.; Genevae, 1605, fol. These notes are only marginal, and were composed at leisure hours. 9.” C. Plinii Caec. Sec. Epist. Lib. IX. Ejusdem & Trajani imp. Epist. amcebaea?. Ejus­* clem Pi. & Pacati, Mamertini, Nazarii Panegyrici. Item Claudiani Panegyrici. Adjunctae sunt Isaaci Casauboni Notae in Epist.“Geneva, 1591, 12mo; ibid. 1599, 1605, 1610, and 1611, 12mo. These notes are but very short. 10.” Theophrasti Characteres Ethici Grasce & Latine,“Lugduni, 1592, 12mo, and 1612, 12mo. This latter edition is the most exact of the two, being revised by the author. Casaubon’s edition of Theophrastus is still highly esteemed, and was one of those works which procured him most reputation. Joseph Scaliger highly extols it. 11.” L. Apuleii Apologia,“Typis Commeiini 1593, 4to. In this edition he shewed himself as able a critic in the Latin, as he had done before in the Greek tongue. It is dedicated to Joseph Scaliger. 12.” C. Suetonii Tranquilli Opera,“Genevas, 1595, 4to, and Paris, 1610, an enlarged edition. 13.” Publii Syri Mimi, sive sententiae selectae, Latine, Graece versas, & Notis illustrate per Jos. Scaligerum; cum prefatione Isaaci Casaubon i,“Lugd. Batav. 1598, 8vo. 14.” Athenaei Deipnosophistarmn, LibriXV. Graece Latine, Interprete JacoboDalechampio, cum Isaaci Casauboni Animadversion um Libris XV.“Geneva, 1597, 2 vols. fol.; ibid. 1612, 2 vols. fol Casaubon’s notes take up the second volume, and are copious and learned, and constitute the most valuable part of this edition. 15.” Historiae Augustae Scriptures, “Paris, 1603, 4to, reprinted at Paris in 1620, with Saiivmsius’s Commentaries on the same autnors, fol. and at Leyden, in 1670, 2 vols. 8vo. 16.” Diatnba ad Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes,“published in the edition of that author by Frederick Morel, at Paris, 1604, fol. 17.” Persii Satyrae ex recensione &- cum Commentar.“Pans, 1605, 8vo; Lond. 1647, 8vo. These notes upon Persius ar Lectures he had formerly read at Geneva. They were enlarged in the edition of 1647. Scaliger used to say of them,” That the sauce was better than the fish.“18.” De Satyrica Graecorum Poesi, & llomanorum Satyra Libri duo,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. In this work Casaubon affirms, that the satire of the Latins was very different from that of the Greeks, which Daniel Heinsius contradicts in his two books,” De Satyra Horatiana,“Lugd. Batava. 1629, 12mo. But the learned Ezekiel Spanheim, after having examined the arguments of these two learned men, declares for Casaubon. Crenius has inserted this tract of Casaubon, in his” Musceum Philologicum & Historicom,“Ludg. Batav. 1699, 8vo; and also the following” piece, which was published by our author at the end of his two books, “De Satyrica Poesi,” &c. 19. “Cyclops Euripidis Latinitate donata a Q. Septimio Florente.” 20. “Gregorii Nysseni Epistola ad Eustathiam, Ambrosiam, & Basilissam, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 1601, 8vo Hanoviac, 1607, 8vo. This letter was first published by Casaubon. 21. “De Libertate Ecclesiastica Liber,” 1607, 8vo; composed by the author during the disputes between pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice; and contained a vindication of the rights of sovereigns against the incroachmentsof the court of Rome. As those differences were adjusted while the book was printing, king Henry IV. caused it to be suppressed; but Casaubon having se4it the sheets, as they came out of the press, to some of his friends, some copies were preserved. Melchior Goldast inserted that fragment in his “Collectanea de Monarchia S. Imperil,” torn. I. p. 674, and Almeioveen reprinted it in his edition of our author’s letters. It was also published by Dr. Hickes in 1711. 22. “Inscriptio vetus dedicationem fundi continens, ab Herode rege facta, cum notis.” This small piece, published in 1607, has been inserted by T. Crenius in his “Musoeum. Phiiologicum.” Casaubon’s notes are short, but learned; however, he appears to have been mistaken in ascribing the inscription on which they were made to Herod king of Judaea, instead of Herodes the Athenian. 23. “Polybii Opera Gr. & Lat. Accedit Æneas Tracticus detoleranda obsidione, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 1609, fol. & HanoviiE, 1609, fol. The Latin version of these two authors was done by Casaubon, who intended to write a commentary upon them, but went no farther than the first book of Polybius, being hindered by death. Thuanus, and Fronto Ducaeus the Jesuit, were so pleased with that Latin version, that they believed it was not easy to determine whether Casaubon had translated Polybius, or Polybius Casaubon. At the head of this edition there is a dedication to king Henry IV. a species of writing in which, as well as in prefaces, he is allowed to excel. In the former, he praises without low servility, and in a manner remote from flattery; in the latter, he lays open the design and excellences of the books he publishes, without ostentation, and with an air of modesty. 24. “Josephi Scaligeri Opusculavaria,” Paris, 1610, 4to; and Francofurti, 1612, 8vo, with a preface of his own. 25. “Ad Frontonem Ducseum Epistola, de Apologia, Jesuitarum nomine, Parisiis edita,” Londini, 1611, 4to. Casaubon, after his coming to England, being obliged to write against the papists, in order to please his patron king James I. began with this letter, dated July 2, 1611, which is the 730th in Almeloveen’s collection, and for which king James made him a considerable present. It is a confutation of “la Reponse Apologetique a I'Anti-coton, par Francois Bonald.” Au Pont, 1611, 8vo. 26. “Epistola ad Georgium Michaelem Lingelshemium de quodam libello Sciopii,” 1612, 4to. This letter is dated Aug. 9, 1612, and is the 828th of Almeloveen’s collection. 27. “Epistola ad Cardinalem Perronium,” Londini, 1612, 4to. This letter, which is the 838th in Almeloveen’s collection, and is written with moderation, is not so much Casaubon’s own composition, as an exact account of the sentiments of king James I. whose and the church of England’s secretary he was, as he tells us, with regard to some points of religion. Accordingly, it was inserted in the edition of that king’s works, published in 1619, by Dr. Montague, bishop of Winchester. Cardinal du Perron undertook to give an answer to it, which was left unfinished at his death. It has been likewise animadverted upon by Valentine Smalcius, the Socinian, in his “Ad Isaacum Casaubonum Paraenesis,” Racoviae, 1614, 4to, published under the name of Anton. Ileuchlin. 28. “De Rebus sacris & Ecclesiasticis Exercitationes xvi. Ad Cardinalis Baronii Prolegomena in Annales, & primam eorum partem, de Domini nostri Jesu Christi Nativitate, Vita, Passione, Assumtione,” Londini, 1614, fol. Francofurti, 1615, 4to; Genevx, 1655, & 1663, 4to. Soon after Casaubon' s arrival in England, Peter du Moulin wrote to Dr. James Montagu, then bishop of Bath and Wells, to inform him that Casaubon had a great inclination to popery; that there were only a few articles, which kept him among the protestants; and that if he returned to France, he would change his religion, as he had promised. Therefore, he desired him to endeavour to keep him in England, and to engage him in writing against the Annals of Baronius, since he knew “that he had materials ready for that purpose.” Accordingly, king James employed him in that work, which was finished in eighteen months’ time. Niceron thinks that Casaubon was not equal to this work, because he had not sufficiently studied divinity, chronology, and history, and was not conversant enough in the fathers, and is charged with having committed more errors than Baronius in a less compass. Besides, as he comes no lower than the year 34 after Christ, he is said to have pulled down only the pinnacles of Baronius’ s great building. It appears from letter 1059th of our author, that Dr. Richard Montague, afterwards bishop of Norwich, had undertaken to write against Baronius at the same time with himself; and he threatens to complain of him to the king, who had engaged him in that work. 29. “Ad Polybii Historiarum Libruni primum Commentarius,” Paris, 1617, 8vo, See above, No. 23. 30. “Isaaci Casauboni Epistohp,” Hagie Comin. 1638, 4to, published by John Frederick Gronovius. A second edition, enlarged and arranged in chronological order, was published afterwards by John George Gramus at Magdeburgb, and Helmstadt, 1656, 4to; but the best, which includes his life, is entitled “Is. Casauboni Epistolae,” &c. Curante Theodore Janson ab Almeloveen,“Roterodami, 1709, foL The letters in this volume are 1059 in number, placed according to the order of the time in which they were written; and 5 1 without dates. Niceron finds in them neither elegant style, nor fine thoughts; and censures, as very disagreeable, the mixture of Greek words and expressions that are dispersed throughout; affirming besides, that they contain no particulars tending to the advancement of learning, or that are of any great importance. In the” Sorberiana“it is said that there is in them the history of a man of probity and learning; but nothing otherwise very remarkable, excepting the purity of the language, and the marks of a frank and sincere mind. Argonne, however, in his” Melanges d'Histoire,“assures us that they are all perfectly beautiful; and makes no scruple to compare them to those of Grotius and Scaligerwith regard to learning; and to assert that they exceed them for the easiness and purity of the style, which is entirely epistolary, and not at all affected. 31.” Casauboniana," Hamburg!, 1710, 8vo. There is nothing very material in this collection.

, an Italian critic, celebrated for his parts, but more for the seventy of his criticisms, was born at Modena in 1505. Being despised for his poverty by the ignorant part of mankind, and hated for his knowledge by the learned, says Moreri, he left his own country, and went into Germany, where he resided at the court of the emperor Maximilian II. After six years’ absence he returned to Modena, and distinguished himself chiefly by his Commentary upon Aristotle’s Poetics; in which, Rapin assures us, he always made it a rule to find something to except against in the text of Aristotle. He attacked his contemporary and rival in polite literature, Hannibal Caro, as we have observed under his article; and the quarrel did not end without many satirical pieces written on both sides in verse and prose. Castelvetro, however, was assisted here by his friends; for though he knew how to lay down rules for writing poetry, yet he was not a poet himself. His rival 'Hannibal Caro at length brought him under the cognisance of the inquisition at Rome, by which he was accused of paying too much deference 1 to the new opinions, and not enough to the old. It is probable that during his travels into Germany, win -re Lutheranism was established, he had imbibed the principles of the reformation, which appeared in his conversation and writings. He wished to be tried at a distance, as he then was, before a council; but the pope acquainted the cardinal of Mantua, his legate, that since Castelvetro had been accused before the inquisition at Rome, it was necessary for him to appear there, under the character of a person accused. Upon the pope’s assuring him of* high honours if he was found innocent, and of clemency if guilty, he appeared before the inquisition, and was examined in October 1560: but, finding himself embarrassed by the questions put to him, and especially in regard to a bouk of Melancthon, which he had translated into Italian, he fled to Basil in Switzerland, where he pursued the study of the belles lettres to the time of his death, which happened Feb. 20, 1571.

, a learned and industrious writer, was born at Paris Dec. 28, 1659. After studying classics and philosophy, he relinquished the bright prospects of promotion held out to him by his maternal uncle M. de Lubert, who was treasurer-general of the marine; entered the society of the Jesuits in 1677, and completed his vows in 1694 at the college of Bourges, where he then resided. After teaching for a certain number of years, agreeably to the custom of his society, his superiors ordained him to the pulpit, and he became a very celebrated preacher for some years, at the end of which the “Journal de Trevoux” was committed to his care: he appears to have been editor of it from 1701, and notwithstanding his almost constant attention to this journal, which for about twelve years he enriched with many valuable dissertations and extracts, he found leisure for various separate publications. In 1705, he published his “Histoire generate de Tempire du Mogul,” Paris, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted. It is taken from the Portuguese memoirs of M. Manouchi, a Venetian. In 1706 appeared his “Histoire duFanatisme des religions protestantes,” Paris, 12mo, containing only the history of the anabaptists; but he reprinted it in 1733, 2 vols. 12mo, with the history of Davidism, and added the same year in a third volume, the history of the Quakers. This work is in more estimation abroad than it probably would be in this country. He employed himself for some time on a translation of Virgil into prose, which was completed in 1716, Paris, 6 vols. 12mo, and was reprinted in 1729, 4 vols. The notes and life of Virgil are the most valuable part of the book, although his admirers affected to consider him as excelling equally as commentator, critic, and translator. That, however, on which his fame chiefly rests, is his “Roman History,” to which his friend Rouilie contributed the notes. This valuable work was completed in 20 vols. 4to, and was soon translated into Italian and English, the latter in 1728, by Dr. Richard Bundy, 6 volg. folio. Rouilie, who undertook to continue the history, 'after the death of his colleague, published only one volume in 1739, 4to, and died himself the following year. Father Routh then undertook the continuation, but the dispersion of the Jesuits prevented his making much progress. As a collection of facts, this history is the most complete we have, and the notes are valuable, but the style is not that of the purest historians. Catrou preserved his health and spirits to an advanced age, dying Oct. 18, 1737, in his seventy-eighth year

And in this he has been followed by Paul Jovius and Barthius among the moderns. Dr. Warton maintains that the Romans can boast but of eight poets who are unexceptionably excellent, and places Catullus as the third on this list, in which he is preceded by Terence and Lucretius, and followed by Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, and Phaedrus. The same critic seems to doubt whether the story of Atys in Catullus’s works be genuine. It is so much above the tender and elegant genius of Catullus, that he is inclined to think it a translation from some Grecian writer. Catullus’s writings got him the name of “the learned” amongst the ancients, for which we have the authority of Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, and both the Plinys; but we have no compositions of his remaining, nor any lights from antiquity, which enable us to explain the reason of it. Among others that Catullus inveighed against and lashed in his iambics, none suffered more severely than Julius Cæsar, under the name of Mamurra which, however, only furnished Cæsar with an opportunity of shewing his moderation and humanity. For after Catullus, by repeated invectives, had given sufficient occasion to Cæsar to resent such usage, especially from one whose father had been his familiar friend Cæsar, instead of expressing any uneasiness, generously invited the poet to supper with him, and there treated him with so much affability and good-nature, that Catullus was ashamed at what he had done, and resolved to make him amends for the future.

In the case of sir John Fenwick, though he had a conviction of his guilt, yet he was so averse to any extraordinary judicial proceedings, that he opposed the bill, as he did likewise another bill for the resumption of the forfeited estates in Ireland. At the accession of queen Anne, he was confirmed in all his offices. April 1705 he attended her majesty to Cambridge, and was there created LL. D. In 1706, himself and his son the marquis of Harrington were in the number of English peers appointed commissioners for concluding an union with Scotland; this was the last of his public employments. He died August 18, 1707. His mien and aspect were engaging and commanding: his address and conversation civil and courteous in the highest degree. He judged right in the supreme court; and on any important affair his speeches were smooth and weighty. As a statesman, his whole deportment came up to his noble birth and his eminent stations: nor did he want any of what the world call accomplishments. He had a great skill in languages; and read the Roman authors with great attention: Tacitus was his favourite. He was a true judge of history, a critic in poetry, and had a fine hand in music. He had an elegant taste in painting, and all politer arts; and in architecture in particular, a genius, skill, and experience beyond any one person of his age; his house at Chatsworth being a monument of beauty and magnificence that perhaps is not exceeded by any palace in Europe. His grace’s genius for poetry shewed itself particularly in two pieces that are published, and are allowed by the critics to be written with equal spirit, dignity, and delicacy. 1. “An Ode on the Death of queen Mary.” 2. “An allusion to the bishop of Cambray’s supplement to Homer.” He married the lady Mary, daughter of James duke of Ormond, by whom he had three sons and a daughter.

, is the adopted name of Francis, or Francesco Stabili; a native of Ascoli, in the march of Ancona, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, whg acquired considerable reputation, unfortunately for himself, as a critic and poet. Among the many anachronisms and contradictions in the accounts given of his life, which Tirabotchi has endeavoured to correct, we find that when young, he was professor of astrology in the university of Bologna, that he published a book on that science, which being denounced to the Inquisition, he escaped by recanting what was offensive but that the same accusations being afterwards renewed at Florence, he was condemned to be burnt, and suffered that horrible deatb in 1327, in the seventieth year of his age. We have already seen, in former lives, that it was no uncommon thing for enraged authors to apply to the secular arm for that revenge which they could not otherwise have inflicted on one another. The pretence for putting this poor man to death, was his “Commentary on the Sphere of John de Sacrabosco,” in which, following the superstition of the times, he asserted that wonderful things might be done by the agency of certain demons who inhabited the first of the celestial spheres. This was foolish enough, but it was the prevalent folly of the times, and Cecco probably believed what he wrote. That he was not an impostor wiser than those whom he duped, appears from his conduct to Charles, duke of Calabria, who appointed him his astrologer, and who, having consulted him on the future conduct of his wife and daughter, Cecco, by his art, foretold that they would turn out very abandoned characters. Had he not persuaded himself into the truth of this, he surely would have conciliated so powerful a patron by a prediction of a more favourable kind; and this, as may be supposed, lost him the favour of the duke. But even the loss of his friend would not have brought him to the stake, if he had not rendered himself unpopular by attacking the literary merit of Dante and Guido Cavalcanti, in his poem entitled “Acerba.” This provoked the malice of a famous physician, named Dino del Garbo, who never desisted until he procured him to be capitally condemned. This poem “Acerba,” properly “Acerbo,” or “Acervo,” in Latin Acervus, is in the sesta rima divided into five books, and each of these into a number of chapters, treating of the heavens, the elements, virtues, vices, love, animals, minerals, religion, &c. The whole is written in a bad style, destitute of harmony, elegance, or grace; and, according to a late author, much of the plan, as well as the materials, are taken from the “Tresor” of Brunetto Latini. It is, however, a work in demand with collectors, and although often printed, most of the editions are now very scarce. The first was printed at Venice in 1476, 4to, with the commentary of Nicolo Massetti, and was reprinted in 1478. Haym (in the edition of his Biblioteca, 1771) speaks of a first edition as early as 1458, which we apprehend no bibliographer has seen.

, an eminent critic and geographer, was born 1638, at Smalcalde, a little town in Franconia, where his father was minister. His mother, Mary Zehners, was daughter of the famous divine, Joachim Zehners. He came of a family in which learning seems to have been hereditary. When three years old, he had the misfortune to lose his father, but his mother took care of his education. He began his studies in the college of Smalcalde, and at eighteen was removed to Jena, to finish his studies in that university. During a residence of three years in this place, he applied to classical learning under Bosius, to philosophy under Bechman, to the Oriental languages under Frischmuth, and to mathematics under Weigelius. In 1659 he quitted Jena to go to Giessen, to study divinity under Peter Haberkorn. He afterwards returned to Jena, and took a doctor’s degree there in 1666. The year following he was made professor of Hebrew and morai philosophy at Weissenfels, in which office he continued for seven years. In 1673 he was called to Weimar, to be rector of the college there, which, at the end of three years, he exchanged for a similar rank at Zeits. After two years stay here, the college of Mersbourg was offered to him, which he accepted. His learning, his abilities, and his diligence, soon rendered this college famous, and drew a great number of students; and the place was so agreeable to him, that he determined to end his days there; but Providence disposed of him otherwise. For the king of Prussia, having founded an university at Halle in 1693, prevailed upon him to be professor of eloquence and history in it, and here he composed a great part of his works. His great application shortened his days, and hastened on the infirmities of old age. He was a long time afflicted with the stone, but never could be persuaded to seek assistance from medicine. He died, 1707, in his sixty-ninth year.

, a celebrated critic, chronologer, antiquary, and grammarian, for such Priscian calls him, flourished at Rome in the time of Alexander Severus, and is supposed to have been of the Martian family. His talents as a grammarian appear only in his book “concerning Accents,” frequently cited by Sidonius Apollinaris, and other things, which are lost; and not in his “De die jiatali,” which is the only piece remaining of him. This treatise was written about the year 238, and dedicated to Quintus Cerellius, a Roman of the equestrian order, of whom he speaks very highly in his 15th chapter. Vossius, in one place, calls this “a little book of gold;” and, in another, declares it to be “a most learned work, and of the highest use and importance to chronologers, since it connects and determines with great exactness some principal aeras in history.” It is however a work of a miscellaneous nature, and treats of antiquities as well as chronology. It was printed at Hamburgh in 1614, with a commentary by Lindenbrog, whose notes were adopted afterwards in an edition printed at Cambridge, in 1695; and there is an edition by Havercamp, 1743, reprinted at Leyden, 1767, 8vo. Sir John Hawkins has translated Censorinus’s remarks on music, which are curious.

Of all Cervantes’s writings his “Don Quixote” is that only which now is entitled to much attention, although some of his “Novels” are elegant and interesting. But on his “Don Quixote” his fame will probably rest as long as a taste for genuine humour can be found. It ought also, says an elegant modern critic, to be considered as a most useful performance, that brought about a great revolution in the manners and literature of Europe, by banishing the wild dreams of chivalry, and reviving a tasta for the simplicity of nature. In this view, the publication of Don Quixote forms an important era in the history of mankind. Don Quixote is represented as a man, whom it is impossible not to esteem for his cultivated understanding, and the goodness of his heart; but who, by poring night and day upon old romances, had impaired his reason to such a degree, as to mistake them for history, and form the design of traversing the world, in the character, and with the accoutrements, of a knight-errant. His distempered fancy takes the most common occurrences for adventures similar to those he had read in his books of chivalry. And thus, the extravagance of these books being placed, as it were, in the same groupe with the appearances of nature and the real business of life, the hideous disproportion of the former becomes so glaring by the contrast, that the most inattentive reader cannot fail to be struck with it. The person, the pretensions, and the exploits, of the errant-knight, are held up to view in a thousand ridiculous attitudes. In a word, the humour and satire are irresistible; and their effects were instantaneous. This work no sooner appeared than chivalry vanished. Mankind awoke as from a dream. They laughed at themselves for having been so long imposed on by absurdity; and wondered they had not made the discovery sooner. They were astonished to find, that nature and good sense could yield a more exquisite entertainment than they had ever derived from the most sublime phrenzies of chivalry. This, however, was the case; and that Don Quixote was more read, and more relished, than any other romance had ever been, we may infer from the sudden and powerful effects it produced on the sentiments of mankind, as well as from the declaration of the author himself; who tells us, that upwards of 12,000 copies of the first part (printed at Madrid in 1605) were circulated before the second could be ready for the press; an amazing rapidity of sale, at a time when the readers and purchasers of books were but an inconsiderable number compared to what they are in our days. “The very children (says he) handle it, boys read it, men understand, and old people applaud the performance. It is no sooner laid down by one than another takes it up; some struggling, and some intreating, for a sight of it. In fine (continues he) this history is the most delightful, and the least prejudicial entertainment, that ever was seen; for, in the whole book, there is not the least shadow of a dishonourable word, nor one thought unworthy of a good catholic.” Don Quixote occasioned the death of the old romance, and gave birth to the new. Fiction from this time divested herself of her gigantic size> tremendous aspect, and frantic demeanour: and, descending to the level of common life, conversed with man as his equal, and as a polite and chearful companion. Not that every subsequent romance-writer adopted the plan, or the manner of Cervantes; but it was from him they learned to avoid extravagance and to imitate nature. And now probability was as much studied, as it had been formerly neglected.

These sentiments, which we have adopted from Dr. Seattle’s “Dissertations,” are the sentiments of sober criticism; but those who have allowed their imaginations to be heated by a frequent perusal of Don Quixote, have not scrupled to attribute to Cervantes more serious puiv poses than he could possibly have had in contemplation. They have supposed that his object was to bring knighterrantry into ridicule, and they infer that he was so successful as to banish knight-errantry from the nations of Europe. But no assumption can be worse founded than the existence of knight-errantry in Cervantes’s time. No man in all Europe at that time went about defending virgins, redressing grievances, and conquering whole armies with the assistance of enchanters. Such imaginary beings and events existed only in the old romances, which being the favourite reading in Spain, Cervantes very properly levelled his satire at them in the person of Don Quixote, whom he describes as become insane by a constant perusal of them; and so far is he from insinuating that knighterrantry existed, that he makes his hero the ridicule of every person he meets. Cervantes’s sole purpose was to introduce a better style of writing for popular amusement, and he fully succeeded; and we may say with Dr. Warton, how great must be the native force of Cervantes’s humour, when it can be relished by readers even unacquainted with Spanish manners, with the institution of chivalry, and with the many passages of old romances, and Italian poems, to which it perpetually alludes! The great art, says the same critic, of Cervantes, consists in having painted his mad hero with such a number of amiable qualities, as to make it impossible for us totally to despise him. This light and shade in drawing characters, shews the master. It is thus that Addison has represented his sir Roger de Coverley, and Shakspeare his Falstaff. We know not, however, how to applaud what Dr. Warton calls a striking propriety in the madness of Don Quixote, “not frequently taken, notice of,” namely, his time of life. Thuanus informs us that madness is a common disorder among the Spaniards at the latter part of life, about the age in which the knight is represented. Without resting on this assertion, for which we know no better authority than the “Perroniana et Tlmana,” we conceive it highly probable that Cervantes made his hero elderly, that his pretended vigour of arm, and above all, his love addresses, might appear more ridiculous. We adopt with more satisfaction a sentiment of the late Mr. Owen Cambridge, in the preface to his “Scribleriad,” because it exalts Cervantes’s great work to that superiority of rank, as a mock-heroic, to which it seems justly entitled, and in which it is likely to remain undisturbed. Mr. Cambridge says, that in reading the four celebrated mock-heroic poems, the Lutrin, Dispensary, Rape of the Lock, and Dunciad, he perceived they had all some radical defect; but at last he found, by a diligent perusal of Don Quixote, that Propriety was the fundamental excellence of that work; that all the marvellous was reconcileable to probability, as the author leads his hero into that species of absurdity only, which it was natural for an imagination heated with the continual reading of books of chivalry, to fall into; and that the want of attention to this was the fundamental error of those poems above mentioned.

Chapelain died at Paris, Feb. 22, 1674, aged seventynine. He was of the king’s counsellors; very rich, and had some amiable qualities, but was covetous. “Pelisson and I,” says Menage, “had been at variance a long time with Chapelain; but, in a fit of humility, he called upon me and insisted that we should go and offer a reconciliation to him, for that it was his intention,” as much as possible, to live in peace with all men.“We went, and I protest I saw the very same billets of wood in the chimney which I had observed there twelve years before. He had 50,Ooo crowns in ready cash by him; and his supreme delight was to have his strong box opened and the bags taken out, that he might contemplate his treasure. In this manner were his bags about him when he died; which gave occasion to a certain academician to say,” there is our friend Chapelain just dead, like a miller among his bags.“He had no occasion therefore to accept of cardinal Richelieu’s offer. Being at the height of his reputation, Richelieu, who was fond of being thought a wit as well as a statesman, and was going to publish something which he would have pass for an excellent performance, could not devise a better expedient than prefixing Chapelain’s name to it.” Chapelain,“says he,” lend me your name on this occasion, and I will lend you my purse on any other.“The learned Huet endeavoured to vindicate his great poem, but could not succeed against the repeated attacks of Boileau, Racine, and Fontaine. Chapelain, however, was a man of learning, and a good critic, and he has found an able defender in the abbe cT Olivet, in his History of the French Academy, It was at the desire of Malherbe and Vaugelas that Chapelain wrote the famous preface to the” Adone“of Marino; and it was he who corrected the very first poetical composition of Racine, his” Ode to the Queen," who introduced Racine to Colbert, and procured him a pension, for which Racine repaid him by joining the wits in decrying his poem.

The general character of his works has been both fairly and elegantly appreciated by lord Orford, in the last edition of his lordship’s works. His life, says this critic, should be compared with “the powers of his mind, the perfection of his poetry, his knowledge of the world, which though in some respects erroneous, spoke quick intuition; his humour, his vein of satire, and above all, the amazing number of books he must have looked into, though chained down to a laborious and almost incessant service, and confined to Bristol, except at most for the last five months of his life, the rapidity with which he seized all the topics of conversation then in vogue, whether of politics, literature, or fashion; and when added to all this 'mass of reflection, it is remembered that his youthful passions were indulged to excess, faith in such a prodigy may well be suspended and we should look for some secret agent behind the curtain, if it were not as dificult to believe that any man who possessed such a vein of genuine poetry would have submitted to lie concealed, while he actuated a puppet; or would have stooped to prostitute his muse to so many unworthy functions. But nothing in Chatterton can be separated from Chatterton. His noblest flight, his sweetest strains, his grossest ribaldry, and his most common- place imitations of the productions of magazines, were all the effervescences of the same ungovernable impulse, which, cameleon-like, imbibed the colours of all it looked on. It was Ossian, or a Saxon monk, or Gray, or Smolldt, or Jun i us ant l if it failed most in what it most affected to be, a poet of the fifteenth century, it was because it could not imitate what had not existed.” The facts already related are principally taken from the account drawn up originally for the Biographia Britannica, and at the distance of eighteen years, prefixed to an edition of his works, without any addition or alteration. Something yet remains to be said of his virtues, which, if the poetical eulogiums that have appeared deserve any credit, were many. Except his temperance, however, already noticed, we find only that he preserved an affectionate attachment for his mother and sister, and even concerning this, it would appear that more has been said than is consistent. It has been asserted that he sent presents to them from London, when in want himself; but it is evident from his letters that these were unnecessary articles for persons in their situation, and were not sent when he was in want . Six weeks after, when he felt himself in that state, he committed an act which affection for his relations, since he despised all higher considerations, ought to have retarded. His last letter to his sister or mother, dated July 20, is full of high-spirited hopes, and contains a promise to visit them before the first of January, but not a word that can imply discontent, far less an intention to put an end to his life. What must have been their feelings when the melancholy event reached them! How little these poor women were capable of ascertaining his character appears from the very singular evidence of his sister, who affirmed that he was “a lover of truth from the earliest dawn of reason.” The affectionate prejudices of a fond relation may be pardoned, but it was surely unnecessary to introduce this in a life every part of which proves his utter contempt for truth at an age when we are taught to expect a disposition open, ingenuous, and candid.

There is an interleaved copy of Urry’s edition in the British Museum, presented by Mr. William Thomas, a brother of Dr. T. Thomas, who furnished the preface and glossary, and upon whom the charge of publishing devolved after Mr. Urry’s death. This copy has many manuscript notes and corrections. From one of them we learn that the life of Chaucer was very incorrectly drawn up by Mr. Dart, and corrected and enlarged by Mr. William Thomas; and from another, that bishop Atterbury prompted Urry to this undertaking, but “did by no means judge rightly of Mr. Urry’s talents in this case, who though in many respects a most worthy person, was not qualified for a work of this nature.” Dr. Thomas undertook to publish it, at the request of bishop Smalridge. In the Harleian collection is a copy of an agreement between William Brome, executor to Urry, the dean and chapter of Christ Church, and Bernard Lintot the bookseller. By this it appears that it was Urry’s intention to apply part of the profits towards building Peckwater quadrangle. Lintot was to print a thousand copies on small paper at 1l. 10s. and two hundred and fifty on large paper at 2l. 10s. It does not appear that this speculation succeeded. Yet the edition, from its having been printed in the Roman letter, the copiousness of the glossary, and the ornaments, &c. continued to be the only one consulted, until the publication of the “Canterbury Tales” by Mr. Tyrwhitt, in 1775. This very acute critic was the first who endeavoured to restore a pure text by the collation of Mss. a labour of vast extent, but which must be undertaken even to greater extent, before the other works of Chaucer can be published in a manner worthy of their author. Mr Warton laments that Chaucer has been so frequently considered as an old, rather than a good poet; and recommends the study of his works. Mr. Tyrwhitt, since this advice was given, has undoubtedly introduced Chaucer to a nearer intimacy with the learned public, but it is not probable that he can ever be restored to popularity. His language will still remain an insurmountable obstacle with that numerous class of readers to whom poets must look for universal reputation. Poetry is the art of pleasing; but pleasure, as generally understood, admits of very little that deserves the name of study.

, was born at Loudun, a town of Poitou in France, May 12, 1613. His inclination led him to the study of the belles lettres, in which he made so considerable progress, that he obtained a distinguished rank among the learned. His application to letters, however, did not unqualify him for business; for he was a man of great address and knowledge of the world, and on that account advanced to be secretary to Christina queen of Sweden. The king of Denmark engaged him also at his court. Several German princes entertained him, and among the rest the elector palatine Charles Lewis, father to the duchess of Orleans. He continued for some time at this court, sat at the council-board, and helped to bring over the princess just mentioned to the Romish communion. At his return to Paris, he was made preceptor and afterwards secretary to the duke of Maine. Then he retired to Loudun, where he had built an elegant habitation for the repose of his old age; and, after spending there the last twenty years of his life in study and retirement, he died Feb. 15, 1701, almost 88 years of age. He left a very noble library behind him, and was himself the author of some works 1. “Le Tableau de la Fortune,” 1651, 8vo, in which he relates all the considerable revolutions that have happened in the world. It was reprinted, with alterations, under the title of “Effets de la Fortune,” a romance, 1656, 8vo. 2. “L'Histoire du Monde,” 1686, frequently reprinted; the best edition is that of Paris, 1717, 8 vols. 12mo, with additions by Bourgeois de Chastenet: but although the author had recourse to original information, his quotations are not always to be depended on. He often mistakes in matters of fact, and the style is harsh and unpolished. Jn 1697 were printed at the Hague, 2 volumes of his “Oeuvres melees,” consisting of miscellaneous letters and pieces in prose and verse. He wrote also notes on Petronius and Malherbe, and was esteemed a good critic. Much of his turn of mind and sentiments may be seen in the “Chevraeana,” Paris, 1697 and 1700, 2 vols.

, brother to the preceding, and a very learned critic of Spain, was born at Toledo in 1525, and died at Rome in 1581. He was employed with others by pope Gregory XIII. in correcting the calendar, and also in revising an edition of the Bible, and of some other works printed at the Vatican. He wrote learned notes upon Arnobius, Tertullian, Cassian, Caesar, Pliny, Terence, &c. He was the author, likewise, of some separate little treatises, one particularly, “De Triclinio Romano;” which, with those of Fuivius Ursinus and Mercurialis upon the same subject, was published at Amsterdam, 1689, in 12mo, with figures to illustrate the descriptions.

After finishing the course of his juvenile studies, he took the manly gown, or the ordinary robe of the citizens, at the accustomed age of sixteen: and being then introduced into the forum, was placed under the care of Q. Mucius Scoevola the augur, the principal lawyer as well as statesman of that age; and after his death under that of Scaevola, who had equal probity and skill in the law. Under these masters he acquired a complete knowledge of the laws of his country; which was thought to be of such consequence at Rome, that boys at school learned the laws of the twelve tables by heart, as a school exercise. In the mean time he did not neglect his poetical studies, which he had pur­'sued under Archias: for he now translated “Aratus on the phenomena of the Heavens,” into Latin verse, of which many fragments are still extant; and published also an original poem of the heroic kind, in honour of his countryman C. Marius. This was much admired and often read by Atticus; and old Sca3vola was so pleased with it, that in the epigram, which he seems to have made upon it, he fondly declares, that it would live as long as the Roman name and learning subsisted. But though some have said, that Cicero’s poetical genius would not have been inferior to his oratorial, if it had been cultivated with the same diligence, it is more generally agreed that his reputation is least of all indebted to his poetry. He may, however, have been a critic, and it is certain jhat Lucretius submitted his poem to him for correction.

After this long account, which, however, we have abridged from our last edition, little need he added of Cicero’s character. It will appear that though he cherished ambition, he wanted firmness to pursue it. His lot was cast in times unfavourable to his natural temper, which was averse to contention, and he knew not how to regulate his conduct with steadiness in political commotions and civil war. His chief delight was in the society and conversation of learned men, and his works afford a decisive proof that his excellence lay in the accumulation of learning, and the display of eloquence, in which he can be compared only with Demosthenes. Their respective characters have been considered as the two great models on which all eloquence ought to be formed. In all his orations, says a modern critic, his art is conspicuous; he begins commonly with a regular exordium; and with much address prepossesses the hearers, and studies to gain their affections’. His method is clear, and his arguments are arranged with exact propriety. In a superior clearness of method, he has an advantage over Demosthenes. Every thing appears in its proper place. He never tries to move till he has attempted to convince; and in moving, particularly the softer passions, he is highly successful. No one ever knew the force of words better than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and magnificence; and in the structure of his sentences is eminently curious and exact. He amplifies every tiling; yet though his manner is generally diffuse, it is often happily varied and accommodated to the subject. When an important public object rouses his mind, and demands indignation and force, he departs considerably from that loose and declamatory manner to which he at other times is addicted, and becomes very forcible and vehement. This great orator, however, is not without hi? defects. In most of his orations there is too much art, even carried to a degree of ostentation. He seems often desirous of obtaining admiration rather than of operating by conviction. He is sometimes, therefore, showy rather than solid, and diffuse where he ought to have been. urgent. His sentences are always round and sonorous. They cannot be accused of monotony, since they possess variety of cadence; but from too great a fondness for magnificence, he is on some occasions deficient in strength. Though the services which he had performed to his country were very considerable, yet he is too much his own panegyrist. Ancient manners, which imposed fewer restraints on the side of decorum, may in some degree excuse, but cannot entirely justify his vanity.

Claude married in 1648 Elizabeth de Malcare, by whom he had a son, Isaac Claude, born March 5, 1653, of whom he was very fond, and bred him to the ministry. He studied in the universities of France; after which he returned to his father, who completed his education for the pulpit. He was examined at Sedan in 1678, and approved; he was invited by the congregation of the church of Clermont in Beauvoisis; and his father had the satisfaction to impose his hands on him in 1678, and to see him minister of the Walloon church at the Hague, when he retired to Holland in 1685. He died at the Hague, July 29, 1695, after having published many excellent works of his deceased father, particularly 5 vols. 12mo of posthumous theological and controversial treatises, Amst. 1689.Lavocat, a Roman catholic writer, allows that his works are written in a manly, exact, elegant and close style, discover great genius and learning, and an uncommon talent for employing all the subtleties of logic. So candid a critic may be forgiven for adding, “happy had he not talents by writing against the catholic church.” These volumes just mentioned contain “An answer to a treatise on the Sacrament,” supposed to be written by cardinal le Camus, bishop of Grenoble; Four Letters on the same subject; an “Essay on the composition of a Serinon;” a “Body of Christian Divinity;” expositions of parts of Scripture, Letters, &c. His Life, written by M. de la Devaize, was translated into English by G. P. and published Lond. 1688, 4to. His “Historical Defence of the Reformation” was published in English by T. B. Lond. 1683, 4to, and his “Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,” which he wrote about the year 1676, for the use of his son, was translated and published in English, in 1778, by the late rev. Rob. Robinson, of Cambridge, 2 vols. 8vo, with a Life of the author, and notes, all which, as displaying an implacable and unprovoked hostility to the established church, have been very properly omitted in a new edition of the translation published in 1796, by the rev. Charles Simeon, of King’s college, Cambridge.

Cleveland has had the fate of those poets, who, “paying their court to temporary prejudices, have been at one time too much praised, and at another too much neglected.” Both his subjects, and his manner of writing, made his poems extremely popular among his contemporaries, but entirely forgotten and disregarded since. For his manner, he excelled among that class of writers so much admired in the last century, whom our great critic has aptly termed “metaphysical poets, who abound with witty rather than just thoughts, with far-fetched conceits, and learned allusions, that only amuse for a moment, utterly neglecting that beautiful simplicity and propriety which will interest and please through every age.” For his subjects he generally chose the party disputes of the day, which are now no longer understood or regard-ed. Contemporary with Milton, he was in his time exceedingly preferred before him; and Milton’s own nephew, Phillips, tells us, he was by some esteemed the best of the English poets. But Cleveland is now sunk into oblivion, while Milton’s fame is universally diffused. Yet Milton’s works could, with difficulty, gain admission to the press, at the time when it was pouring forth those of Cleveland in innumerable impressions; and the press now continually teems with re- publications of the Paradise Lost, &c. whereas the last edition of Cleveland’s works was in 1687, 8vo.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, and a voluminous writer, was born at Boxstead, in Essex, in 1623, and educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, probably during the usurpation, as we find him D. D. at the restoration. He had the living of St. Stephen’s Norwich, from which he was ejected for non-conformity in 1662. His epitaph says he discharged the work of the ministry in that city for forty- four years, which is impossible, unless he continued to preach as a dissenter after his ejection. He was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in the reign of Charles II. He particularly excelled as a textuary and critic. He was a man of various learning, and much esteemed for his great industry, humanity, and exemplary life. He wrote many books of controversy and practical divinity, the most singular of which is his “Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving spiritualized,” 8vo. This book was particularly adapted to the place of his residence, which had been long famous for the manufacture of silks. Granger remarks that Mr. Boyle, in his “Occasional Reflections on several subjects,” published in 1663, seems to have led the way to spiritualizing the common objects, business, and occurrences of life. This was much practised by Mr. Flavel, and by Mr. Herrey; it is generally a “very popular method of conveying religious sentiments, although it is apt to degenerate into vulgar familiarity; but we know not if the practice may not be traced to bishop Hall, who published his” Occasional Meditations“in 1633. Calamy has given a very long list of Dr. Collings’s publications, to which we refer. In Poole’s” Annotations on the Bible" he wrote those on the last six chapters of Isaiah, the whole of Jeremiah, Lamentations, the four Evangelists, the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Timothy and Philemon, and the Revelations. He died at Norwich Jan. 17, 1690.

, chevalier de St. Lazare, member of a great number of academies, and a celebrated traveller, was born at Paris in 1701. He began his journey to the east very young; and after having coasted along the shores of Africa and Asia in the Mediterranean, he was chosen, in 1736, to accompany M. Godin to Peru, for the purpose of determining the figure of the earth at the equator. The difficulties and dangers he surmounted in this expedition are almost incredible; and at one time he had nearly perished by the imprudence of one of his companions, M. Seniergues, whose arrogance had so much irritated the inhabitants of New Cuenca, that they rose tumultuously against the travellers; but, fortunately for the rest, the offender was the only victim. On his return home, la Condamine visited Rome, where pope Benedict XIV. made him a present of his portrait, and granted him a dispensation to marry one of his nieces, which he accordingly did, at the age of fifty-five. By his great equanimity of temper, and his lively and amiable disposition, he was the delight of all that knew him. Such was his gaiety or thoughtlessness, that two days before his death he made a couplet on the surgical operation that carried him to the grave; and, after having recited this couplet to a friend that came to see him, “You must now leave me,” added he, “1 have two letters to write to Spain; probably, by next post it will be too late.” La Condamine had the art of pleasing the learned by the concern he shewed in advancing their interests, and the ignorant by the talent of persuading them that they understood what he said. Even the men of fashion sought his company, as he was full of anecdotes and singular observations, adapted to amuse their frivolous curiosity. He was, however, himself apt to lay too much stress on trifles; and his inquisitiveness, as is often the case with travellers, betrayed him into imprudencies. Eager after fame, he loved to multiply his correspondences and intercourse; and there were few men of any note with whom he had not intimacies or disputes, and scarcely any journal in which he did not write. Replying to every critic, and flattered with every species of praise, he despised no opinion of him, though given by the most contemptible scribbler. Such, at least, is the picture of him, drawn by the marquis de Condorcet in his eloge. Among his most ingenious and valuable pieces are the following 1 “Distance of the tropics,” London, 1744. 2. “Extract of observations made on a voyage to the river of the Amazons,” 1745. 3. “Brief relation of a voyage to the interior of South America,” 8vo. 1745. 4. “Journal of the voyage jnade by order of the king to the equator; with the supplement,” 2 vols. 4to. 1751, 1752. 5. On the Inoculation of the Small-pox,“12mo, 1754. 6.” A letter on Education,“8vo. 7.” A second paper on the Inoculation of the Small pox,“1759. 8.” Travels through Italy,“1762, 12mo. These last three were translated and published here. 9.” Measure of the three first degrees of the meridian in the southern hemisphere,“1751, 4to. The style of the different works of la Condamine is simple and negligent; but it is strewed with agreeable and lively strokes that secure to him readers. Poetry was also one of the talents of our ingenious academician; his productions of this sort were, <e Vers de societe,” of the humorous kind, and pieces of a loftier style, as the Dispute for the armour of Achilles and others, translated from the Latin poets; the Epistle from an old man, &c. He died the 4th of February 1774, in consequence of an operation for the cure of a hernia, with which he had been afflicted.

Queen Mary dying at the close of this year, Congreve wrote a pastoral on that occasion, entitled “The Mourning Muse of Alexis;” which, for simplicity, elegance, and correctness, was long admired, and for which the king gave him a gratuity of 100l. In 1695 he produced his comedy called “Love for Love,” which gained him much applause; and the same year addressed to king William an ode “Upon the taking of Namiir;” which was very successful. After having established his reputation as a comic writer, he attempted a tragedy; and, in 1697, his “Mourning Bride” was acted at the new theatre in Lincoln' s-inn-fields, which completely answered the very high expectations of the public and of his friends. His attention, however, was now called off from the theatre to another species of composition, which was wholly new, and in which he was not so successful. His four plays were attacked with great sharpness by that zealous reformer of the stage, Jeremy Collier; who, having made his general attack on the immorality of the stage, included Congreve among the writers who had largely contributed to that effect. The consequence of the dispute which arose between Collier and the dramatic writers we have related in Collier’s article. It may be sufficient in this place to add, that although this controversy is believed to have created in Congreve some distaste to the stage, yet he afterwards brought on another comedy, entitled “The Way of the World;” of which it gave so just a picture, that the world seemed resolved not to bear it. This completed the disgust of our author to the theatre; upon which the celebrated critic Dennis, though not very famous for either, said with equal wit and taste, “That Mr. Congreve quitted the stage early, and that comedy left it with him.” This play, however, recovered its rank, and is still a favourite with the town. He amused himself afterwards with composing original poems and translations, which he collected in a volume, and published in 1710, when Swift describes him as “never free from the gout,” and “almost blind,” yet amusing himself with writing a “Taller.” He had a taste for music as well as poetry; as appears from his “Hymn to Harmony in honour of St. Cecilia’s day, 1701,” set by Mr. John Eccles, his great friend, to whom he was also obliged for composing several of his songs. His early acquaintance with the great had procured him an easy and independent station in life, and this freed him from all obligations of courting the public favour any longer. He was still under the tie of gratitude to his illustrious patrons; and as he never missed an opportunity of paying his compliments to them, so on the other hand he always shewed great regard to persons of a less exalted station, who had been serviceable to him on his entrance into public life. He wrote an epilogue for his old friend Southerne’s tragedy of Oroonoko; and we learn from Dryden himself, how much he was obliged to his assistance in the translation of Virgil. He contributed also the eleventh satire to the translation of “Juvenal,” published by that great poet, and wrote some excellent verses on the translation of Persius, written by Dryden alone.

We cannot close this article without giving a short sketch of the characters of the different writers by whom the last voyage was given to the world. Among these we ought to reckon the rev. Dr. Douglas, the editor, who, in a grave and dignified style, suitable to the sublimity of a journey or voyage round the globe, has arranged the matter; chastised, no doubt, in some instances, the language of our circumnavigators; and pointed out to the curious and philosophic eye, the benefits that have resulted, and may yet result, from the late discoveries in the great Pacific ocean; and the attempt, though unsuccessful, to explore a northern passage from thence into the Atlantic. Although this gentleman has levelled down the more striking peculiarities of the different writers of these voyages into some appearance of equality, yet a critic can discern in each his proper features. Captain Cook, accurate, minute, and severe, surveys every object with a mathematical eye, ever intent to fix or to discover some truth in astronomy, geography, and navigation. His observations on men and manners, and the produce of countries, are not very subtle or refined, but always sensible and judicious. He speculates in order to establish facts, but does not inquire into facts for the airy purposes of speculation. Captain King has perhaps a greater versatility of genius than captain Cook, as well as a more lively fancy, and a greater variety and extent of knowledge. Agreeably to this character of him, he paints the scenes that fall under his eye, in glowing and various colours. He has less perhaps of the mathematician and navigator in his composition than captain Cook, and more of the author. He himself seems conscious that this is his forte, and wields the pen with alacrity, with ease and satisfaction. The gleanings that were left to his industry by captain Cook, he seems too eager to pick up, to dwell upon, and to amplify. Mr. Anderson is superior to both these writers in variety of knowledge, and subtlety and sublimity of genius. He is versant in languages ancient and modern, in mathematics, in natural history, in natural philosophy, in civil history, in the metaphysics of both morality and theology; yet, as a counterbalance to these brilliant qualities and endowments, he launches forth too much into theory, and is, in some instances, too little constrained by the limits of fact and nature in his speculations. He has found the doctrines of the immortality and the immateriality of the soul among nations, who, in all probability, have not terms to express these, and very few to signify abstracted ideas of any kind. A quick imagination and a subtle intellect can see any thing in any subject, and extend the ideas most familiar to themselves over the boundless variety of the universe.

The concluding remarks of the same learned critic are too ingenious to be omitted. There was, he observes, little or no melody in instrumental music before Corelli' s time. And though he has much more grace and elegance in his cantilena than his predecessors, and slow and solemn movements abound in his works; yet true pathetic and impassioned melody and modulation seem wanting in them all. He appears to have been gifted with no uncommon powers of execution; yet, with all his purity and simplicity, he condescended to aim at difficulty, and manifestly did all he could in rapidity of finger and bow, in the long unmeaning allegros of his first, third, and sixth solos; where, for two whole pages together, common chords are broken into common divisions, all of one kind and colour, which nothing but the playing with great velocity and neatness could ever render tolerable. But like some characters and indecorous scenes in our best old plays, these have been long omitted in performance. Indeed his knowledge of the power of the bow, in varying the expression of the same notes, was very much limited. Veracini and Tartini greatly extended these powers; and we well remember our pleasure and astonishment in hearing Giardini, in a solo that he performed at the oratorio, 1769, play an air at the end of it with variations, in which, by repeating each strain with different bowing, without changing a single note in the melody, he gave it all the effect and novelty of a new variation of the passages.

, one of the most celebrated French poets, and called by his countrymen the Shakspeare of France, was born at Roan, June 6, 1606, of considerable parents, his father having been ennobled for his services by Louis XIII. He was brought up to the bar, which he attended some little time; but having no turn for business, he soon deserted it. At this time he had given the public no specimen of his talents for poetry, nor appears to have been conscious of possessing any such: and they tell us, that it was purely a trifling affair of gallantry, which gave occasion to his first comedy, called “Melite.” The drama was then extremely low among the French; their tragedy fiat and languid, their comedy more barbarous than the lowest of the vulgar would now tolerate. Corneille was astonished to find himself the author of a piece entirely new, and at the prodigious success with which his “Melite” was acted. The French theatre seemed to be raised, and to flourish at once; and though deserted in a manner before, was now filled on a sudden with a new company of actors. After so happy an essay, he continued to produce several other pieces of the same kind; all of them, indeed, inferior to what he afterwards wrote, but much superior to any thing which the French had hitherto seen. His “Medea” came forth next, a tragedy, borrowed in part from Seneca, which succeeded, as indeed it deserved, bul indifferently; but in 1637 he presented the “Cid,” another tragedy, in which he shewed the world how high his genius was capable of rising, and seems to confirm Du Bos’s assertion, that the age of thirty, or a few years more or less, is that at which poets and painters arrive at as high a pitch of perfection as their geniuses will permit. All Europe has seen the Cid: it has been translated into almost all languages: but the reputation which he acquired by this play, drew all the wits of his time into a confederacy against it. Some treated it contemptuously, others wrote against it. Cardinal de Richelieu himself is said to have been one of this cabal; for, not content with passing for a great minister of state, he affected to pass for a wit and a critic; and, therefore, though he had settled a pension upon the poet, could not abstain from secret attempts against his play . It was supposed to be under his influence that the French Academy drew up that critique upon it, entitled, “Sentiments of the French academy upon the tragi-comedy of Cid:” in which, however, while they censured some parts, they did not scruple to praise it very highly in others. Corneille now endeavoured to support the vast reputation he had gained, by many admirable performances in succession, which, as Bayle observes, “carried the French theatre to its highest pitch of glory, and assuredly much higher than the ancient one at Athens;” yet still, at this time, he had to contend with the bad taste of the most fashionable wits. When he read his “Polyeucte,” one of his best tragedies, before a company of these, where Voiture presided, it was very coldly received; and Voiture afterwards told him, it was the opinion of his friends that the piece would not succeed. In 1647 he was chosen a member of the French academy; and was what they call dean of that society at the time of his death, which happened in 1684, in his 79th year.

During his stay in England, he wrote his two books of Plants, published first in 1662, to which he afterwards added four books more; and all the six, together with his other Latin poems, were printed after his death at London, in 1678. The occasion of his choosing the subject of his six books of plants, Dr. Sprat tells us, was this: When he returned into England, he was advised to dissemble the main intention of his coming over, under the disguise of applying himself to some settled profession; and that of physic was thought most proper. To this purpose, after many anatomical dissections, he proceeded to the consideration of simples, and having furnished himself with books of that nature, retired into a fruitful part of Kent, where every field and wood might shew him the real figures of those plants of which he read. Thus he soon mastered that part of the art of medicine; but then, instead of employing his skill for practice and profit, he laboured to digest it into its present form. The two first books treat of Herbs, in a style, says Sprat, resembling the elegies of Ovid and Tibullus; the two next, of Flowers, in all the variety of Catullus and Horace’s numbers, for which last author he is said to have had a peculiar reverence; and the two last, of Trees, in the way of Virgil’s Georgics. Of these, the sixth book is wholly dedicated to the honour of his country; for, making the British oak to preside in the assembly of the forest trees, he takes that occasion to enlarge upon the history of the late troubles, the king’s affliction and return, and the beginning of the Dutch war; and he does it in a way which is honourable to the nation. Such is Dr. Sprat’s judgment. A more recent and accomplished botanical critic, however, observes that neither the text, nor the notes, manifest sufficient proof of Cowley’s intimate acquaintance with those authors of true fame, among the moderns, through whose assistance the want of that information might in some measure have been supplied. Nevertheless, as in the language of Dr. Johnson, “botany, in the mind of Cowley, turned into poetry,” to those who are alike enamoured with the charms of both, the poems of Cowley must yield delight; since his fertile imagination has adorned his subject with all the beautiful allusions that ancient poets and mythologists could supply; and even the fancies of the modern Signatores, of Baptista Porta, Crollius, and their disciples, who saw the virtues of plants in the physiognomy, or agreement in colour or external, forms with the parts of the human body, assisted to embellish his verse. Vol. X. C c It appears by Wood’s Fasti, that Cowley was created M. D. at Oxford, Dec. 2, 1657, who says, that he had this degree conferred upon him by virtue of a mandamus from the then prevailing powers, and that the thing was much taken notice of by the royal party. At the commencement of the royal society, according to Dr. Birch’s history, he appears busy among the experimental philosophers, with the title of Dr. Cowley, but there is no reason for supposing that he ever attempted practice.

The public was soon laid under a far higher obligation to lady Austen for having suggested our author’s principal poem, “The Task,' 1” a poem,“says Mr. Hayley,” of such infinite variety, that it seems to include every subject, and every style, without any dissonance or disorder; and to have flowed without effort, from inspired philanthropy, eager to impress upon the hearts of all readers, whatever may lead them most happily to the full enjoyment of human life, and to the final attainment of Heaven.“This admirable poem appears to have been written in 1783 and 1784, but underwent many careful revisions. The public had iiot done much for Cowper, but he had too much regard for it and for his own character, to obtrude what was incorrect, or might be made better. It was his opinion, an opinion of great weight from such a critic, that poetry, in order to attain excellence, must be indebted to labour; and it was his correspondent practice to revise his poems with scrupulous care and severity. In a letter to his friend Air. Bull, on this poem, he says,” I find it severe exercise to mould and fashion it to my mind." Much of it was written in the winter, a season generally unfavourable to the author’s health, but there is reason to think that the encouragement and attentions of his amiable and judicious friends animated him to proceed, and that the regularity of his progress was favourable to his health and spirits. Disorders, like his, have been known to give way to some species of mental labour, if voluntarily undertaken, and pursued with steadiness. The Task rilled up many of those leisure hours, for which rural walks and employments would have amply provided at a more favourable season. It may be added, likewise, that no man appears to have had a more keen relish for the snugness of a winter fireside, and that, free from ambition, or the love of grand and tumultuous enjoyments, his heart was elated with gratitude for those humbler comforts which a mind like his would be apt to magnify by reflecting on the misery of those who want them.

During the composition of this work, he at first declined what he had done before, shewing specimens to his friends; and on this subject, indeed, his opinion seems to have undergone a complete change. To his friend Mr. Unwin, who informed him that a gentleman wanted a sample, he says, with some humour, “When I deal in wine, cloth, or cheese, I will give samples, but of verse, never. No consideration would have induced me to comply with the gentleman’s demand, unless he could have assured me, that h^s wife had longed.” From this resolution he afterwards departed in a variety of instances. He first sent a specimen, with the proposals, to his relation general Cowper; it consisted of one hundred and seven lines, taken from the interview between Priam and Achilles in the last book. This specimen fell into the hands of Mr. Fuseli, the celebrated painter, whose critical knowledge of Homer is universally acknowledged; and Cowper likewise agreed that if Mr. Maty, who then published a Review, wished to see a book of Homer, he should be welcome, and the first book and a part of the second were accordingly sent . Mr. Fuseli was afterwards permitted to revise the whole of the manuscript, and how well Cowper was satisfied in falling in with such a critic, appears (among other proofs of his high esteem) from the short character he gives of him in one of his letters: “For his knowledge of Homer, he has, I verily believe, no fellow.” Colman, likewise, his old companion, with whom he had renewed an epistolary intimacy, revised some parts in a manner which afforded the author much satisfaction, and he appears to have corrected the sheets for the press. With Maty he was less pleased, as his criticisms appeared “unjust, and in part illiberal.”

To add much to this sketch respecting the merit of Cowper as a poet, would be superfluous. After passing through the many trials which criticism has instituted, he remains, by universal acknowledgment, one of the first poets of the eighteenth century. Even without awaiting the issue of such trials, he attained a degree of popularity which is almost without a precedent, while the species of popularity which he has acquired is yet more honourable than the extent of it. No man’s works ever appeared with less of artificial preparation; no venal heralds proclaimed the approach of a new poet, nor told the world what it was to admire. He emerged from obscurity, the object of no patronage, and the adherent of no party. His fame, great and extensive as it is, arose from gradual conviction, and gratitude for pleasure received. The genius, the scholar, the critic, the man of the world, and the man of piety, each found in Cowper' s works something to excite their surprize and their admiration, something congenial with their habits and feelings, something which taste readily selected, and judgment decidedly confirmed. Cowper was found to possess that combination of energies which marks the comprehensive mind of a great and inventive genius, and to furnish examples of the sublime, the pathetic, the descriptive, the moral, and the satirical, so numerous, that nothing seemed beyond his grasp, and so original, that nothing reminds us of any former poet.

, a faithful and industrious collector of old English literature, was born of an ancient and respectable family at Lechdale in Gloucestershire, Sept. 20, 1689. He was educated in grammatical learning, first under the rev. Mr. Collier, at Coxwell in Berkshire, and afterwards under the rev. Mr. Collins, at Magdalen school, Oxford, from which he entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1705. From Oxford, where he wore a civilian’s gown, he came to London, with a view of pursuing the civil law; but losing his friend and patron sir John Cook, knight, who was dean of the arches and vicargeneral, and who died in 1710, he abandoned civil law and every other profession. An anonymous funeral poem to the memory of sir John Cook, entitled “Astrea lacrirnans,” the production probably of Coxeter, appeared in 1710. Continuing in London without any settled pursuit, he became acquainted with booksellers and authors. He amassed materials for a biography of our poets, which were afterwards used in what is called Gibber’s Lives. (See art. The Cibber). He also assisted Mr. Ames in the History of British typography. He had a curious collection of old plays, and pointed out to Theobald many of the blackletter books which that critic used in his edition of Shakspeare. He compiled one, if not more, of the indexes to Hudson’s edition of Josephus in 1720. In 1739 he published a new edition of Baily’s, or rather Hall’s, lire of bishop Fisher, first printed in 1655. In 1744 he circulated proposals “for printing the dramatic works of Thomas May, esq. a contemporary with Ben Jonson, and, upon his decease, a competitor for the bays. With notes, and an account of his life and writings.” fl The editor,“says he,” intending to revive the best of our plays, faithfully collated with all the editions, that could be found in a search of above thirty years, happened to communicate his scheme to one who now invades it. To vindicate which, he is resolved to publish this deserving author, though out of the order of his design. And, as a late spurious edition of “Gorboduc” is sufficient to shew what mistakes and confusion may be expected from the medley now advertising in ten volumes, a correct edition will be added of that excellent tragedy; with other poetical works of the renowned Sackville, his life, and a glossary. These are offered as a specimen of the great care that is necessary, and will constantly be used, in the revival of such old writers as the editor shall be encouraged to restore to the public in their genuine purity.“Such are the terms of the proposals: and they shew, that, though this design did not take effect, Coxeter was the first who formed the scheme, adopted by Dodsley, of publishing a collection of our ancient plays. Sackville’s” Gorboduc,“here referred to, is the edition published by Mr. Spence in 1736. In 1747 he was appointed secretary to a society for the encouragement of an essay towards a complete English history; under the auspices of which appeared the first volume of Carte’s” History of England.“Mr. Warton made considerable use of his Mss. in his” History of Poetry“and in 1759, an edition of Massinger’s works was published in 4 vols. 8vo. said to be” revised, corrected, and the editions collated by Mr. Coxeter." He died of a fever April 19, 1747, in his 59th year, and was buried in the chapel-yard of the Royal hospital of Bridewell: leaving an orphan daughter, who was often kindly assisted with money by Dr. Johnson, and in her latter days by that excellent and useful institution, the Literary Fund. She died in Nov. 1807.

His works are very numerous, and of various merits: 1. “Canzone per la nascita del seren. real principe de Y^llia, cji Variinaco Cognimembresi,” Rome, 1688, 8vo, 2. “L'Elvio, favola pastorale,” Rome, 1695, 4to. 3. “Rime di Alfesibeo Carlo 7 ' (his Arcadian name), 8vo, ibid. 1695, 1704, and 1723. 4.” L' Istoria della volgar poesia,“ibid. 1698, 4to, enlarged and corrected, 1714. 5.” Commentarii intorno alia sua Istoria della volgar poesia,“ibid. 1702, 1710, 2 vols. 4to, but reprinted and enlarged to 6 vols. 4to, Venice, 1731, with the addition of the preceding history. In 1803, the first Italian scholar in this country, T. J. Matthias, esq. published the commentaries detached from the historical part, in 3 vols. 12mo, a work highly interesting and entertaining to the students of Italian poetry, yet as it finishes, where Crescimbeni did, no notice is taken of the progress made in the eighteenth century. On the merits of the original work critics differ. Baretti, a native of Italy, and no contemptible critic, says that although Crescimbeni” tells many things that deserve the notice of the studious, he lavishes such epithets of praise on a great many ancient and modern bad versemakers, his style has such a laxity, and is so full of verbosity about every trifle, that he could not hold up the book in his hands for ten minutes together.“It is certainly inferior to Tiraboschi’s work, and we know not whether rescimbeni’s Arcadian academy may not have made him partial to frivolities which sober criticism would have discarded. 6.” Corona rinterzata in lode di N. S. pape Clemente XI.“ibid. 1701, 4to. 7.” Noticie istoriche di diversi capitani illustri,“ibid. 1704, 4to. 8.” Racconto di tutta Poperazione per Pelevazione e abbazamento della colonna Antonina,“ibid, 1705, 4to. 9.” I Givochi Olimpici en lode de gli Arcadi defunte,“ibid. 1705, 4to, and continued in subsequent volumes. 10.” Le vite de gli Arcadi illustri," ibid. 7 vols. 4to, 1705, &c. He published also collections of the poems of the Arcadians, and some other original works and translations which are not held in much estimation.

The chief design of Crichton in this poem was to obtain a favourable reception at Venice, and particularly from Aldus JMamitius, whose praises he celebrates in very high strains. When he presented his verses to Manutins, that critic was struck with a very agreeable surprise; and judged, from the performance, that the author of it must be a person of extraordinary genius. Upon discoursing with the stranger, he was filled with admiration; and, finding him to be skilled in every subject, he introduced him to the acquaintance of the principal men of learning and note in Venice. Here he contracted an intimate friendship not only with Aldus Manutius, but with Laurentius Massa, Spero Speronius, Johannes Donatus, and various other learned persons, to whom he presented several poems in commendation of the city and university. Three of CrichtoH's odes, one addressed to Aldus Manutius, and another to Laurentius Massa, and a third to Johannes Donatus, are still preserved; but are certainly not the productions either of an extraordinary genius, or a correct writer. At length he was introduced to the doge and senate; in whose presence he made a speech, which was accompanied with such beauty of eloquence, and such grace of person and manner, that he received the thanks of that illustrious body; and nothing was talked of through the whole city but this rara in tcrris avis, this prodigy of nature. He held likewise disputations on the subjects of theology, philosophy, and mathematics, before the most eminent professors, and large multitudes of people. His reputation was so great, that the desire of seeing and hearing him brought together a vast concourse of persons from different quarters to Venice. It may be collected from Manutius, that the time in which Crichton exhibited these demonstrations of his abilities, was in the year 1580. During his residence at Venice, he fell into a bad state of health, which continued for the space of four months, and before he was perfectly recovered, he went, by the advice of his friends, to Padua, the university of which city was at that time in great reputation. The day after his arrival, there was a meeting of all the learned men of the place, at the house of Jacobus Aloysius Cornelius; when Crichton opened the assembly with an extemporary poem in praise of the city, the university, and the company who had honoured him with their presence. After this, he disputed for six hours with the most celebrated professors, on various subjects of learning; and he exposed, in particular, the errors of Aristotle, and his commentators, with so much solidity and acuteness, and, at the same time, with so much modesty, that he excited universal admiration. In conclusion, he delivered, extempore, an oration in praise of ignorance, which was conducted with such ingenuity and elegance, that his hearers were astonished. This display of Crichton’s talents was on the 14th of March, 1581. Soon after, he appointed another day for disputation at the palace of the bishop of Padua; not for the purpose of affording higher proofs of his abilities, for that could not possibly be done, but in compliance with the earnest solicitations of some persons, who were not present at the former assemhly. However, several circumstances occurred, which prevented this meeting from taking place. Such is the account of Manutius; but Imperialis relates, that he was informed by his father, who was present upon the occasion, that Crichton was opposed by Archangel us Mercenarius, a famous philosopher, and that he acquitted himself so well as to obtain the approbation of a very honourable company, and even of his antagonist himself. Amidst the discourses which were occasioned by our young Scotchman’s exploits, and the high applauses that were bestowed on his genius and attainments, there were some persons who endeavoured to detract from his merit. For ever, therefore, to confound these invidious impugners of his talents, he caused a paper to be fixed on the gates of St. John and St. Paul’s churches, in which he offered to prove before the university, that the errors of Aristotle, and of all his followers, were almost innumerable; and that the latter had failed, both in explaining their master’s meaning, and in treating on theological subjects. He promised likewise to refute the dreams of certain mathematical professors; to dispute in all the sciences and to answer to whatever should be proposed to him, or objected against him. All this he engaged to do, either in the common logical way, or by numbers and mathematical figures, or in an hundred sorts of verses, at the option of his opponents. According to Manutius, Crichton sustained this contest without fatigue, for three days; during which time he supported his credit, and maintained his propositions, with such spirit and energy, that, from an unusual concourse of people, he obtained acclamations and praises, than which none more magnificent were ever heard by men.

, a learned protestant clergyman in France, in the seventeenth century, was born at Usez, and being educated to the church, was appointed pastor, first of Beziers, and afterwards of Usez. His life appears to have been spent in the exercise of his duties as a clergyman, and in writing on the controversies of the times, in which he was enabled to take a distinguished part, being a man of extensive learning, a critic, and an able Oriental scholar. He died Aug. 31, 1659. He wrote many controversial pieces in French, particularly a defence of the Geneva confession of Faith, 1645, 8vo, and “Augustin suppose,” &c. proving that the four books on the creed in St. Augustine’s works are not the production of that author; but his Latin works gained him greater reputation, particularly his “Specimen Conjecturarum in qusedam Origenis, Ireneei, et Tertulliani Loca,” 1632; and “Observationes Sacræ et Historicæ in Nov. Test.” chiefly against Heinsius, 1644.

, professor of eloquence at Wittemberg, and an eminent philologer, was born at Wolbech, where his father was a clergyman, in 1715. He was first educated at Hall, whence he removed to Leipsic, and studied polite literature under Mascovius. His principal attachment was to the classics, which he read with the eye of a critic and antiquary. While at Leipsic, he contributed some of his first remarks on classical history and antiquities to the “Acta Eruditorum.” In 1738 he left Leipsic for Dresden, where he became acquainted with Juncker, and by his persuasion went to St. Petersburg, and became a member of the academy of history founded by Peter the Great, and afterwards succeeded Beyer in the same academy. His situation here was for some time agreeable, and his fame spread; but the stipend affixed to his place in the academy being irregularly paid, and Crusius being little attentive to pecuniary matters, his studies became interrupted, and his mind harassed, and his object now was to procure some place in Saxony where he could pursue his studies in comfort. For this purpose he consulted Gesner, who promised him every assistance; and in 1751, on the death of Berger, he was elected professor of eloquence at Wittemberg. Here for some time he fulfilled the utmost hopes of the friends by whose interest he had been elected; but having while at St. Petersburgh contracted habits too social for a man of learning, he now indulged them to such a degree as to obstruct his usefulness, expose himself to ridicule, and lessen his authority. He died Feb. 1767, according to Klotz his biographer, regretting his past imprudence, and with pious resignation. The failings of this accurate critic are much to be lamented, as but for them be would have probably attained the highest class in philology. His writings are: 1. “Commentarius de originibus pecunise a pecore ante nummum signatum: accedit ejusdem oratio habita in conventu Academico, cum auspicaret munus Professoris,” Petrop. 1748, 8vo. 2. “Probabilia critica, in quibus veteres Graeci et Latini scriptores emendantur & declarantur,” Leipsic, 1753, 8vo. This collection of criticisms and emendations on the classics, chiefly contributed to our author’s fame. 3. “Opuscula ad historiam et humanitatis literas spectantia,” Altenburgh, 1767, with a biographical preface by Klotz, to which we are indebted for this sketch of the life of Crusius. Besides these, Crusius contributed various dissertations to the German journals, a list of which may be seen in Harles.

As a writer, the number of his works is perhaps the most striking circumstance; but many of them, it may be remembered, were hastily written, and produced to better his income at a time when a succession of statesmen had agreed to forget that such a man ever held a public station. Whatever else he wrote, the drama was his favourite pursuit, from which he could seldom endure a long interruption; and this seems to have created in his mind a ready play of imagination which unfitted him for the serious concerns of real life and business. As a poet, he cannot rank very high; elegant versification and sentiment, however, throw a charm over some of his poetical works which has ensured them a considerable share of popularity. His “Observer,” now that he has acknowledged how much he took from Bentley’s Mss. no longer supports his character as a Greek critic. First or last, the drama was his peculiar province: it was in that he endeavoured to excel, and in that, we think, he has attained the excellence that will he most permanent.

A question has, no doubt, been anticipated by the reader of these memorials of Mr. Cunningham, whether he was not the celebrated critic on Horace, and the author of the posthumous criticisms in an edition of Virgil published by Hamilton and Balfour of Edinburgh in 1742. On this question, which is, no doubt, not a little interesting to philologists, but not perhaps so interesting as it would have been 50 or 60 years ago, his editor Dr. Thomson has exhausted not a little reading, inquiry, and probable conjecture, and bestows perhaps more consideration on it than the importance of the question deserves. It must be owned, at the same time, that the circumstances tending to prove the identity of the critic and the historian, and those tending to prove their diversity, are so many, and the evidence for and against each so nicely balanced, that it becomes a question of infinite curiosity on this account, and of importance too as illustrating the uncertainty of both direct and circumstantial evidence. The historian Alexander Cunningham was born in Scotland in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation; was educated in Holland, where he was intimately acquainted with many of the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague, and particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland: he enjoyed, in an eminent degree, the favour and familiarity of the great: he travelled with the duke of Argyle: he was distinguished by his skill in the game of chess: he was in politics a whig; and he lived to extreme old age. Now there is very strong evidence that all these circumstances belong to the life, and point to Alexander Cunningham, the editor and commentator of Horace. It would seem strange indeed, if two Alexander Cunninghams, countrymen, contemporaries, so distinguished for erudition and the familiarity and favour of men of rank and power, and the same men too, should have flourished at the same sera, in modes of life, in places of residence, in peculiarities of character, and other circumstances so nearly parallel. And yet, notwithstanding these accumulated coincidences, there are circumstances too of diversity and opposition that seem incompatible with their identity; and therefore Dr. Thomson, after all his inquiries cdncerning the identity or the diversity of the historian and the critic, on that subject remains sceptical; and from those curious points of coincidence and opposition draws the following pertinent inference: “If the writings of our author have increased the stores of history, the incidents of his life, by shewing the uncertainty of oral tradition, have illustrated its importance.”

Dr. Currie might now, without danger to his professional character, indulge his inclination for the ornamental parts of literature; and an occasion offered in which he had the happiness of rendering his taste and his benevolence equally conspicuous. On a visit to his native county, in 1792, he had become personally acquainted with that rustic son of genius, Robert Burns. This extraordinary, but unfortunate man, having at his death left his family in great indigence, a subscription was made in Scotland for their immediate relief, and at the same time a design was formed, of publishing an edition of his printed works and remains for their emolument. Mr. Syme, of Ryetlale, an old and intimate friend of Dr. Currie, strongly urged him to undertake the office of editor; and to this request, in which other friends of the poet’s memory concurred, he could not withhold his acquiescence, notwithstanding his multiplied engagements. In 1800 he published in 4 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Robert Burns, with an account of his Life, and a criticism on his Writings: to which are prefixed, some Observations on the Character and Condition of the Scottish Peasantry.” These volumes were a rich treat to the lovers of poetry and elegant literature; and Dr. Currie’s part in them, as a biographer and critic, was greatly admired, as well for beauty of style, as for liberality of sentiment and sagacity of remark. If any objection was made to him as an editor, on account of unnecessary extension of the materials, the kind purpose for which the publication was undertaken, pleaded his excuse with all who were capable of feeling its force. Its success fully equalled the most sanguine expectations.

, a French critic and philologer, was born of protestant parents at Castres in Upper Languedoc April 6, 1651, and began to be educated in the college there; but, when by a decree of the council the direction of it was given, in 1664, to the Jesuits alone, his father sent him to the university of Puylaurens, and afterwards to that of Saumur, that he might finish his classical studies under Tannegui le Fevre, or Tanaquil Faber. This eminent scholar was so pleased with Dacier’s inclination for learning, that he kept him alone in his house, after he had dismissed the rest of the pupils; and here he conceived that affection for le Fevre’s celebrated daughter, which ended at length in marriage. On le Fevre’s death in 1672, Dacier returned to his father; and after some time went to Paris, in order to gain a settlement, and cultivate the acquaintance and friendship of the learned: in the former of these objects he did not at first succeed; but on a second visit to Paris, he procured an introduction to the duke of Montausier, governor to the dauphin, who put him on the list of the commentators for the use of the dauphin, and engaged him in the edition of Pompeius Festus, and Marcus Verrius Flaccus. This he published at Paris, 1681, in 4to; and it was again published at Amsterdam, 1699, in 4to, which edition is preferable to that of Paris, because there are added to it the entire notes of Joseph Scaliger, Fulvius Ursinus, and Anthony Augustinus, and the new fragments of Festus. His Horace, with a French translation, and notes critical and historical, came out at Paris, 1681, in 10 vols. 12mo, and has often been printed since. The best edition of this work is that of Amsterdam, 1726, consisting of the same number of volumes in the same size. Another edition was printed at Amsterdam in 8 vols. 12mo, to which were added the translation and notes of father Sanadon, published at Paris, 1728, in 2 vols. 4to, Mr. John Masson, a refugee minister in England, made several animadversions upon Dacier’s notes on Horace, in his life of that poet, printed at Leyden in 1708; which occasioned Dacier to publish new explications upon the works of Horace, with an answer to the criticisms of Mr. Masson, in which he treats Masson’s book with great contempt; and, speaking of verbal criticism, styles it “the last effort of reflection and judgment.” These were afterwards added to Sanadon’s edition of Dacier’s Horace.

In 1683 Dacier married mademoiselle le Fevre; and in 1685 abjured with his lady the protestant religion. His marriage, which was styled “the union of Greek and Latin,” added considerably to his felicity, and procured him an able assistant in his studies and publications. In 1691 he was assisted by madame Dacier in a French translation of the moral reflections of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, with notes, in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1692 he published Aristotle’s Poetics, translated into French, with critical remarks, in 4to. This work was reprinted in Holland in 12mo; and some have considered it as Dacier’s masterpiece. In 1693 he published a French translation of the Oedipus and Electra of Sophocles, in 12mo; but not with the same success as the Poetics just mentioned. We have already noticed six publications of Dacier: the rest shall now follow in order; for the life of this learned man, like that of most others, is little more than a history of his works. He published, 7. Plutarch’s Lives, translated into French, with notes, Paris, 1694, vol. I. 8vo. This essay, which contains only five lives, is the beginning of a work, which he afterwards finished. 8. The works of Hippocrates, translated into French, with notes, and compared with the manuscripts in the king’s library, Paris, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo. The Journal des Sgavans speaks well of this version. 9. The works of Plato, translated into French, witli notes, and the life of that philosopher, with an account of the principal doctrines of his philosophy, 1699, 2 vols. 12mo. These are only some of Plato’s pieces. 10. The life of Pythagoras, his Symbols, and Golden Verses, the life of Hierocles, and his Commentary upon the Golden Verses, 1706, 2 vols. 12mo. In 1695, Dacier had succeeded Felibien in the academy of inscriptions, and Francis de Harlay, archbishop of Paris, in the French academy. In 1701 a new regulation was made in the academy of inscriptions, by which every member was obliged to undertake some useful work suitable to his genius and course of studies: and, in conformity to this order, Dacier undertook the above translation of the life of Pythagoras, &c. 11. The manual of Epictetus, with five treatises of Simplicius upon important subjects, relating to morality and religion, translated into French, with notes, 1715, 2 vols. 12mo. The authors of the “Europe Sgavante of Jan. 1718,” having criticised the specimen he had given of his translation of Plutarch’s Lives, he printed, 12. An Answer to them, and inserted it in the Journal des Sçavans of the 25th of June and the llth of July 1718. 13. Plutarch’s Lives of illustrious men, revised by the Mss. and translated into French, with notes historical and critical, and the supplement of those comparisons which are lost. To which are added, those heads which could be found, and a general index of matters contained in the work, Paris, 1721, 8 vols. 4to; Amsterdam, 1723, 9 vols. 8vo. This work was received with applause, and supposed to be well executed; yet not so, say the authors of the Bibliotheque Franchise, as to make the world at once forget the translation of Amyot, obsolete as it is. Dacier published some other things of a lesser kind, as, 14. A Speech made in the French academy, on his admission. 15. Answers, which he made, as director of the academy, to the speech of M. Cousin in 1697, and to that of M. de Boze in 1715, both inserted in the collections of the French academy. 16. A dissertation upon the origin of Satire, inserted in the second volume of the memoirs of the academy of Belles Lettres in 1717. 17. Notes upon Longinus. Boileau, in the preface to his translation of Longinus, styles these notes very learned and says, that “the author of them is not only a man of very extensive learning, and an excellent critic, but likewise a gentleman of singular politeness; which is so much the more valuable, as it seldom attends great learning.” Boileau has added them to his own notes upon Longinus; and they are printed in all the editions of his works. Dacier wrote also a commentary upon Theocritus, which he mentions in his notes upon Horace, ode xxix; and a short treatise upon religion, containing the reasons which brought him over to the church of Rome: but these two works were never printed.

He had a share too in the medallic history of Lewis XIV.; and, when it was finished, was chosen to present it to his majesty; who, being informed of the pains which Dacier had taken in it, settled upon him a pension of 2000 livres; and about the same time appointed him keeper of the books of the king’s closet in the Louvre. In 1713 he was made perpetual secretary of the French academy. In 1717 he obtained a grant in reversion of 10,000 crowns upon his place of keeper of the books of the king’s closet; and when this post was united to that of library-keeper to the king, in 1720, he was not only continued in the privileges of his place during life, but the reversion of it was granted to his wife; a favour, of which there had never been an instance before. But her death happening first, rendered this grant, so honourable to her, ineffectual. Great as Dacier’s grief was for the loss of an helpmate so like himself, it did not prevent him from seeking out another; and he had actually been married at a very advanced period of life, had he not died almost suddenly on Sept. 18, 1722, of an ulcer in the throat, which he did not think at all dangerous, since that very evening he was present at the academy. He was 7 1 years of age; short of stature, and of a long and meagre visage. He was a great promoter of virtue and learning; and if he was somewhat partial to the ancients, in the famous controversy on the comparative merits of the ancients and moderns, yet this may be pardoned in one who had so assiduously studied their works. It would be less easy to excuse his occasional boldness as a critic, and his intemperance as a disputant. In his own time, however, he enjoyed deserved reputation. He chose none but useful subjects; devoted his labours to works only of importance; and enriched the French language with those remains of wise antiquity, which are most advantageous to the morals of mankind. He could not make his countrymen classical, but he did what he could to give them a relish for the ancients. This, however, although an useful attempt in his day, has narrowed the bounds of his fame, and except in his Aristotle’s Poetics, and some parts of his Horace, modern critics seem disinclined to acknowledge his taste and critical acumen.

At the death of Spenser, Daniel, according to Anthony Wood, was appointed poet-lanreat to tiuceu Elizabeth; but Mr. Malone, whose researches lead to more decisive accuracy, considers him only as a volunteer laureat, like Jonson, Dekker, and others who furnished the court with masks and pageants. In king James’s reign he was made gentleman extraordinary, and afterwards one of the grooms of the privy-chamber to the queen consort, who took great delight in his conversation and writings. Some of la’s biographers attribute this promotion to the interest of his brother-in-law, Florio, the Italian lexicographer, but it is perhaps more probable that he owed it to the Pembroke family. Mrs. Cooper, in her Muses’ Library, observes, that in the introduction to his poem on the civil wars, he acknowledges the friendship of one of the noble family of Mountjoy; and this, adds our female critic, is the more grateful and sincere, as it was published after the death of his benefactor. He now rented a small house and garden in Old-street, in the parish of St. Luke’s, London, where he composed most of his dramatic pieces, and enjoyed the friendship of Shakspeare, Marlowe, and Chapman, as well as of many persons of rank; but he appears to have been dissatisfied with the opinions entertained of his poetical talents; and towards the end of his life retired to a farm, which he had at Beckington, near Philips-Norton, in Somersetshire, and where, after some time devoted to study and contemplation, he died, and was buried Oct. 14, 1619. He had been married to his wife Justina, several years, but left no issue.

The “Commedia” of Dante is a species of satiric epic, in which the reader is conducted through the three stages, “the Inferno,” the “Purgatorio,” and “Paradiso,” the whole consisting of a monstrous assemblage of characters, pagan heroes and philosophers, Christian fathers, kings, popes, monks, ladies, apostles, saints, and hierarchies; yet frequently embellished with passages of great sublimity and pathos (of the latter, what is comparable to the tale of Ugolino?) and imagery and sentiments truly Homeric. The highest praise, however, must be given to his “Inferno,” a subject which seems to have suited the gloomy vvildness of his imagination, which appears tamed and softened even in the most interesting pictures in the “Purgatorio” and “Paradiso.” Whether, says an excellent living critic, Dante was stimulated to his singular work by the success of his immediate predecessors, the Provenal poets, or by the example of the ancient Roman authors, has been doubted. The latter opinion, Mr. Roscoe thinks the more probable. In his “Inferno” he had apparently the descent of ^neas in view, but in the rest of his poem there is little resemblance to any antecedent production. Compared with the ^neid, adds Mr. Roscoe, “it is a piece of grand Gothic architecture at the side of a beautiful Roman temple,” on which an anonymous writer remarks that this Gothic grandeur miserably degenerates in the adjoining edifices, the “Purgatorio” and “Paradiso.”

, D. D. an eminent writer and antiquary, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century in Denbighshire, and educated by William Morgan, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph. He was admitted a student of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1589, where he took one degree in arts, and afterwards became a member of Lincoln-college in the same university. He was rector ol Malloyd, or Maynlloyd in Merionethshire, and afterwards a canon of St. Asaph, to which dignity he was promoted by Dr. Parry, then bishop, whose chaplain he was. He commenced doctor in 1616, and was highly esteemed by the university, says Wood, as well versed in the history and antiquities of his own nation, and in the Greek and Hebrew languages; a most exact critic, and indefatigable searcher into ancient writings, and well acquainted with curious and rare authors. The time of his death is not known. His works are, 1. “Antiques Linguae Britannicse nunc communiter dictae Cambro-Britannicoe, a suis Cymrascae vel Cambricee, ab aliis Wallicoe rudimenta,” &c. 1621, 8vo. 2. “Dietionarium Latino-Britannicum,” 1631, folio. With this is printed, “Dictionarium Latino-Britannicum,” which was begun and greatly advanced by Thomas Williams, physician, before 1600. It was afterwards completed and published by Dr. Davies. 3. “Aclagia Britannica, authorum Britannicorum nomina, & quando floruerunt,” 1632, printed at the end of the dictionary before mentioned. 4. “Adagiorum Britannicorum specimen,” ms. Bibl. Bodl. He also assisted W. Morgan, bishop of Landaff, and Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, in translating the Bible into Welsh, in that correct edition which came out in 1620. He also translated into the same language (which he had studied at vacant hours for 30 years) the book of “Resolution,” written by Robert Parsons, a Jesuit.

, an eminent and learned critic, was the son of a merchant in London, and born there April 22, 1679. After being educated in classical learning at the Charterhouse-school, he was, June 8, 1695, admitted of Queen’s-college in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1698. On July 7, 1701, he was chosen fellow of his college and the year following took the degree of M. A. and was proctor in 1709. In 1711, having distinguished himself by several learned publications hereafter mentioned, he was collated by Moore, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Fen-Ditton near Cambridge, and to a prebend in the church of Ely; taking the same year the degree of LL. D. Upon the death of Dr. James, or, as Bentham says, Dr. Humphrey Gower, he was, on March 23, 1716-17, chosen master of Queen’s-college; and created D. D. the same year, when George I. was at Cambridge. He died March 7, 1731-2, aged 53, and was buried in the chapel of his college, where a flat marble stone was laid over his grave, with a plain inscription at his own desire. His mother, who was daughter of sir John Turton, knt. is said to have been living in 1743.

, 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.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at St. Omer’s in 1566, and became canon, of Tournay, where he died Jan. 17, 1644. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a good critic, but wrote in an affected and obscure style. Some of his works are still valued, although their rarity prevents their being generally known. Among these are, 1. “Antiqui novique Latii Orthographies,” Tournay, 1632, fol. Of this there is a pretended Paris edition of 1677, which is precisely the same, with a new title-page and date. 2. “Terra et aqua, seu terrae fiuctuantes,” Tournay, 1633, 4to; of this there are also copies of Paris, 1677, with only a new title. The small floating isles near St. Omer’s furnished the idea of this work, in which there are many curious observations on marine productions. He also translated into Latin, the “Orations of St. Basil of Seleucia,” with notes, 1604, 8vo; and published an edition of Quintus Calaber, 1614, 8vo, and some other works, theological and critical, which are enumerated in our authorities.

, a learned critic, especially in the Greek tongue, was born in 1708. A respectable family of the name of Dawes had long been situated at Stapleton, between Market-Bosworth and Hinckley in Leicestershire, and our critic was probably of the same family, but it does not appear, from the register of the parish, that he was born at that place. There was a Dr. Dawes, who, early in the last century, resided at Stapleton, and was a great scholar, and a searcher after the philosopher’s stone. It has been supposed, that he might be father to the subject of the present article; but of this fact no decisive evidence can be produced. All the traditions concerning Richard Dawes are, that the place of his birth was either MarketBosworth, or the vicinity of that town. Whoever his parents were, or whatever was their condition in life, it is probable that they perceived such marks of capacity in their son, as determined them to devote him to a literary profession; and accordingly he was put to the free grammar-school at Bosworth, where he had the happiness of receiving part of his education under the care of Mr. Anthony Blackwall. Here he laid the foundation of that critical knowledge of the Greek language which he afterwards displayed so conspicuously. In 1725, he was admitted a sizar of Emanuel college, in the university of Cambridge, where he proceeded bachelor of arts in 1729. On the 2d of October, 1731, he became a fellow of the college on the nomination of sir Wolston Dixie, bart. In 1733, he took the degree of master of arts. The next year he was a candidate for the place of esquire beadle of the university, but his application was not crowned with success. Whilst Mr. Dawes was at Cambridge, he distinguished himself by some peculiarities of conduct, which probably arose from a mixture of insanity in his constitution; and in his conversation he occasionally took such liberties on certain topics as gave great offence to those about him. Having indulged himself too much, at college, in an indolent sedentary way of life, he, at length, found it absolutely necessary to have recourse to some kind of exercise. In this case, being of a strong athletic frame of body, and not over-delicate in the choice of his company, he took to the practice of ringing; and, as such a genius could not stop at mediocrity, he quickly became the leader of the band, and carried the art to the highest perfection.

, a poet, a political writer, and a critic, was born in the city of London in 1657. His father was a sadler, and a citizen of reputation who determining to give him a liberal education, sent him to Harrow-on-theHill, where he received his grammatical instruction under Dr. William Horn, a school-master in high esteem for piety and literature. In the eighteenth year of his age he was removed to the university of Cambridge, where he was entered of Caius college, January 13, 1675, and continued there till he took his bachelor’s degree in 1679; after which he became a member of Trinity-hall, and in 1683, was admitted to the degree of master of arts. It is related, by the author of the Biographia Dramatica, that he was expelled from college, for literally attempting to stab a person in the dark, which, has been since confirmed by Dr. Farmer, by an extract from the Gesta book of Caius college: by this it appears that he was expelled March 4, 1680, for assaulting and wounding one Glenham with a sword. This accounts for his removing to Trinity hall.

We are now to consider Mr. Dennis in his critical capacity, in which he so frequently exerted himself that he came to be called the Critic, by way of distinction. For sustaining this character he was not ill qualified by his knowledge, learning, and judgment. He maintained it likewise with reputation for some time; but at length he displayed this talent with so little judgment or delicacy, and against men of such eminence and superiority, that they succeeded in reducing him to a low degree of estimation with the public. His first criticism was entitled “Observations on Blackmore’s Prince Arthur;” the third edition of which poem was printed in 1696, and which might afford sufficient scope for a variety of strictures but that in this instance he was more mild than usual, is probable, from his afterwards corresponding with sir Richard Blackmnore on very friendly terms. In 1696 or 1697, he published “Letters upon several occasions,” written partly by himself, and partly by Mr. Dryden, Mr. Wycherley, Mr. Moyle, and Mr. Congreve. The subjects of them are in some degree miscellaneous; but chiefly critical; and, among other things, they contain Mr. Congreve’s Observations concerning Humour in Comedy. A very high opinion of our author was at this time entertained by Dryden and Congreve. In 1701 he gave to the public a critical discourse, entitled “The Advancement and Reformation of modern Poetry,” divided into two parts the design of the first of which is to shew,that the principal reason why the ancients excelled the moderns in the higher species of poetry was, because they mixed religion with it. In the second, Mr. Dennis endeavours to prove, that by joining poetry with the religion revealed to us in sacred writ, the modern poets might equal the ancient. Whether he has entirely succeeded in the positions he maintains, may, perhaps, be doubtful; but he has supported them with some ingenuity and ability.

In 1706 our author published “An Essay on the Operas, after the Italian manner, which are about to be established on the English Stage; with some reflections on the damage which they may bring to the public.” His opinions here iiad been adopted by the most eminent writers of the time, who had some cause for resentment in the cold reception that had been given to the English drama. Our author declares, however, in his preface, that his treatise is only levelled against those operas which are entirely musical; since those which are dramatical may be partly defended by the examples of the ancients. Another of Mr. Dennis’s critical publications, but of what date we are not able to ascertain, is preserved in his select works, “The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry,” a sequel to the sentiments which he had maintained in his “Advancement and Reformation of modern Poetry.” Here he again insists upon the immense scope which religion affords for poetic excellence. Under the word religion he includes the whole system of supernatural machinery, the introduction of superior beings, and all the noble fictions, sentiments, addresses, and images, that may be derived from the knowledge of revelation. In the beginning of 1711 our author produced another tract, which added farther to his reputation as a critic; his three “Letters on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” in which he has drawn the poetical character of our immortal dramatist with sagacity and judgment; and has strongly supported the opinion of Shakspeare’s learning, which has since more decisively been maintained by Dr. Farmer.

Thus far Mr. Dennis pursued his critical inquiries without giving any peculiar offence. He might, indeed, occasionally deliver with freedom his sentiments concerning the writings of his contemporaries, and in some few instances might express himself with severity. But still he did not run into such excesses as to bring on any material personal controversy, until in 1711, soon after the commencement of the Spectator, he entered into a contest with Addison, Steele, and Pope. He imagined himself to be attacked so early as in the second or third number of that paper; and was particularly displeased with the thirty-ninth and fortieth numbers, in which a doctrine was advanced, with regard to poetical justice, very different from what he had always maintained. Accordingly, he addressed a letter to the Spectator on the subject, at the conclusion of which he says, “Thus I have discussed the business of poetical justice, and shewn it to be the foundation of all tragedy; and therefore, whatever persons, whether ancient or mo dern, have written dialogues which they call tragedies, where this justice is not observed, those persons have entertained and amused the world with romantic lamentable tales, instead of just tragedies, and or' lawful fables.” That our critic was extremely anxious in support of this point, is apparent from several other parts of his works. He has particularly insisted upon it in a letter to sir Richard Blackmore on the moral and conclusion of an epic poem; and has certainly conducted his argument with great ingenuity. Another opportunity which the Spectator afforded Mr. Dennis for the exercise of his critical skill, was by the illustrations in the seventieth and seventy-fourth numbers of the ballad of Chevy Chase, though the subject was scarcely important enough to deserve an elaborate discussion of nearly thirty pages. A farther attack upon the Spectator was particularly levelled at sir Richard Steele. That gentleman, it is said, had promised our critic to take some opportunity of mentioning his works in public with advantage, and thereby of promoting his reputation. It however unfortunately happened, that Mr, Addison, who perhaps knew nothing of sir Richard’s engagement, quoted, in his paper upon Laughter, the two following lines, which he calls humourous and well-expressed, from Mr. Dennis’s translation of a satire of Boileau’s:

In 1713, Mr. Addison’s Cato was produced upon the stage with a degree of applause, which, we believe, was never before given to any dramatic composition. But though the play was acted in the cause of whiggism, and Dennis himself was so zealous a whig, he could not bear the success with which it was attended. That in this hewas actuated by personal animosity, cannot be denied; since it is acknowledged by himself, in a letter to the duke of Buckingham, that the motive which induced him to write his remarks upon Cato was, his having been attacked in several numbers of the Spectator. His principle of action we condemn; but the abilities with which he has executed his purpose are unquestionable, “He found,” says Dr. Johnson, “and shewed many faults: he shewed them, indeed, with anger; but he found them with acutejncss, such as ought to rescue his criticism from oblivion;” and Dr. Johnson has thought a large extract from this pamphlet worthy of transcription into his Life of Add son, who himself maintained a profound silence. Pope, however, took upon him to avenge his cause, in a pamphlet entitled “The Narrative of Dr. Robert Norris, concerning the strange and deplorable frenzy of Mr. John Dennis, an officer in the custom house,” a piece of humour which does little credit to Pope’s heart, and must excite the disapprobation of every benevolent mind. Pope, however, left Dennis’s objections to Cato in their full force, “and therefore discovered more desire of vexing the critic, than of defending the poet. Addison, who was no stranger to the world,” says Dr. Johnson, “probably saw the selfishness of Pope’s friendship; and resolving that he should have the consequences of his officiousness to himself, informed Dennis by Steele, that he was sorry for the insult; and that whenever he should think fit to answer his remarks, he would do it in a manner to which nothing could be objected.” Mr. Dennis, having been successful in displaying the faults of Cato, with regard to the probability of the action, and the reasonableness of the plan, proceeded, in the pride of conquest, to attack the sentiments of the play in seven letters. But here his strictures are, in general, trifling and insignificant; containing such petty cavils, and minute objections, as the malignity of criticism, united with some degree of sagacity, might be capable of exercising against the most perfect productions of the human mind.

The relief which Mr. Dennis obtained by these publications, though considerable, was not permanent. Being much distressed very near the close of his life, it was proposed to act a play for his benefit, and Thomson, Mallet, Mr. Benjamin Martin, and Pope, took the lead upon the occasion. The play, which was “The Provoked Husband,” was represented at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, December 18, 1733; and Pope wrote a prologue, which was spoken by Theophilus Cibber. Dennis had at this time become blind; Mr. Pope’s benevolence was not so pure as could be wished; for his prologue was throughout a sneer upon the poor old critic, who happily, either from vanity, or the decay of his intellects, did not perceive its tendency. Warburton styled it “benevolent irony.” Mr. Dennis survived this assistance only twenty days, dying on the 6th of January, 1733-4, in the seventyseventh year of his age.

“Of Roscommon’s works,” says Dr. Johnson, “the judgment of the public seems to be right. He is elegant, but not great; he never labours after exquisite beavities, and he seldom falls into gross faults. His versification is smooth, but rarely vigorous, and his rhymes are remarkably exact. He improved taste, if he did not enlarge knowledge, and may be numbered among the benefactors to English literature.” Nor ought it to be forgot, that he was the first critic who had the taste and spirit publicly to praise the “Paradise Lost” with a noble encomium on which, and a rational recommendation of blank verse, he concludes his “Essay on Translated Verse,” though this passage was not in the first edition.

, a very eminent divine, descended of a noble family of Lucca, was born June 6, 1576; but of his early years we have no information. When, however, he was only nineteen years of age, we find him appointed professor of Hebrew at Geneva. In 1619 the church of Geneva sent him to the synod of Dort, with his colleague Theodore Tronchin. Diodati gained so much reputation in this synod, that he was chosen, with five other divines, to prepare the Belgic confession of faith. He was esteemed an excellent divine, and a good preacher. His death happened at Geneva, Oct. 3, 1649, in his seventy-third year, and was considered as a public loss. He has rendered himself noticed by some works which he published, but particularly by his translation of the whole Bible into Italian, the first edition of which he published, with notes, in 1607, at Geneva, and reprinted in 16 n. The New Testament was printed separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Haerlem in 1665. M. Simon observes, that his method is rather that of a divine and a preacher, than of a critic, by which he means only, that his work is more of a practical than a critical kind. He translated the Bible also into French, but not being so intimate with that language, he is not thought to have succeeded so well as in the Italian. This translation was printed in folio, at Geneva, in 1664. He was also the first who translated into French father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” and many have esteemed this a more faithful translation than de la Houssaye’s, although less elegant in language. He also is said to have translated sir Edwin Sandys’ book on the “State of Religion in the West.” But the work by which he is best known in this country is his Annotations on the Bible, translated into English, of which the third and best edition was published in 1651, fol. He is said to have begun writing these annotations in 1606, at which time it was expected that Venice would have shaken off the popish yoke, a measure to which he was favourable; and he went on improving them in his editions of the Italian and French translations. This work was at one time time very popular in England, and many of the notes of the Bible, called the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” were taken from Diodati literally. Diodati was at onetime in England, as we learn from the life of bishop Bedell, whom he was desirous to become acquainted with, and introduced him to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. From Morrice’s “State Letters of the right hon. the earl of Orrery,” we learn that when invited to preach at Venice, he was obliged to equip himself in a trooper’s habit, a scarlet cloak with a sword, and in that garb he mounted the pulpit; but was obliged to escape again to Geneva, from the wrath of a Venetian nobleman, whose mistress, affected by one of Diqdati'a sermons, had refused to continue her connection with her keeper. The celebrated Milton, also, contracted a friendship for Diodati, when on his travels; and some of his Latin elegies are addressed to Charles Diodati, the nepheiv of the divine. This diaries was one of Milton’s most intimate friends, and was the son of Theodore Diodati, who, although originally of Lucca, as well as his brother, married an English lady, and his son in every respect became an Englishman. He was also an excellent scholar, and being educated to his father’s profession, practised physic in Cheshire. He was at St. Paul’s school, with Milton, and afterwards, in 1621, entered of Trinity-college, Oxford. He died in 1638.

, a historian and critic of antiquity, was born at Halicarnassus, a town in Caria; which is also memorable for having before produced Herodotus. He came to Rome soon after Augustus had put an end to the civil wars, which was about 30 years before Christ; and continued there, as he himself relates, twentytwo years, learning the Latin tongue, and making all necessary provision for the design he had conceived of writing the Roman history. To this purpose he read over, as he tells us, all the commentaries and annals of those Romans who had written with any reputation about the antiquities and transactions of their state; of such as old Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, and others; but owns, after all, that the conferences he had with the great and learned men at Rome upon this subject, were almost as serviceable to him as any thing he had read. His history is entitled “Of the Roman antiquities,” and was comprised in twenty books, of which only the first eleven are now extant. They conclude with the time when the consuls resumed the chief authority of the republic, after the government of the decemviri; which happened 312 years after the foundation of Rome. The entire work extended to the beginning of the first Punic war, ending where Polybius begins his history, which is about 200 years later. Some have imagined that Dionysius never ended his work, but was prevented by death from composing any more than eleven books out of the twenty which he had promised the public; but this is contrary to the express testimony of Stepbanus, a Greek author, who quotes the 16th and 17th books of Dionysius’ s Roman antiquities; and Photius, in his Bibliotheca, says, that he had read all the twenty, and had seen the compendium or abridgment which Dionysius made of his own history into five books, but which is now lost. The reputation of this historian stands very high on many accounts, notwithstanding the severe attacks made on him by Mr. Hooke, in his “Observations, &c.” on Middleton and Chapman, &c. 1750, 4to. As to what relates to chronology, all the critics have been apt to prefer him even to Livy himself: and Scaliger declares, in his animadversions upon Eusebius, that we have no author remaining, who has so well observed the order of years. He is no less preferable to the Latins on account of the matter of his history; for his being a stranger was so far from being prejudicial to him, that on this single consideration he made it his business to preserve an infinite number of particulars, most curious to us, which their own authors neglected to write, either because, by reason of their familiarity, they thought them below notice, or that all the world knew them as well as themselves. His style and diction, however, although pure, insomuch that many have thought him the best author to be studied by those who would attain a perfect knowledge of the Greek tongue, is not so elegant or lively as that of Livy, to whom he has been compared in historic merit.

From the course of Dr. Doddridge’s life, and the multiplicity of his labours, his application must have been incessant, and with little time for exercise and recreation. His constitution was always feeble, and his friends deprecated the injurious effects of his unintermitting assiduity and exertion. By degrees, however, his delicate frame was so impaired, that it could not bear the attack of disease. In December 1750, he went to St. Alban’s to preach the funeral sermon of his friend Dr. Clark, and in the course of his journey he caught a cold, which brought on a pulmonary complaint, that resisted every remedy. But notwithstanding the advice and remonstrances of those who apprehended his death, and wished to prolong his usefulness, he would not decline or diminish the employments in the academy, and with his congregation, in which he* took great delight. At length he was obliged to submit; and to withdraw from all public services to the house of his friend Mr. Orton, at Shrewsbury. Notwithstanding some relief which his recess from business afforded him, his disorder gained ground; and his medical friends advised him to make trial of the Bristol waters. The physicians of this place afforded him little hope of lasting benefit; and he received their report of his case with Christian fortitude and resignation. As the last resort in his case, he was advised to pass the winter in a warmer climate; and at length he was prevailed upon to go to Lisbon, where he met with every attention which friendship and medical skill could afford him. But his case was hopeless. Arriving at Lisbon on the 13th of October, the rainy season came on, and prevented his deriving any benefit from air and exercise, and in a few days he was seized with a colliquative diarrhoea, which rapidly exhausted his remaining strength. He preserved, however, to the last the same calmness, vigour, and joy of mind, which he had felt and expressed through the whole of his disease. The only anxiety he seemed to feel was occasioned by the situation in which Mrs. Doddridge would be left upon his removal. To his children, his congregation, and his friends in general, he desired to be remembered in the most affectionate manner; nor did he forget a single person, not even his servant, in the effusions of his benevolence. Many devout sentiments and aspirations were uttered by him on the last day but one preceding that of his death. At length, his release took place on the 26th of October, O. S. about 3 o'clock in the morning; and though he died in a foreign land, and in a certain sense among strangers, his decease was embalmed with many tears, nor was he molested, in his last moments, by the officious zeal of any of the priests of the church of Rome. His body was opened, and his lungs were found to be in a very ulcerated state. His remains were deposited in the most respectful manner in the burying-ground belonging to the British factory at Lisbon. His congregation erected in his meeting-house a handsome monument to his memory, on which is an inscription drawn up by his much esteemed and ingenious friend, Gilbert West, esq. Dr. Doddridge left four children, one son and three daughters, and his widow survived him more than forty years. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Orton from I Cor. xv. 54; and it was extensively circulated under the title of “The Christian’s triumph over death.” His character stands high among the dissenters, no man with equal powers and equal popularity having appeared among them in the course of last century, Dr. Watts excepied. Dr. Doddridge was an indefatigable student, and his mind was furnished with a rich stock of various learning. His acquaintance with books, ancient and modern, was very extensive and if not a profound scholar, he was sufficiently acquainted with the learned languages to make a considerable figure as a critic and commentator. To history, ecclesiastical as well as civil, he had paid no small degree of attention; and while from his disposition he was led to cultivate a taste for polite literature in general, more than for the abstruser parts of science, he was far from being a stranger to mathematical and philosophical studies. But the favourite object of his pursuit, and that in which his chief excellence lay, was divinity, taking that word in its largest sense. As a preacher. Dr. Doddridge was much esteemed and very popular. But his biographers have had some difficulty in vindicating him from the charge of being what is called a trimmer^ that is, accommodating his discourses to congregations of different sentiments nor do we think they have succeeded in proving him exempt from the appearance at least of inconsistency, or obsequious timidity. We are informed, however, that his piety was ardent, unaffected, and cheerful, and particularly displayed in the resignation and serenity with which he bore his affliction. His moral conduct was not only irreproachable, but in every respect exemplary. To his piety he joined the warmest benevolence towards his fellow- creatures, which was manifested in the most active exertions for their welfare within the compass of his abilities or influence. His private manners were polite, affable, and engaging; which rendered him the delight of those who had the happii. of his acquaintance. No man exercised more candour and moderation towards those who differed from him in religious opinions. Of these qualities there are abundant proofs in the extensive correspondence he carried on with many eminent divines in the establishment, and of other persuasions.

, a learned protestant and eminent critic, was born at Oudenard, in Elandcrs, June 28, 1550. He was designed for the study of divinity, and sent very early to Ghent, to learn the languages there, and afterwards to Louvain, to pass through a course of philosophy; but his father having been outlawed for his religion in 1567, and deprived of his estate, retired to England, and Drusius soon followed him, though his mother, who continued a bigoted catholic, endeavoured to prevent him. Masters were provided to superintend his studies; and he had soon an opportunity of learning Hebrew under Anthony Cevellier, or rather Chevalier, who was come over to England, and taught that language publicly in the university of Cambridge. Drusius lodged at his house, and had a great share in his friendship. He did not return to London till 1571; and, while he was preparing to go to France, the news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew made him change his resolution. Soon after this, he was invited to Cambridge by Cartwright, the professor of divinity; and also to Oxford, by Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, whither he went, and became professor of the oriental languages there at the age of twenty-two. He taught at Oxford four years with great success*; after which, being desirous of returning to his own country, he went to Louvain, where he studied the civil law. The troubles on account of religion obliged him to come back to his father at London; but, upon the pacification of Ghent, in 1576, they both returned to their own country. The son tried his fortune in Holland, and was appointed professor of the oriental tongues there, in 1577. While he continued in this station at Leyden, he married in 1580 a young gentlewoman of Ghent, who was more than half a convert, and became a thorough protestant after her marriage. The stipend allowed to Drusius, in Holland, not being sufficient to support himself and family, he gave intimations that if better terms should be offered him elsewhere, he would accept of them. The prince of Orange wrote to the magistrates of Leyden, to take care not to lose a man of his merit; yet they suffered him to remove to Friesland, whither he had been invited to be professor of Hebrew in the university of Franeker. He was admitted into that professorship in 1585, and discharged the functions of it with great honour till his death, which happened in 1616.

In 1695, while employed on his translation of Virgil, begun in 1694, he published a translation, in prose, of Dr. Fresnoy’s “Art of Painting;” the second edition of which, corrected and enlarged, was afterwards published in 1716. It is dedicated to the earl of Burlington by Richard Graham, esq. who observes in the dedication, that some liberties have been taken with this excellent translation, of which he gives the following account: “The misfortune that attended Mr. Dryden in that undertaking was, that, for want of a competent knowledge in painting, he suffered himself to be misled by an unskilful guide. Monsieur de Piles told him, that his French version was made at the request of the author himself; and altered by him, till it was wholly to his mind. This Mr. Dryden taking upon content, thought there was nothing more incumbent upon him than to put it into the best English he could, and accordingly performed his part here, as in every thing else, with accuracy. But it being manifest that the French translator has frequently mistaken the sense of his author, and very often also not set it in the most advantageous light; to do justice to M. du Fresnoy, Mr. Jervas, a very good critic in the language, as well as in the subject of the poem, has been prevailed upon to correct what he found amiss; and his amendments are every-where distinguished uith proper marks.” Dryden tells us, in the preface to the “Art of Painting,” that, when he undertook this work, he was already engaged in the translation of Virgil, “from whom,” says he, “I only borrowed two months.” This translation was published in 1697, and has passed through numerous editions in various forms. The pastorals are dedicated to lord Clifford; and Dryden tells his lordship, that “what he now offers him, is the wretched remainder of a sickly age, worn out with study, and oppressed with fortune, without other support than the constancy and patience of a Christian;” and he adds, “that he began this work in his great climacteric.” The Life of Virgil, which follows this dedication, the two prefaces to the Pastorals and Georgics, and all the arguments in prose to the whole translation, were given him by friends; the preface to the Georgics, in particular, by Addison. The translation of the Georgics is dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield; and that of the ^neis to the earl of Mulgrave. This latter dedication contains the author’s thoughts on epic poetry, particularly that of Virgil. It is generally allowed that his translation of Virgil is excellent. Pope, speaking of Dryden’s translation of some parts of Homer, says, “Had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him, than Virgil; his version of whom, notwithstanding some human errors, is the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language.” In the same year he published his celebrated ode of “Alexander’s Feast,” which is commonly said to have been finished in one night; but, according to Mr. Malone, occupied him for some weeks.

, an eminent French writer and critic, secretary, and one of the forty members of the French academy, censor-royal, &c. was born at Beauvais, in December, 1670. After some elementary education at home, he came to Paris in 1686, and pursuing his studies, took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1691. One of his uncles, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, being attacked by a dangerous illness, resigned his canonry to him in 1695, but on his recovery chose to revoke his resignation. The nephew appears to have felt this and other disappointments in his view of promotion so keenly, as to determine to change his profession. He accordingly left Beauvais in the last-mentioned year, returned to Paris, and soon was distinguished as a man of abilities. The same year he acquired a situation in the office for foreign affairs, and became patronized by M. de Torcy, by whose means he accompanied the French plenipotentiaries to Ryswick, in 1696, where peace was concluded. After his return to France, he was sent to Italy in 1699, although without an ostensible character, to negociate some affairs of importance in the Italian courts, which occupied him until 1702. Some time after, he went to England, as charge d'affaires, and while the war occasioned by the contest about the crown of Spain was at its height, and had involved all Europe, he was the only minister France had at the court of St. James’s, where he resided without rank or character. He then went to the Hague, and to Brussels, and at this latter place wrote the manifesto of the elector of Bavaria, which did him so much credit. In 1707 we find him at Neufchatel, and in 1710 at Gertruydenburgh, and he appears to have had a considerable hand in the treaties of peace concluded at Utrecht, Baden, and Rastadt. All these services were recompensed in 1705, by the priory of Veneroles, and in 1714 by a canonry of the church of Beauvais. Having been employed in other state affairs by the regent and by cardinal Dubois, he was rewarded in 1716 by a pension of 2000 livres, and in 1723 was promoted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Ressons, near Beauvais. As it was now his intention to execute the duties of these preferments, he received in 1724 the orders of subdeacon and deacon, and was about to have taken possession of his canonry, when he was seized with a disorder at Paris, which proved fatal March 23, 1742. In 1720 he was elected into the French academy, and in 1723 was appointed their secretary.

, a learned divine, and biblical critic, of the church of England, was a native of the island of Jersey, and probably a descendant of the preceding Dr. John Durel. That the Durells were a very respectable family in Jersey is evident from there being several persons of the name who received considerable promotions both in that island and in England during the reign of king George the Second. He was born in 1728, and after going through a proper course of grammatical education, was matriculated at the university of Oxford, and became a member of Pembroke college, where, on the 20th of June, 1753, he took the degree of master of arts. After this, he was chosen a fellow of Hertford college, and was admitted principal of the same, in 1757, in the room of Dr. William Sharp, who resigned that office, and was afterwards regius professor of Greek in the university, and rector of East-Hampstead in Berks. On the 23d of April, 1760, Mr. Durell took the degree of bachelor in divinity, and that of Doctor on the 14th of January, 1764. Previously to the taking his last degree, he published, in 1763, his first learned work, entitled, “The Hebrew text of the parallel prophecies of Jacob and Moses, relating to the Twelve Tribes; with a translation and notes: and the various lections of near forty Mss. To which are added, 1. The Samaritan Arabic version of those passages, and part of another Arabic version made from the Samaritan text, neither of which have been before printed. 2. A map of the Land of Promise. 3. An Appendix, containing four dissertations on points connected with the subject of these prophecies,” Oxford, 4to. In this work our author exhibited a valuable and decisive proof of his skill in Oriental literature, and of his capacity and judgment in elucidating the sacred Scriptures. In 1767, he was made a prebendary of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Potter, who had resigned. The only remaining preferment, which Dr. Durell appears to have been possessed of, was the vicarage of Tysehurst in Sussex. In 1772, he gave a farther evidence of his great proficiency in biblical learning, by publishing “Critical remarks on the books of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” Oxford, 4to, printed at the Clarendon press. In the preface to this performance, the author pleads for a new translation of the Bible. He intended to publish some remarks on the prophetic writings; but this design he was prevented from accomplishing, by his comparatively premature death, which happened when he was only forty-seven years of age. He died at his college, on the 19th of October, 1775, and was buried at St. Peter’s in the East, Oxford, where there is an inscription on his grave-stone, with his arms. By his last will, he bequeathed twenty pounds a-year, arising from money by him lent for the building of Oxford-market; one half of which sum is given to the principal of Hertford college; the other, to the two senior fellows. From all that we have heard concerning Dr. DurelPs character, we understand him to have been a gentleman of eminent piety and goodness.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

About the same time he married a lady of Coleshill, named Ensor; “whose grandmother,” says he, “was a Shakspeare, descended from a brother of every body’s Shakspeare.” His ecclesiastical provision was a long time but slender. His first patron, Mr. Harper, gave him in 1741, Calthorp in Leicestershire, of 80l. a year, on which he lived ten years; and in April 1757, exchanged it for Belchford, in Lincolnshire, of 75l. which was given him by lord-chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of a friend to virtue and the muses. His condition now began to mend. In the year 1752 sir John Heathcote gave him Coningsby, of 140l. a-year; and in 1756, when he was LL. B. without any solicitation of his own, obtained for him, from the chancellor, Kirkby-on-Bane, of 110l. “I was glad of this,” says Mr. Dyer, in 1756, “on account of its nearness to me, though I think myself a loser by the exchange, through the expence of the seal, dispensations , journies, &c. and the charge of an old house, half of which I am going to pull down” The house, which is a very good one, owes much of its improvement to Mr. Dyer. His study, a little room with white walls, ascended by two steps, had a handsome window to the church-yard, which he stopped up, and opened a less, that gave him a full view of the fine church and castle at Tateshall, about a mile off, and of the road leading to it. He also improved the garden. In May 1757 he was employed in rebuilding a Lirge barn, which a late wind had blown down, and gathering materials for re-building above half the parsonage-house at Kirkby. “These,” he says, “some years ago, I should have called trifles but the evil days are come, and the lightest thing, even the grasshopper, is a burden upon the shoulders of the old and fickly.” He had then just published “The Fleece,” his greatest poetical work; of which Dr. Johnson relates this ludicrous story: Dodsley the bookseller was one day mentioning it to a critical visitor, with more expectation of success than the other could easily admit. In the conversation the author’s age was asked: and being represented as advanced in life, “he will,” said the critic, “be buried in woollen.” He did not indeed long outlive that publication, nor long enjoy the increase of his pre; ments; for a consumptive disorder, with which he had long struggled, carried him off at length, July 24, 1758. Mr. Gough, who visited Coningsby Sept.5, 17S2, could find no memorial erected to him in the church. Mr--. Dyer, on her husband’s decease, retired to her friends in Caernarvonshire. In 17.56 they had four children living, three girls and a boy. Of these, Sarah died single. The son, a youth of the most amiable disposition, heir to his father’s truly classical taste, and to his uncle’s estate of 300l. or 400l. a year in Suffolk, devoted the principal part of his time to travelling; and died in London, as he was preparing to set out on a tour to Italy, in April 1782, at the age of thirty-two. This young gentleman’s fortune was divided between two surviving sisters; one of them married to alderman Hewitt, of Coventry; the other, Elizabeth, to the rev. John Gaunt, of Birmingham. Mr. Dyer had some brothers, all of whom were dead in 1756, except one, who was a clergyman, yeoman of his majesty’s almonry, lived at Marybone, and had then a numerous family.

His works consist of several volumes of sermons, printed at various times, and often reprinted in this country as well as in America. To one of these, consisting of eighteen Sermons, reprinted at Glasgow in 1785, is prefixed his life written by Dr. Hopkins. Besides these he wrote, 1. “A Treatise concerning religious Affections,” 1746, 8vo. 2. “An Account of the Life of the Rev. David Brainerd,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “An Inquiry into the Qualifications for full communion in the Visible Church,” 1749, intended as a vindication of his principles in the matter which occasioned his dismission from Northampton. 4. “A careful and strict inquiry into the modern prevailing notion of that Freedom of Will, which is supposed to be essential to moral agency,” 1754. 5. “The great Christian doctrine of Original Sin defended, containing a reply to the objections of Dr. John Taylor,” 1753. A very recent critic, while he censures with much asperity Mr. Edwards’s treatise on original sin, asserts at the same time that his treatise on free will deserves to be regarded as one of the most stupendous monuments of metaphysical argument ever erected by the human understanding. 6. “An History of Redemption.” 7. “Miscellaneous Observations on important Theological Subjects,” London, 1793. 8. w Remarks on important Theological Controversies," ibid. 1796. Some of these were posthumous, as were a few other tracts of lesser importance written by him.

, a critic and poetical writer, was born in 1691), in or near the city of London, and was a younger son of Edwards, esq. a gentleman in the profession of the law. His grandfather had been of the same profession. The principal part of his grammatical education he is said to have received at a private school, and never was a member of either of the universities. At a proper age he was entered of Lincoln’s Inn and, in due time, was called to the bar but, having a considerable hesitation in his speech, he was discouraged from engaging much in the practice of the law. Although he never appears to have fallen into that dissipation which is sometimes chargeable upon young gentlemen of the inns of court, it may be conjectured, from his subsequent publications, that he applied himself more assiduously to the cultivation of the belles lettres than to the severer studies belonging to his profession. Shakspeare, in particular, was the object of his warmest admiration and most sedulous attention; and to this circumstance Mr. Edwards is principally indebted for his literary reputation. His first appearance from the press was in a pamphlet published, in 1744, and entitled “A Letter to the author of a late Epistolary Dedication, addressed to Mr. Warburton.” This was the beginning of our author’s attack upon that famous writer; which was followed, in 1747, by “A Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shakspeare,” a performance so well received, that two impressions of it were printed in the same year. A third edition of it appeared in 1748, under the title of “The Canons of Criticism, and a Glossary, being a Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shaky speare. Collected from the notes in that celebrated work, and proper to be bound up with it. By the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn;” which title the book has ever since retained. The expression of “the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn,” refers to a previous controversy of Warburton’s, upon a different topic, with another member of that society. Mr. Warburton, in the preface to his edition of Shakspeare, declares that it had been once his design to give the reader a body of canons for literary criticism, drawn out in form, together with a glossary; but that he had laid aside his purpose, as these uses might be well supplied by what he had occasionally said upon the subject in the course of his remarks. This idea Mr. Edwards humourously took up, and from the notes and corrections of Warburton’s Shakspeare, has framed a set of canons ridiculously absurd, each of which is confirmed and illustrated by examples taken from the edition in question; and it cannot be denied that Mr. Edwards has perfectly succeeded in his attempt, and that through the whole of his work he has displayed his wit, his learning, and his intimate acquaintance with Shakspeare; but such an attack upon Warburton, though conducted with pleasantry rather than ill-nature, was too formidable to avoid exciting resentment. Accordingly, Warburton introduced Mr. Edwards into the next edition of Pope’s “Dunciad” in a note under the following lines in the fourth book of that work:

“111,” says our annotator, “would that scholiast discharge his duty, who should neglect to honour those whom Dulness has distinguished; or suffer them to lie forgotten, when their rare modesty would have left them nameless. Let us not, therefore, overlook the services which have been done her cause, by one Mr. Thomas Edwards, a gentleman, as he is pleased to call himself, of Lincoln’s Inn; but, in reality, a gentleman only of the Dunciad; or, to speak him better, in the plain language of our honest ancestors to such mushrooms, a gentleman of the last edition: who, nobly eluding the solicitude of his careful father, very early retained himself in the cause of Dulness against Shakspeare, and with the wit and learning of his ancestor Tom Thimble in the ‘ Rehearsal,’ and with the ?ir of good-nature and politeness of Caliban in the `Tempest,' hath now happily finished the Dunce’s progress, in personal abuse. For, a libeller is nothing but a Grubstreet critic run to seed.”

Besides his literary friends at home, sir Richard appears to have corresponded with, and to have been highly respected by many eminent scholars on the continent. He was a munificent patron of men of learning, and frequently contributed to the publication of their works, at a time when the risks of publication were more terrible than in our days. It was not unfrequent, therefore, to honour him by dedications. The Weuteins dedicated to him the best edition of Suicer’s “Thesaurus Ecclesiast.” to which he bad contributed the use of a manuscript of Suicer’s in his own possession, and Ab. Gronovius dedicated to him his edition of Ælian (Leyden, 1731). Horsley’s “Britannia Romana” was also dedicated to him. He was the steady friend and patron of Michael Maittaire, who, in his “Seoilia,” addresses many verses to him, from some of which we learn that sir Richard had travelled much abroad, that his pursuits were literary, and that he collected a curious and valuable library . The only work by which his merits as a scholar and critic can now be ascertained, was published at Rotterdam, in 1728, 8vo, under the title “Fortuita Sacra, quibus subjicitur Commentarius de Cymbalis.” The epithet fortuita is used as denoting that the explanation of the several passages in the New Testament, of which the volume partly consists, casually offered themselves. The whole indeed was written in the course of his private studies, and without any view to publication, until some friends, conceiving that they would form an acceptable present to the literary world, prevailed on him to allow a selection to be made, which was probably done by the anonymous editor of the volume; and they are written in Latin with a view to appear on the continent, where biblical criticism, although not perhaps at that lime more an object of curiosity than at home, required to be conveyed in a language common to the learned. Subjoined to these critical essays on various difficult texts, which the author illustrates from the Misnah and other books of Jewish traditions, is a curious dissertation on the cymbals of the ancients, which not being noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music, has probably escaped the researches of that able writer. In all these sir Richard Ellys shows a vast compass of ancient learning, and a coolness of judgment in criticism, which very considerably advanced his fame abroad. We know but of one answer to any of his positions, entitled “A Dissertation on 1 Cor. xv. 29; or an Inquiry into the Apostle’s meaning there, of being `baptized for the dead,' occasioned by the honourable and learned author of the Fortuita Sacra his interpretation thereof.” This Inquiry is conveyed in a letter to the author ef the Republic of Letters, vol. V. (1730).

, a learned commentator of the seventeenth century, was a native of Hamburgh, and acquired very considerable fame as a critic. He published, with notes, 1. “Arnobii disputationes adversus Gentes,” Hamburgh, 1610, fol. 2. “Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesise, ibid. 1614, 4to. 3. Sidonii Apollinaris Opera,” Hanover, 1617, 8vo. 4. “Cebetis tabula cum versione et uotis Jo. Caselii,” Leyden, 1618, 4to. 5. “Apuleii Platonic! Opera omnia,” Francfort, 1621, 8vo, and an edition in fol. of Minucius Felix. He died in 1621.

, son of the foregoing, is not so noted as his father, though he was one of the five authors employed by cardinal Richelieu in making his bad plays. He was received into the French academy in 1632, and died in 1652, at about the age of fifty-four. Moderately provided with the goods of fortune, but a man of strict honour, he rather chose to quit the capital with a woman of worth but of no fortune, whom he had married, than to beg at the table of a financier, or to be troublesome to his friends. Pelisson says of him, “that he had more genius than learning and knowledge.” Yet he had no small knowledge of the laws of the drama, and was a fastidious critic, both in regard to himself and to others. It is said that he caused a young man of Languedoc to die of grief, who came to Paris with a comedy which he fancied to be a chef-d'oeuvre, and in which the severe critic pointed out numerous defects. The same thing is related of Claude de Estoile which is told of Malherbe and of Moliere, that he read his works to his maid-servant. He wrote several pieces for the stage, not above mediocrity some odes that are rather below it and a few other pieces of poetry that have great merit. His odes are in the “Re­^ueil des Poetes Francois,” 1692, 5 vols. 12mo.

That his long seven years’ silence is not to be pardon'd." Which shews that the poem in which these lines are written was just before the publication of our author’s last comedy. Sir George was addicted to great extravagances, being too free of his purse in gaming, and of his constitution with women and wine; which embarrassed his fortune, impaired his health, and exposed him to many reflections. Gildon says, that for marrying a fortune he was knighted; but it is said in a poem of those times, which never was printed (ms collection of satires, in the Harleian collection), that, to make some reparation of his circumstances, he courted a rich old widow; whose ambition was such, that she would not marry him unless he could make her a lady; which he was forced by the purchase of knighthood to do. This was probably about 1683. We hear not of any issue he had by this lady; but he cohabited, whether before or after this said marriage is not known, for some time with Mrs. Barry, the actress, and had a daughter by her on whom he settled five or six thousand pounds but she died young. From the same intelligence we have also learnt, that sir George was, in his person, a fair, slender, genteel man; but spoiled his countenance with drinking, and other habits of intemperance; and, in his deportment, very affable and courteous, of a sprightly and generous temper; which, with his free, lively, and natural vein of writing, acquired him the general character of Gentle George and Easy Etherege; in respect to which qualities we may often find him compared with sir Charles Sedley. His courtly address, and other accomplishments, won him the favour of the duchesi of York, afterwards, when king James was crowned, his queen; by whose interest and recommendation he wa sent ambassador abroad. In a certain pasquil that was written upon him, it is intimated as if he was sent upon ome embassy to Turkey. Gildon says, that, being in particular esteem with king James’s consort, he was sent envoy to Hamburgh but it is in several books evident, that he was, in that reign, a minister at Ratisbon at least from 1686 to the time that his majesty left this kingdom, if not later and this appears also from his own letters which he wrote thence some to the earl of Middleton, inverse to one of which his lordship engaged Mr. Dryden to return a poetical answer, in which he invites sir George to write another play; and, to keep him in countenance for his having been so dilatory in his last, reminds him hovr long the comedy, or farce, of the “Rehearsal” had been hatching, by the duke of Buckingham, before it appeared: but we meet with nothing more of our author’s writing for the stage. There are extant some other letters of his in prose, which were written also from Ratisbon; two of which he sent to the duke of Buckingham when he was in his recess. As for his other compositions, such as have been printed, they consist, for the greatest part, of little airy sonnets, lampoons, and panegyrics, of no great poetical merit, although suited to the gay and careless taste of the times. All that we have met with, of his prose, is a short piece, entitled “An Account of the rejoycing at the diet of Ratisbonne, performed by sir George Etherege, knight, residing therefrom his majesty of Great Britain; upon occasion of the birth of the prince of Wales. In a letter from himself.” Printed in the Savoy, 1688. How far beyond this or the next year he lived, the writers on our poets, who have spoken of him, have been, as in many other particulars of his life, so in the time when he died, very deficient. In Gildon’s short and imperfect account of him, it is said, that after the revolution he went for France to his master, and died there, or very soon after his arrival thence in England. But there was a report, that sir George came to an untimely death by an unlucky accident at Ratisbon; for, after having treated some company with a liberal entertainment at his house there, in which having perhaps taken his glass too freely, and being, through his great complaisance, too forward in waiting on some of his guests at their departure, flushed as he was, he tumbled down the stairs and broke his neck. Sir George had a brother, who lived and died at Westminster; he had been a great courtier, yet a man of such strict honour, that he was esteemed a reputation to the family. He had been twice married, and by his first wife had a son; a little man, of a brave spirit, who inherited the honourable principles of his father. He was a colonel in king William’s wars; was near him in one of the most dangerous battles in Flanders, probably it was the battle of Landen in 1693, when his majesty was wounded, 'and the colonel both lost his right eye, and received a contusion on his side. He was offered, in queen Anne’s reign, twenty-two hundred pounds for his commission, but refused to live at home in? peace when his country was at war. This colonel Ktherege died at Ealing in Middlesex, about the third or fourth year of king George I. and was buried in Kensington church, near the altar; where there is a tombstone over his vault, in which were also buried his wife, son, and sister. That son was graciously received at court by queen Anne; and, soon after his father returned from the wars in Flanders under the duke of Marlborough, she gave him an ensign’s commission, intending farther to promote him', in reward of his father’s service but he died a youth and the sister married Mr. Hill of Feversham in Kent but we hear not of any male issue surviving. The editors of the Biographia Dramatica observe, that, as a writer, sir George Etherege was certainly born a poet, and appears to have been possessed of a genius, the vivacity of which had littlecultivation; for there are no proofs of his having been a scholar. Though the “Comical Revenge” succeeded very well upon the stage, and met with general approbation for a considerable time, it is now justly laid aside on account of its immorality. This is the case, likewise, with regard to sir George’s other plays. Of the “She would if she could,” the critic Dennis says, that though it was esteemed by men of sense for the trueness of some of its characters, and the purity, freeness, and easy grace of its dialogue, yet, on its first appearance, it was barbarously treated by the audience. If the auditors were offended with the licentiousness of the comedy, their barbarity did them honour; but it is probable that, at that period, they were influenced by some other consideration. Exclusively of its loose tendency, the play is pronounced to be undoubtedly a very good one; and it was esteemed as one of the first rank at the time in which it was written. However, ShadwelPs encomium upon it will be judged to be too extravagant.

, a learned critic of the twelfth century, was born at Constantinople. He was at first master of the rhetoricians (rhetorum magister), and afterwards deacon of the great church, under the patriarchate of Lucas Chrysobergus, who arrived at that dignity in 1155, and appears to have conferred many favours on Eustatius. Having been, elected bishop of Myra in Lycia, he had accepted the office, and was about to be consecrated, when the emperor Emanuel Comnenus sent a cong6 d'eLre to the synod, enjoining them to choose him archbishop of Thessalonica. In this he displayed great prudence, knowledge of business, and extensive learning, as appears by his works. In 1180 he was one of the prelates who remonstrated against the order of Emanuel Comnenus to erase from the Greek catechism, a censure of what is said of God by Mahomet in the Alcoran. Five years after, we find Eusebius displaying his spirit and regard for his flock in a remarkable manner. Andronicus Comnenus, cousin-german of the emperor Emanuel, had usurped the throne, fey causing Alexis, the son and successor of Emanuel, to be strangled in 1183. This act of barbarity procured Andronicus many enemies, and among the rest Alexis Comnenus, the nephew of Emanuel, to whom he had been cup-bearer, and who was afterwards banished to Scythia by him. Alexis went then to Sicily, to the court of William II. surnamed the Good, and excited him to declare war against the empire of Constantinople. The king of Sicily, who appears to have wanted little persuasion on this occasion, raised an army, passed the straights, and took the city of Duras. He then went by sea to Thessalonica, which he besieged both by sea and land. Eustatkius would not for a moment quit his flock amidst so many dangers, but shut himself up in the city, endured the hardships ofthe siege, with the greatest fortitude, and exhorted his people to bear with Christian patience the chastisements of the Almighty. The city was at last taken by the cowardice of the governor, and was pillaged, the churches themselves not being spared, and the inhabitants were treated with the utmost cruelty by the conquerors. Eustathius, not fearing their power, addressed himself with so much spirit and eloquence to the Sicilian commanders, as to obtain a considerable alleviation of the sufferings of the inhabitants, from which they were entirely delivered the following year. Nicetas attributes this in a great measure to the prayers of their archbishop. The time of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1194.

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

This warm censure might be safely trusted by our author, without any answer, in those days, when none pretended to decide without hearing both parties with attention. It is, however, but doing common justice to his memory, to set these points in a clear light, which may be done in a very narrow compass. In the first place, Mr. Evelyn lays down facts that are indisputable; for he mentions no improvement in his book without clear authority. On the contrary, Mr. Houghton’s is a supposition, and a supposition that is entirely groundless. He values the young ashplant at a shilling; he might have read in Mr. Evelyn, that an hundred saplings, of three years growth, are worth but eighteen pence. Instead of fourscore and four years, he ought to have set down a third, or at most half, of that time; and then, at his own rate of compound interest, the value of the plant would not have exceeded a single penny. His objections to the second instance are not less frivolous. Barren ground, in the common acceptation of the word, is ground worth nothing, and for that reason unlet and unemployed: our critic will have it worth three shillings an acre, and, having thus created a rent of nine shillings a year, he converts it next imo a rent-charge, and supposes a sixty years lease of this barren land to be worth two-and-thirty years purchase; and this money, put out at compound interest, is run up to twice as much as the wood is worth. We will not push things to extremity, but suppose with him the land worth nine shillings a year, and to be sold for twenty years purchase, which would produce nine pounds. That nine pounds placed out at compound interest, at the rate of six per cent would amount, in sixty years, to two hundred eighty-eight pounds; so that there is twelve pounds, and all the intermediate profits by lopping, to pay for the original plantation and cultivation of the trees. Upon the whole it is manifest, even from this author’s manner of arguing, that planting wood is not only more honest and virtuous, but at the same time a safer and speedier way of raising a great fortune than the most exorbitant usury.

The works of Secundus have gone through several editions, of which the most copious is that of Scriverius, published at Leyden, 1631. It consists of the “Basia,” and of epigrams, elegies, &c. &c. A French critic who maintains that the genius of Secundus never p'roduced anything that was not excellent in its kind, adds with too much truth, “Mais sa muse est un peu trop lascive.” His “Basia” were first translated into English by Mr. Stanley,- author of the “Lives of the Philosophers,” but he omitted the 8th, loth, llth, 12th, and 14th. In 1731, a translation of the whole was published by an anonymous writer, who adopted a poetical version of the first and second by Elijah l‘enton, and of the I’th and iNsth by Mr. Ward. This translation is accompanied with the original Latin, and embellished with the cuts of Secundus and Julia from the Scriverian edition, for Secundus appears to have been somewhat of an engraver, and the cut of his mistress Julia is said to have been executed by him. A superior translation appeared at London in 1775, with a life of the author, of which we have availed ourselves. Secundus excelled his brothers in the elegance and classical purity of his Latin poetry, as much as he fell short of them in respect for decency.

, a learned Italian orator and grammarian, was born Jan. 4, 1682, at Toreglia, and studied principally at Padua, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity in 1704, and taught for some time, and afterwards was professor of philosophy for three years. He was then appointed regent of the schools. As the Greek and Latin languages were now his particular department, he bestowed much pains in providing his scholars with suitable assistance, and with that view, reviewed and published new and improved editions of the Lexicons of Calepinus, Nizolius, and Schrevelius. Some years after he was promoted to be logic professor, and in that as well as the former situation, endeavoured to introduce a more correct and useful mode of teaching, and published a work on the subject for the use of his students. In 1739, when the business of teaching metaphysics was united to that of logic, Facciolati was desirous of resigning, that he might return to his original employment; but the magistrates of Padua would by no means allow that their university should be deprived of his name, and therefore, allowing him to retain his title and salary, only wished him to take in hand the history of the university of Padua, which Papadopoli had written, and continue it down to the present time. This appears, from a deficiency of proper records, a very arduous task, yet by dint of perseverance he accomplished it in a manner, which although not perfectly satisfactory, as far as regards the “Fasti Gymnastici,” yet was entirely so in the “Syntagmata.” He wrote also some works in theology and morals, and had the ambition to be thought a poet, but his biographer Fabroni thinks that in this he was not successful. His principal excellence was as a classical scholar and critic, especially in the Latin, and his high fame procured him an invitation from the king of Portugal to superintend a college for the young nobility at Lisbon, but he excused himself on account of his advanced age. Fabroni mentions a set of china sent to him by this sovereign, which he says was a very acceptable present, and corresponded to the elegant furniture of Facciolati’s house. He had a garden in which he admitted no plants or fruittrees but what were of the most choice and rare kind, and four or five apples from Facciolati’s garden was thought no mean present. In every thing he was liberal to his friends, and most benevolent to the poor. He died in advanced age of the iliac passion, Aug. 27, 1769.

As Mr. Falconer had little ambition to appear often in the character of an author, his works bear small proportion to the extent of his knowledge. The only publications from his pen were, “Devotions for the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with an Appendix containing a method of digesting the book of Psalms, so as to be applicable to the common occurrences of life. By a Layman,” 1786, which has often been reprinted; “Observations on Pliny’s Account of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus,” inserted in the Archaeologia, vol. XI. of which a very close examination and analysis may be seen in the British Critic, vol. VII.; and “Chronological Tables from the reign of Solomon to the death of Alexander the Great,” Clarendon press, 1796, 4to. This was found among his Mss. in a prepared state, and presented to the university of Oxford by the author’s brother. The prefatory discourse, which is replete with elaborate research and profound erudition, while it explains, in a very satisfactory way, the arrangement of the tables, and settles many dark and discordant points of ancient history, may also be considered as a dissertation on the fine arts during the aera which it comprises; and the chronological tables will be highly acceptable to those who adhere to archbishop Usher’s mode of computation. His very learned and elaborate edition of Strabo, after being many years in the Clarendon press, was finally published in 1807, 2 vols. folio, by his nephew the rev. Thomas Falconer, M. A. of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, the translator of Hanno’s Periplus, and the author of several works worthy of the fame of his father and uncle. Of the merits of this edition of Strabo, it would be unnecessary to enlarge in this place, as they have so recently been the subject of much critical controversy, which the work will, outlive with lasting reputation.

, was a celebrated Danish critic and philologer of Flensburg, the exact time of whose birth and death we have not been able to learn. His chief works, which are all of a curious and interesting nature, and published between the years 1717 and 1731, are: 1. “Supplementum Lingua Latinae,” consisting of observations on Cellarius’s edition of Faber; Flensburg, 1717. 2. “Animadversiones Epistolicae,” of a similar nature, published at the same place and time. 3. “Quaestiones Romanae,” containing an idea of the literary history of the Romans, with memorials of eminent writers and works; Flensburg, 1718. 4. “Cogitationes Philologicae,” Lips. 1719. 5. “Sermo Panegyricus de variarum gentium bibliothecis,” ibid. 1720. 6. “Vigilia prima noctium Ripensium,” containing observations on A. Gellius, Hafnicc, 1721. 7. “Amcenitates Philologicae,” Amst. 1729 32, 3 vols. And, 7. “A Danish translation of the fourteenth satire of Juvenal,” Hafn. 1731, in 4to, the rest are 8vo.

, D. D. a learned critic and distinguished scholar, was the descendant of a family long seated at Ratcliffe Culey. a hamlet within the parish of Shepey, in the county of Leicester. His grandfather (who died in 1727, aged sixty-three) is described on his tomb in St. Mary’s church at. Leicester as “John Farmer of Nuneaton, gent.” His father, who was largely engaged in Leicester in the business of a maltster, married in 1732-3, Hannah Knibb, by whom he had five sons and four daughters. He died in 1778, at the age of eighty, and his widow in 1808, at the advanced age of ninetyseven. The subject of this article was their second son, and was born in Leicester, Aug. 23, 1735. He received the early part of his education under the rev. Gerrard Andrewes (father of the present dean of Canterbury) in the free grammar-school of Leicester, a seminary in which many eminent persons were his contemporaries. About 1753 he left the school with an excellent character for temper and talents, and was entered a pensioner at Emamiei college, Cambridge, when Dr. Richardson, the biographer or the English prelates, was master, and Mr, Bickham and Mr. Hubbard were tutors. Here Mr. Farmer applied himself chiefly to classical learning and the belles lettres, with a predilection for the latter, in which, in truth, he was best qualified to shine. He took his degree of B. A. in 1757, ranked as a senior optime, and gained the silver cup given by Ernanuel college to the best graduate of that year, which honorary reward is still preserved with great care in his family. His only Cambridge' verses were a poem on laying the foundation-stone of the public library in 1755, and a sonnet on the late king’s death in 1760.

, a learned divine, was born Feb. 3, 1679, in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, Westminster, and was educated first at Cheneys in Buckinghamshire, then at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and lastly at the Charter-house under Dr. Walker, to whom he was a private pupil. At a proper age he was admitted of Edmund hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill, the celebrated critic, was at that time principal, and his tutor was Mr. Thomas Mills, afterwards bishop of Waterford in Ireland. In June 1702, he took his master’s degree, and in December following was ordained deacon, in the royal chapel at Whitehall, by Dr. Lloyd, bishop of Worcester. In June 1704 he was admitted to priest’s orders by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. In 1705-6, he first appeared as an author, in a piece entitled “Remarks on the Colebrook Letter/' a subject the nature of which we have not been able to discover. In 1708 he had the care of the English church at Amsterdam, but did not long continue in that situation, returning to England in 1709. Soon after his return he was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Rutland, at Belvoir castle, and sustained that relation to three successive dukes, for which noble house he always preserved the warmest gratitude and affection. In the same year (July 11, 1709) Mr. Felton was admitted to the degree of B. D. being then a member of Queen’s college. Having been employed as tutor to John lord Roos, afterwards third duke of Rutland, he wrote for that young nobleman’s use, his” Dissertation on reading the Classics, and forming a just style," 1711, 12mo. A fourth edition of this was published in 1730, but the best is that of 1757. It was the most popular, and best known of all Dr. Felton’s works, although in the present improved state of criticism, it may appear with less advantage.

The praises bestowed on Nicolas le Fevre, by Baillet, and almost all the critics of the time, are of the most exalted kind; an advantage which his very great merits would not perhaps have gained, had they not been enhanced by his modesty. He was admired and loved, but not feared. Lipsius pronounced him a perfect critic, almost the only one capable of correcting and polishing the works of others; and whose learning, judgment, and diligence, knew no other bounds than what his modesty prescribed. Of the same cast are the eulogies upon him, by Baronius, Scaevola Samarthanus, Sirmond, Pithceus, Lipsius, cardinal Perron, Isaac Casaubon, Sealiger, Scioppius, and others.

The character of this critic has been very variously represented. Bochart calls him a man excellently skilled in. the Latin and Greek learning, and of uncommon sagacity and penetration. Tollius tells us, that he was a person of great wit and pleasantry, and wonderfully polished by all the elegance of the. Greek and Roman literature. Guy Patin, in a letter dated at Paris Sept. 21, 1666, gives him the character of an excellent person, and one of the first rank of learned men of that age. Nicholas Heinsius represents him as a man of learning and genius, but somewhat conceited. Morhof says, that he “was very learned, a good philologer, well skilled in the Greek language, of a very fine and enterprizing genius, who from his own imagination made a great many alterations in authors, though destitute of manuscripts; which rashness, however, sometimes succeeded very well with him, who by his own sagacity saw, what others search for with great labour in manuscripts. But he is more than once severely animadverted upon by other writers on account of his presumption; for he frequently corrects at his pleasure corrupt passages, and makes prodigious alterations in writers. Many of his conjectures are contained in his epistles, of which there are two books, in which he explains the passages of the ancients contrary to the opinion of every body; though he is highly to be valued on account of the elegance and acuteness of his genius.” Morhof also applies to him, the line

, an English poet and dramatic writer in the reign of Charles II. whose productions, although not without some proportion of merit, would not have preserved his name so long as the satire of Dryden, entitled “Mac Flecnoe,” is said to have been originally a Jesuit, and to have had connections with some persons of high distinction in London, who were of the Roman catholic persuasion. What was the cause of Dryden’s aversion is not determined. Some have said that when the revolution was completed, Dryden, having some time before turned papist, became disqualified for holding his place of poet-laurcat. It was accordingly taken from him, and conferred on Flecknoe, a man to whom Dryden is said to have had already a confirmed aversion; and this produced the famous satire, called from him Mac Flecknoe, one of the most spirited and amusing of Dryden' s poems; and, in some degree, the model of the Dunciad. That this is a spirited poem is as certain, as that all the preceding account from Cihber and his copiers is ridiculous. Shadwell was the successor of Dryden, as laureat, and in this poem is ridiculed as the poetical son of Flecknoe. However con.­temptibly Dryden treated Flecknoe, the latter at one time wrote an epigram in his praise, which, with his religion, might have conciliated both Dryden and Pope. Perhaps Dryden, says a modern critic, was offended at his invectives against the obscenity of the stage, knowing how much he had contributed to it. Be this as it may, Flecknoe himself wrote some plays, but not more than one of them was acted. His comedy, called “Damoiselles a la mode,” was printed in 1667, and addressed to the duke and duchess of Newcastle; the author had designed it for the theatre, and was not a little chagrined at the players for refusing it; He said upon this occasion: “For the acting this comedy, those who have the government of the stage have their humours, and would.be in treated and I have mine, and won't intreat them and were all dramatic writers of my mind, tljeyshould wear their old plays thread-bare, ere they should have any new,till they better understood their own interest, and how todistinguish between good *nd bad.”

The only production we have of Giles Fletcher is entitled “Christ’s Victory and Triumph in Heaven and Earth over and after Death,” Cambridge, 1610, 4to, in four parts, and written in stanzas of eight lines. It was reprinted in 1632, again in 1640, and in 1783, along with Phineas Fletcher’s “Purple Island;” but many unwarrantable liberties have been taken in modernizing the language of this last edition. Mr. Headley, who has bestowed more attention than any modern critic on the works of the Fletchers, pronounces the “Christ’s Victory” to be a rich and picturesque poem, and on a much happier subject than the “Purple Island,” yet unenlivened by personification. He has also very ingeniously pointed out some resemblances which prove that Milton owed considerable obligations to the Fletchers.

, a French critic, was born of a good family at Rouen, in 1685. At fifteen, he entered into the society of the Jesuits; and, at thirty, quitted it for the sake of returning to the world. He was a pnest, and had a cure in Normandy; but left it, and resided for some time in the character of a man of wit and letters, with the cardinal d'Auvergne. Having obtained some reputation at Paris by certain critical productions, the abbe“Bignon, in 1724, committed to him the editorship of the” Journal des Scavans.“He acquitted himself well in this department, and was peaceably enjoying the applauses of the public, when in 1725 the enemies whom by critical strictures in his Journal he had created, formed an accusation against him of a most abominable crime, and procured him to be imprisoned. By the credit of powerful friends, he was set at liberty in fifteen days; the magistrate of the police took himself the trouble of justifying him in a letter to the abbe Bignon; and this letter having been read amidst his fellow-labourers in the Journal, he was unanimously re-established in his former credit. But with whatever reputation he might acquit himself in his Journal, his frequent quarrels interrupted his labours, which, however, he employed on some newperiodical works, from which he derived his greatest fame. In 1731, he began one under the title of” Nouveliiste du Parnasse, ou Reflexions sur les ouvrages nouveanx,“but proceeded only to two volumes; the work having been suppressed by authority, from the incessant complaints of authors who were there ridiculed. About three years after, in 1735, he obtained a new privilege for a periodical production, entitled” Observations sur les Ecrits Modernes;“whk:h, after being continued to thirty-three volumes, was suppressed also in 1743. Yet the year following, 1744, he published another weekly paper, called” Jugemens sur les ouvrages nouveaux,“and proceeded to eleven volumes; the two last being done by other hands. Fontaines could go no farther: for, in 1745, he was attacked with a disorder in the breast, which ended in a dropsy, and this in five weeks’ time carried him oHF.” He was,“says M. Freron,” born a sentimental person; a philosopher in conduct as well as in principle; exempt from ambitton and of a noble firm spirit, which would not submit to sue for preferments or titles. In common conversation he appeared only an ordinary man, but when subjects of literature or any thing out of the common way were agitated, he discovered great force of imagination and wit."

, a learned English physician, was born in 1675, at Croton in Northamptonshire, of which parish his father, William Freind, a man of great learning, piety, and integrity, was rector, and where he died in 1663. He was sent to Westminster school, with his elder brother Robert, and put under the care of the celebrated Dr. Busby. He was thence elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1690, over which Dr. Aldrich at that time presided; and under his auspices undertook, in conjunction with another young man, Mr. Foulkes, to publish an edition of Æschines, and Demosthenes, “de Corona,” which was well received, andhas since been reprinted. About the same time he was prevailed upon to revise the Delphin edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, reprinted in 8vo, at Oxford, in 1696, which Dr. Bentley has severely criticised. Mr. Freind was director of Mr. Boyle’s studies, and wrote the Examination of Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on jEsop, which may account for that great critic’s speaking more disrespectfully of his talents than justice required.

, a learned English divine and critic, was born at Southampton in 1557, and educated at the free-school in that town. He did not go directly thence to the university, but was taken into the family of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Robert Home; where spending some time in study, he was made at length his secretary, and afterwards continued in that office by his successor, Dr. Watson. But Watson dying also in about three years, Fuller returned home, with a resolution to follow his studies. Before he was gettled there, he was invited to be tutor to the sons of a knight in Hampshire, whom he accompanied to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1584. His pupils leaving him in a little time, he removed himself to Hart- hall, where he took both the degrees in arts, and then retired into the country. He afterwards took order*, and was presented to the rectory of Aldington, or Ailington, near Amesbury, in Wiltshire. He afterwards became a prebendary in the church of Salisbury*, and rector of Bisbop’s-Waltham, in Hampshire. He died in 1622. He was extremely learned in the sacred tongues, and, as Wood quaintly says, “was so happy in pitching upon useful difficulties, tending to the understanding of the Scripture, that he surpassed all the critics of his time.” His “Miscellanea Theologica,” in four books, were published first at Heidelberg, 1612, 8vo, and afterwards at Oxford, in 1616, and at London, in 1617, 4 to. These miscellanies coming into the hands of John Drusius, in Holland, he charged Fuller with plagiarism, and with taking his best notes from him without any acknowledgment. But Fuller, knowing himself guiltless, as having never seen Drusius’s works, published a vindication of himself at Leyden, in 1622, together with two more books of “Miscellanea Sacra,” Leyden and Strasburgh, 1650, 4to. All these miscellanies are printed in the 9th volume of the Critici Sacri,“and dispersed throughout Pool’s” Synopsis Griticorum.“There are some manuscript* of Fuller in the Bodleian library at Oxford, which shew his great skill in Hebrew and in philological learning; as” An Exposition of rabbi Mordecai Nathan’s Hebrew Roots, with notes upon it,“and” A Lexicon," which he intended to have published with the preceding.

, a native of Marpurg, and a celebrated critic in the Latin language, was born in 1693. He was educated at the university of Rintlen in Westphalia, and was a writer of several philological tracts in Latin. But the most celebrated part of his works consists of several treatises which he published successively on the history of the Latin language, beginning with its original formation, and pursuing it through the several ages, from youth to extreme old age. His treatises “De Origine Latinae Linguae,” and “De Pueritia Latins Linguae,” were published in 1720. He died in 1778.

, a very learned English divine aud critic, descended from a family of that name at Gatacre-hall, in Shropshire, was born Sept. 4j 1574, in the parsonage-house of St. Edmund the King, in Lombardstreet, London, where his father, an eminent Puritan divine (who died in 1593) was then minister. At sixteen years of age he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge; where, in due time, he took both the degrees in arts. He was greatly distinguished by his abilities, learning, and piety; insomuch that the foundation of Sidney college being laid about this time, he was, by archbishop Whitgift, and Dr. Goodman dean of Westminster, the trustees of that foundation, appointed a fellow of that society, even before the building was finished. In the mean while he went into Essex, as tutor to the eldest son of Mr. (afterwards sir) William Ayloff, of Berksted, who himself learned Hebrew of him at the same time. During his residence here, he usually expounded a portion of scripture to the family every morning; in this task, after rendering the text into English from the original language, he explained the sense of it, and concluded with some useful observations. In the space of two years he went through all the prophets in the Old Testament, and all the apostolical epistles in the New. Dr. Stern, then suffragan bishop of Colchester, being nearly related to the mistress of the family, happened in a visit to be present at one of these performances; and, being struck with admiration, instantly exhorted the expounder to enter into the priesthood; and Mr. Gataker was ordained by that suffragan.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born at Orleans June 17, 1663, and entered the society of Jesuits in 1680. Much of his life appears to have passed in controversy. He was a man of unquestionable learning, and an elegant Latin writer, but not so much admired as a critic. He entered the lists of controversy, with two men of great abilities, Mabillon and Coustant, in consequence of father Mabillon' s work on diplomas, in which he thought he discovered that Mabillon had advanced some things on the authority of forgeries. This produced Germon’s first work, “De veteribus regum Francorum Diplomatibus, et arte secernendi antiqua' diplomata vera a falsis,” Paris, 1703, 12mo, which was followed by two other treatises on the same subject. Mabillon answered in his “Supplement a la Diplomatique,” 1704, but without naming Germon; and the controversy employed other pens, but appears to have ended at last in favour of Mabillon. Germon afterwards engaged in the disputes on grace, &c. and is thought to have been the author of a “Traite Theologique sur les 101 propositions enoncees dans le bulle Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 4to, published by the cardinal de Bissy, as his own. One of his most curious publications appears to be “De Yeteribus Hsereticis Ecclesiasticorum codicum corruptoribus,” Paris, 1713, 8vo. In this he takes a view of the many forgeries, interpolations, &c. that have occurred, either in editions of the bible, or in the writings of the ancient divines. Germon died Oct. 2, 1718, at Orleans, whither he had gone to pay a visit.

, a profound scholar and acute critic, was born at a village near Newburg, in Germany, in 1691. He was also of the family of Conrad Gesner. He lost his father at a very early age; but, by the kindness of a father-in-law, he was enabled to follow the bent of his natural inclination for learning-, and studied for eight years under Nicolas Keelerus, at Anspach. In consequence of the recommendation of Buddeus, he was ap-. pointed to superintend the public school of Weinheim, in which character he remained eleven years. From Weinheim he was removed to a situation equally honourable, and more lucrative, at Anspach; whence, after some other changes of no great importance in his situation, he finally returned to Gottingen. Here he received the reward of his talents and industry in several advantageous appointments. He was made professor of humanity, public librarian, and inspector of public schools, in the district of Luneburg. He died at Gottingen, universally lamented and esteemed, in. the year 1761.

, a learned critic, was the son of an eminent lawyer, and born at Antwerp, Aug. 6, 1593. Many authors have called him simply John Caspar, and sometimes he did this himself, whence he was at one time better known by the name of Caspar than of Gevartius. His first application to letters was in the college of Jesuits at Antwerp, whence he removed to Louvain, and then to Douay. He went to Paris in 1617, and spent some years there in the conversation of the learned. Returning to the Low Countries in 1621, he took the degree of LL. D. in the university of Douay, and afterwards went to Antwerp,' where he was made town-clerk, a post he held to the end of his life. He married in 1625, and died in 1666. He had always a taste for classical learning, and devoted a great part of his time to literary pursuits. In 1621 he published at Leyden, in 8vo, “Lectionum Papinianarum Libri quinque in Statii Papinii Sylvas;” and, at Paris in 1619, 4to, “Electorum Libri tres, in quibus plurima veterum Scriptorum loco obscura et controv.ersa explicantur, illustrantur, et emendantur.” These, though published when he was young, have established his reputation as a critic. He derived also some credit from his poetical attempts, particularly a Latin poem, published at Paris, 1618, on the death of Thuanus. He kept a constant correspondence with the learned of his time, and some of his letters have been printed in the “Sylloge Epistolarum,” by Burman. Our Bentley mentions Caspar Gevartius as a man famous in his day; and tells us, that “he undertook an edition of the poet Manilius, but was prevented by death” from executing it.

In 1767 he joined with Mr. Deyverdun, a Swiss gentleman then in England, and a man of taste and critical knowledge, to whom he was much attached, in publishing a literary Journal, in imitation of Dr. Maty’s “Journal Britannique. 1 * They entitled it” Memoires Literaires de la Grand Bretagne.“Two volumes only of this work were published, and met with very little encouragement. Mr. Gibbon acknowledges having reviewed lord Lyttelton’s History in the first volume. The materials of a third volume were almost completed, when he recommended his coadjutor Deyverdun as travelling governor to sir Richard Worsley, an appointment which terminated the” Memoires Literaires.“Mr. Gibbon’s next performance was an attack on Dr. Warburton, which he/ condemns for its severity and for its cowardice, while he brings the testimony of some eminent scholars to prove that it was successful and decisive. Warburton’s hypothesis on the descent of yEneas to hell had long been applauded, and if not universally adopted, had not been answered during a space of thirty years. It was the opinion of this learned writer, that the descent to hell is not a false, but a mimic scene which represents the initiation of Æneas, in the character of a law-giver, to the Eleusinian mysteries. Mr. Gibbon, on the contrary, in his” Critical Observations on the Sixth Book of the Æneid,“1770, endeavoured to prove, that the ancient law-givers did not invent the mysteries, and that Æneas never was invested with the office of law-giver that there is not any argument, any circumstance, which can melt a fable into allegory, or remove the scene from the Lake Avernos to the temple of Ceres; that such a wild supposition is equally injurious to the poet and the man; that if Virgil was not initiated he could not, if he were, be would not, reveal the secrets of the initiation; and that the anathema of Horace (vetabo qui Cereris sacrum vulgarity &c.) at once attests his own ignorance and the iimocence of his friend. All this might have been argued in decent and respectful language, but Mr. Gibbon avows that his hostility was against the person as well as the hypothesis of” the dictator and tyrant of the world of literature," and with the acuteness of the critic, he therefore determined to join the acrimony of the polemic. In his more advanced years he affects to regret an unmanly attack upon one who was no longer able to defend himself, but he is unwilling to part with the reputation to which he thought his pamphlet entitled, or to conceal the praise which professor Heyne bestowed on it.

, a learned critic and civilian, was born at Buren in Guelderland in 1534. He studied at Louvain and at Paris, and was the first who erected the library of the German nation at Orleans. He took the degree of doctor of civil law there in 1567; and went thence to Italy in the retinue of the French ambassador. Afterwards he removed to Germany, where he taught the civil law with high repute, first at Strasburg, where he was likewise professor of philosophy; then in the university of Altdorf, and at last at Ingoldstadt. He forsook the protestant religion to embrace the Roman catholic. He was invited to the imperial court, and honoured with the office of counsellor to the emperor Rodolph. He died at Prague in 1609, if we believe some authors; but Thuanus, who is more to be depended on, places his death in 1604. He wrote notes and comments upon Aristotle’s “Politics and Ethics,” and on Homer and Lucretius; and published also several pieces relating to civil law.

, head master of St. Paul’s school, was born in Lincolnshire, Feb. 27, 1564, and admitted scholar of Corpus college, Oxford, in Sept. 1583. He took his master’s degree in 1590, when he left college, and is supposed to have taught school at Norwich, as he was in that city in 1597, and there wrote his “Treatise concerning the Trinity,” 8vo, to which Wood gives the date of 1601. In 1608 he became chief master of St. Paul’s sf hool, in which his method of education is said to have been eminently successful. He was not more esteemed as a man of learning, and an excellent Latin scholar, than as a divine and critic. He died at his house in St. Paul’s church-yard, Nov. 17, 1635, and was buried in the antichapel belonging to Mercers’ hall. His other works are, 1. “Logonomia Anglica,” 1721, 4to; and 2. “Sacred Philosophy of Holy Scripture; or a Commentary on the Creed,” fol. 1635.

, in Latin Gy raid us, an ingenious and learned Italian critic, was born at Ferrara in 1479, of an ancient and reputaWe-family. He learned the Latin tongue and polite literature under Baptist Guarini; and afterwards the Greek at Milan under Demetrius Chalcondyles. He retired into the neighbourhood of Albert Picus, prince of Carpi, and of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula; and, having by their means access to a large and well-furnished library, he applied himself intensely to study. He afterwards went to Modena, and thence to Rome, but being unfortunately in this city when it was plundered by the soldiers of Charles V. in 1527, he lost his all in the general ruin; and soon after his patrou cardinal Rangone, with whom he had lived some time. He was then obliged to shelter himself in the house of the prince of Mirandula, a relation of the great Picus, but had the misfortune to lose this protector in 1533, who was assassinated in a conspiracy headed by his nephew. Giraldi was at that time so afflicted with the gout, that he had great difficulty to save himself from the hands of the conspirators, and lost all which he had acquired since the sacking of Rome. He then returned to his own country, and lived at Ferrara, where he found a refuge from his misfortunes. The gout, which he is said to have heightened by intemperance, tormented him so for the six or seven last years of his life, that, as he speaks of himself, he might be said rather to breathe than to live. He was such a cripple in his hands and feet, that he was incapable of moving himself. He made, however, what use he could of intervals of ease, to read, and even write: and many of his books were composed in those intervals. He died at length of this malady in 1552 and was interred in the cathedral of Ferrara, where an epitaph, composed by himself, was inscribed upon his tomb.

, an eminent German divine and critic, was born May 20, 1593, at Sondershausen, in Thuringia, and after some education under a private tutor, was sent in 1612 to Jena, where he was admitted to the degree of D. D. and was made professor of divinity. He was also appointed superintendant of the churches and schools in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha, and exercised the duties of these offices with great reputation. He died at Gotha July 27, 1656. His principal work was published in 1623, 4to, entitled “Philologia Sacra,” which is pronounced by Mosheim and Buddeus to be extremely useful for the interpretation of Scripture, as it throws much light upon the language and phraseology of the inspired writers. There have been several editions, the last at Leipsic, in 1776, by professor Dathius, under the title “Philologia Sacra his temporibus accommodata.” He was author, likewise, of “Onomatologia Messiac Prophetica” “Christologia Mosaica et Davidica” “Exegesis Evangeliorum et Epistolarum,” and some other pieces.

About this time, however, he appears to have had recourse to his pen. His first attempt was a tragedy, which he probably never finished. In 1758 he obtained, by means of Dr. Milner, a dissenting minister, who kept a school at Peckham, which our author superintended during the doctor’s illness, the appointment to be physician to one of our factories in India. In order to procure the necessary expences for the voyage, he issued proposals for printing by subscription “The present state of Polite Literature in Europe,” with what success we are not told, nor why he gave up his appointment in India. In the same year, however, he wrote what he very properly calls a catch-penny “Life of Voltaire,” and engaged with Mr. Griffiths as a critic in the Monthly Review. The terms of this engagement were his board, lodging, and a handsome salary, all secured by a written agreement. Goldsmith declared he usually wrote for his employer every day from nine o'clock till two. But at the end of seven or eight months it was dissolved by mutual consent, and our poet took lodgings in Green Arbour court, in the Old Bailey, amidst the dwellings of indigence, where he completed his “Present State of Polite Literature,” printed for Dodsley, 1759, 12mo.

Having now acquired considerable fame as a critic, a novelist, and a descriptive poet, he was induced to court the dramatic Muse. His first attempt was the comedy of the “Good-natured Man,” which Garrick, after much delay, declined, and it was produced at jCovent-garden theatre, in 1768, and kept possession of the stage for nine nights, but did not obtain the applause which his friends thought it merited. Between this period and the appearance of his next celebrated poem, he compiled “The Roman History,” in 2 vols. 8vo, and afterwards an abridgement of it, and “The History of England,” in 4 vols. 8vo, both elegantly written, and hi My calculated to attract and interest young readers, although it must be owned, he is frequently superficial and inaccurate. His pen was also occasionally employed on introductions and prefaces to books compiled by other persons; as “Guthrie’s History of the World,” and Dr. Brooks’s “System of Natural History.” In this last preface, he so far excelled his author in the graces of a captivating style, that the booksellers engaged him to write a “History of the Earth and Animated Nature,” which he executed with much elegance, but with no very deep knowledge of the subject He also drew up a “Life of Dr. Parnell,” prefixed to an edition of his poems, which afforded Dr. Johnson an opportunity of paying an affectionate tribute to his memory, when he came to write the life of Parnell for the English Poets. He wrote also a “Life of Bolingbroke,” originally prefixed to the “Dissertation on Parties,” and afterwards to Bolingbroke’s works. In one of his compilations he was peculiarly unfortunate. Being desired by Griffin, the bookseller, to make a selection of elegant poems from our best English classics, for the use of boarding-schools, he carelessly marked for the printer one of the most indecent tales of Prior. His biographer adds “without reading it,” but this was not the case, as he introduces it with a criticism. These various publications have not been noticed in their regular order, but their dates are not connected with any particulars in our author’s history.

“He was,” adds his biographer, “generous in the extreme, and so strongly affected by compassion, that he has been known at midnight to abandon his rest in order to procure relief and an asylum for a poor dying object who was left destitute in the streets. Nor was there ever a mind whose general feelings were more benevolent and friendly. He is, however, supposed to have been often soured by jealousy or envy, and many little instances are mentioned of this tendency in his character; but whatever appeared of this kind was a mere momentary sensation, which he knew not how like other men to conceal. It was never the result of principle, or the suggestion of reflection; it never embittered his heart, nor influenced his conduct. Nothingcould be more amiable than the general features of his mind; those of his person were not perhaps so engaging. His stature was under the middle size, his body strongly built, and his limbs more sturdy than elegant; his complexion was pale, his forehead low, his face almost round, and pitted with the small-pox; but marked with strong lines of thinking. His first appearance was not captivating; but when he grew easy and cheerful in company, he relaxed into.such a display of good-humour, as soon removed every unfavourable impression. Yet it must be acknowledged that in company he did not appear to so much advantage as might have been expected from his genius and talents. He was too apt to speak without reflection, and without a sufficient knowledge of the subject; which made Johnson observe of him, * No man was more foolish when he had not a pen in his hand, or more wise when he had.' Indeed, with all his defects (to conclude nearly in the words of that great critic), as a writer he was of the most distinguished abilities. Whatever he composed he did it better than any other man could. And whether we consider him as a poet, as a comic writer, or as an historian (so far as regards his powers of composition) he was one of the first writers of his time, and will ever stand in the foremost class.”

, a German poet, rather, however, in theory than practice, was born at Konigsberg in 1700, and attained the office of professor of philosophy, logic, and metaphysics at Leipsic, where he died in 1766. His works, both original and republished, contributed in a considerable degree to diffuse a taste for elegant literature in Germany, as well as to refine the German language. Among these we find, 1. “An Introduction to Dramatic Poetry, or a Review of all the tragedies, comedies, and operas, which have appeared in Germany from 1450 to the middle of the eighteenth century,” Leipsic, 1757. 2. “The German Poets, published by John Joachim, a Suabian,” ibid. 1736. He also compiled various books of instruction in style and elocution adapted to the then state of the German schools; and might have deserved the praise of an acute critic, had he not unfortunately illustrated his principles by his own poetical effusions, in which there is only a mediocrity of taste and genius. He died in December 1766. His wife, Louisa Maria, had also very considerable literary talents, and had studied philosophy, mathematics, the belles lettres, and music, with success. She published a metrical translation of Pope’s “Rape of the Lock;” and since her death, in 1762, a collection of her letters has been published, which is held in high esteem. Frederick the Great of Prussia, who preferred Geliert to Gottsched, speaks with greater respect of this lady than of her husband, but seems to think that both discovered more pedantry than taste.

“There is another circumstance,” says the same critic, “which rather inclines me to believe that their friendship suffered some interruption in the latter part of their lives. In the new edition of the ‘ Confessio Amantis,’ which Gower published after the accession of Henry IV. the verses in praise of Chaucer (fol. 190, b. col. 1, ed. 1532) are omitted. See ms. Harl 3869. Though perhaps the death of Chaucer at that time had rendered the compliment contained in those verses less proper than it was at first, that alone does not seem to have been a sufficient reason for omitting them, especially as the original date of the work, in the 16th of Richard II., is preserved. Indeed the only other alterations which I have been able to discover, are towards the beginning and end, where every thing which had been said in praise of Richard in the first edition, is either left out or converted to the use of his successor.”

, a cele-. brated Latin critic, was born January 29, 1632, at Naumbourg, in Saxony; and, having laid a good foundation of classical learning in his own cpuntry, was sent to finish his education at Leipsic, under the professors Eivinus and Strauchius. This last was his relation by the mother’s side, and sat opponent in the professor’s chair, when our author performed his exercise for his degree on which occasion he maintained a thesis, “De Moribus Germanorum.” - As his father designed to breed him to the law, he applied himself a while to that study, but not without devoting much of his time to polite literature, to which he was early attached, and which he afterwards made the sole object of his application. With this view he removed to Deventer in Holland, attended the lectures of John Francis Gronovius, whose frequent conversations and advice entirely fixed him in his resolution. He was indeed so much pleased with this professor, that he spent two years in these studies under his direction^, and frequently used to ascribe all his knowledge to his instructions. Being desirous in the mean time of every opportunity of enlarging his acquaintance with the ablest men of his time, he went from Deventer, first to Leyden to hear Daniel Heinsius, and next to Amsterdam; where, attending the lectures of Alexander Morus and David Blondel, this last persuaded him to renounce the Lutheran religion, in which he had been bred, and to embrace Calvinism.

In 1758 he published a translation of the “Elegies of Tibullus,” begun during the hours he snatched from business or pleasure when in the army, and finished in London, where he had more leisure, and the aid and encouragement of his literary friends. This work involved him in the unpleasant contest with Smollett, to which we have just referred. Its merits were canvassed in the “Critical Review” with much severity. The notes are styled “a huge farrago of learned lumber, jumbled together to very little purpose, seemingly calculated to display the translator’s reading, rather than to illustrate the sense and beauty of the original.” The Life of Tibullus, which the translator prefixed, is said to contain “very little either to inform, interest, or amuse the reader.” With respect to the translation, “the author has not found it an easy task to preserve the elegance and harmony of the original.” Instances of harshness and inelegance are quoted, as well as of the use of words which are not English, or not used by good writers, as noiseless, redoubtable, feud, &c. The author is likewise accused of deviating not only from the meaning, but from the figures of the original. Of these objections some are groundless, and some are just, yet even the latter are by no means characteristic of the whole work, but exceptions which a critic of more candour would have had a right to state, after he had bestowed the praise due to its general merit. In this review, however, although unqualified censure was all the critic had in view, no personal attack is made on the author, nor are there any allusions to his situation in life. This appeared in the “Critical Review” for December 1758. In the subsequent number for January 1759, the reviewer takes an opportunity, as if answering a correspondent, to retract his objection against the word noiseless, because it is found in Shakspeare, but observes very fairly, that the authority of Shakspeare or Milton will not justify an author of the present times for introducing harsh or antiquated words. He acknowledges himself likewise to blame in having omitted to consult the errata subjoined (prefixed) to Dr. Grainger’s performance, where some things are corrected which the reviewer mentioned as inaccuracies in the body of the work. But this acknowledgment, so apparently candid, is immediately followed by a wretched attempt at wit, in these words: “Whereas one of the Owls belonging to the proprietor of the M(on)thly R(evie)w, which answers to the name of Grainger, hath suddenly broke from his mew, where he used to hoot in darkness and peace, and now screeches openly in the face of day, we shall take the first opportunity to chastise this troublesome owl, and drive him back to his original obscurity.” The allusion here is to Dr. Grainger’s “Letter to Tobias Smollett, M. D. occasioned by his criticism on a late Translation of Tibullus,” a performance some parts of which every friend to the author must wish had not been published. In this letter, however, Grainger, after quoting a passage from the plan or prospectus of the “Critical Review,” in which the authors promise to revive the true spirit of criticism, to act without prejudice, &c. &c. endeavours to prove, that they have forfeited their word, by notoriously departing from the spirit of just and candid criticism, and by introducing gross partialities and malevolent censures. And these assertions, which are certainly not without foundation, are intermixed with reflections on Dr. Smollett’s loose novels, and insinuations that his partialities arise from causes not very honourable to the character of an independent reviewer.

, a learned philologist, antiquary, and historian of Copenhagen, was born at Aalburg in Jutland, Oct. 28, 1685. His father, who was a clergyman, carefully superintended his education until he was fit to go to the university. He went accordingly in 1703 to Copenhagen, where he very soon distinguished himself as a classical scholar and critic. In 1705 he took his bachelor’s degree with great credit, and in 1707 published the first specimen of his learned researches, entitled “Archytce Tarentini fragmentum ntp vw pafapalucw, cum disquisitione chronologica de aetate Archytse.” This was followed by other dissertations, which raised his fame so highly that he was made professor of Greek at Copenhagen, and was also appointed counsellor of justice, archivist, historiographer, and librarian, to the king, whom he had taught when a youth. In 1745, he was made counsellor of state, and died March 19, 1748, leaving an elaborate work, “Corpus diplomatum ad res Danicas facientium.” This work, which he undertook by order of Christian VI. is still in ms. and probably consists of several folio volumes. Gramm laid the first foundation of the academy at Copenhagen, and contributed very frequently to the literary journals of his time. He was a man of very extensive learning, but particularly skilled in Greek and Latin, and in history, and of such ready memory that he was never consulted on books or matters of literature without giving immediate information. He corresponded with many of the literati of Germany, England, Italy, and France, but was most admired by those who were witnesses of his amiable private character, his love of literature, and his generous patronage of young students.

His character, as drawn by Dr. Johnson, seems now uncontested. He was, says that eminent critic, a man illustrious by birth, and therefore attracted notice; since he is styled by Pope “the polite,” he must be supposed elegant in his manners, and generally loved; he was in times of contest and turbulence steady to his party, and obtained that esteem which is always conferred upon firmness and consistency. As a poet, Dr. Johnson has appreciated his merit with equal justice. He was indeed but a feeble imitator of the feeblest parts of Waller, and is far more to be praised for his patronage of poets, and the judgment he shewed in the case of Pope, than for any pretensions to rank among them. His prose style, however, is excellent, ancl far beyond that of his early contemporaries. Dr, Warton notices, as proofs of this, his “Letter to a young man on his taking orders;” his “Observations on Burnet,” his “Defence of his relation sir Richard Greenville,” his translation of some parts of Demosthenes, and his Letter to his father on the Revolution, written in 1688. The same critic, who must have been acquainted with some who knew him intimately, adds that his conversation was most pleasing and polite; and his affability, and universal benevolence and gentleness, captivating.

Gray returned by himself to England in 1741, in which year his father died. With a small fortune, which her feiTsbarvd’s i:n prudence had impaired, Mrs. Gray and a maiden sister retired to the house of Mrs. Rogers, another sister, at Sloke, near Windsor; and Gray, thinking his fortune not sufficient to enable him to prosecute the study of the law, and yet unwilling to hurt the feelings of his mother, hy appearing entirely to forsake his profession, pretended to change the line of study, and went to Cambridge to take his degree in civil law, but had certainly no thoughts of that as a profession. He went accordingly to Cambridge, in the winter 1742, where he took his degree of bachelor of civil law, and employed himself in a perusal of' the Greek authors with such assiduity, that in the space of about six years there were hardly any writers of note in that language, whom he had not only read but digested; remarking, by the mode of common-place, their contents, their difficult and corrupt passages, and all this with the accuracy of a critic, added to the diligence of a student. In his first year also he translated some parts of Propertins, and selected for his Italian studies the poetry of Petrarch. He wrote a heroic epistle in Latin, in imitation of the manner of Ovid; and a Greek epigram which he communicated to West; to whom, also, in the summer, when he retired to his family at Stoke, he sent his “Ode to Spring,” which was written there, but which did not arrive in Hertfordshire till after the death of his beloved friend, who expired June 1, 1742, aged twenty -six. In the autumn of this same year, Gray composed the ode. on “A distant prospect of Eton College,” and the “Hymn to Adversity,” and began the “Elegy in a Country Church Yard.” An affectionate sonnet in English, and an apostrophe which opens the fourth book of his poern “De principiis cogitandi” (his last composition in Latin verse) bear strong marks of the sorrow left on his mind from the death of West; and of the real affection with which he honoured the memory of his worth and of his talents.

As a poet, it may be sufficient here to refer to our authorities, which are in the hands of every reader, with perhaps the exception of an excellent edition of his works, just published, by the rev. John Mitford, which we can recommend with perfect confidence. Dr. Johnson’s character of his poetry has excited a controversy, from which it may be truly said that Gray has emerged with additional lustre, yet if mere popularity were to determine the question, that critic bas in some instances spoken the sentiments of the majority, as well as his own. It were, however, to be wished for his own sake, that in his general colouring of Gray’s life and works, he had attended more to what he calls “the common-sense of readers, uncorrupted with literary prejudices.” Had this been the case, while some of his strictures might have been allowed, he would have been a powerful ally of those whose superior minds know how to feel and how to appreciate the merit of Gray, and who have assigned him one of the highest places among the English poets of the eighteenth century.

, St., or frequently called Geregius Florentius Gregorius, an eminent bishop and writer of the sixth century, descended from a noble family of AuTergne, was born about the year 544. He was educated by his uncle Gallus, bishop of Clermont, and became so eminent for learning and virtue, as to be appointed bishop of Tours in the year 573. He assisted at the council held at Paris in the year 577, respecting Pretextat, bishop of Rouen, and strongly opposed the violence of some of the members of that assembly, particularly Chilperic and Fredegonde. He went afterwards to visit the tomb of > the apostles at Rome, where he formed a friendship with St. Gregory the Great, and died Norember 27, 595. This bishop wrote a “History of France,” in ten books; eight books of “The Miracles, or Lives of the Saints;” and other works, in the library of the fathers. The best edition-is that by Dom Ruinart, 1699, fol. His history is very useful; for though the style is dry and coarse, and the author extremely simple and credulous, yet an ingenious critic may easily separate the truths contained in it from the falsehoods. This work has been translated into French by the abbeé de Marolles, 1668, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a very extraordinary woman, (whose maiden name is nowhere mentioned), was born in the county of Kilkenny in Ireland, and married to Mr. George Grierson, printer in Dublin. She died in 1733, at the age of twenty-seven; and was allowed to be an excellent scholar, not only in Greek and Roman literature, but in history, divinity, philosophy, and mathematics. She gave a proof of her knowledge in the Latin tongue by her dedication of the Dublin edition of Tacitus to lord Carteret; and by that of Terence to his son, to whom she likewise wrote a Greek epigram. Dr. Harwood esteems her Tacitus one of the best edited books ever published. Among the editions of her husband’s press, is a very fine one of Dupin’s Ecclesiastical History, 1724, 3 vols. folio, a rare book in this country. Mrs. Grierson composed some poems in English, several of which are inserted by Mrs. Barber amongst her own. When lord Carteret was lordlieutenant of Ireland, he obtained a patent for Mr. Grierson, her husband, to be the king’s printer; and, to distinguish and reward her uncommon merit, had her life inserted in it. Besides her parts and learning, she was also a woman of great virtue and piety. Mrs. Pilkington has recorded some particulars of her, and tells us, that, “when about eighteen years of age, she was brought to her father, to be instructed in midwifery; that she was mistress of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and French, and understood the mathematics as well as most men: and what,” says Mrs. Pilkington, “made these extraordinary talents yet more surprising was, that her parents were poor illiterate country people; so that her learning appeared like the gife poured out on the apostles, of speaking all the languages without the pains of study.” Mrs. Pilkington inquired of her, where she had gained this prodigious knowledge: to which Mrs. Grierson sail, that “she had received some little instruction from the minister of the parish, when she, could spare time from her needle-work, to which she was closely kept by her mother.” Mrs. Pilkington adds, that “she wrote elegantly both in verse and prose; that her turn was chiefly to philosophical or divine subjects; that her piety was not inferior to her learning; and that some of the most delightful hours she herself had ever passed were in the conversation of this female philosopher.” Her son, who was also his majesty’s printer at Dublin, and instructed by her, was a man of uncommon learning, great wit, and vivacity. He died in Germany, at the age of twenty-seven. Dr. Johnson highly respected his abilities, and often observed, that he possessed more extensive knowledge than any man of his years he had ever known. His industry was equal to his talents, he particularly excelled in every species of philological learning, and was perhaps the best critic of his time.

, an eminent civilian, historian, and critic, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He had a strong inclination to learning, which induced him to apply to books with indefatigable diligence from his infancy; and, having made great progress in his studies in his own country, he travelled into Germany, Italy, and France, where he searched all the treasures of literature that could be found in those countries, and was returning fcome by the way of the United Provinces, when he was stopt at Deventer in the province of Over-Issel, and there made professor of polite learning. After acquiring great reputation in this chair, he was promoted to that of Leyden in 1658, vacant by the death of Daniel Heinsius. He died at Leyden in 1672, much regretted. By his wife, whom he married at Deventer, he had two sons that survived him and were both eminent in the republic of letters: James, who is the subject of the ensuing article; and Theodore Laurent, who died young, having published “Emendationes Pandectarum, &c. Leyden, 1605,” 8vo, and “A Vindication of the Marble Base of the Colossus erected in honour of Tiberius Caesar, ibid. 1697,” folio.

He was revising Tacitus in order to a new edition, when he lost his youngest daughter, September 12, 1716, and he survived her not many weeks. The loss proved insupportable; he fell sick a few days after it, and died of grief, October 21, aged seventy-one. He left two sons, both bred to letters; the eldest being a doctor of physic, and the youngest, Abraham, professor of history at Utrecht. His valuable library, long retained in the possession of the family, and for which 30,000 florins had been offered by the late empress of Russia, was sold by auction at Leyden about 1785, and produced only 5000 florins. It is remarked of James Gronovius, that he fell short of his father, in respect of modesty and moderation, as far as he exceeded him in literature: in his disputes, he treated his antagonists with such a bitterness of style as procured him the name of the second Scioppius, the justness of which censure appears throughout his numerous works, although they must be allowed to form a stupendous monument of literary industry and critical acumen. The following list is probably correct: 1. “Macrobius, cum notis variorum,” Leyd. 1670, 8vo, London, 1694, 8vo. 2. “Polybius cum suis ae ineditis Casauboni, &c. notis,” Gr. & Lat.“Amst. 1670, 2 vols. 8vo. 3.” Tacitus/* ibid. 1672, 2 vols, 8vo, and Utrecht, 1721, 4to, enlarged by his son Abraham. Hanvood says it is an infinitely better and more useful edition than that of Brotier. 4. “Supplementa lacunarum in ^nea Tactico, Dione Cassio, et Arriano,” Leyden, 1675, 8vo. 5. “Dissertationes Epistolicae,” Amst. 1678, 8vo, consisting of critical remarks on various authors. Those he made on Livy involved him in a dispute with Fabretti, who having attacked our critic in his work “De Aquis et Aqureductibus veteris Romoe,” Gronovius answered him in, 6. “Responsio ad cavillationes R. Fabretti,” Leyden, 1685, 8vo. Fabretti, who is treated here with very little ceremony, took his revenge in a work, the title of which is no bad specimen of literary railing, “Jasithei ad Gronovium Apologema, in ej usque Titivilitia seu de Tito Livio somnia animadversiones,” Naples, 1686, 4to. 7. “Fragmentum Stephani Byzantini Grammatici de Dodone, &c.” Leyden, 1681, 4to. 8. “Henrici Valesii Notae, &c. in Harpocrationem,” Leyden, 16&2, 4to, reprinted in Blancard’s edition of Harpocration, in 1683. 9. “Senecae Tragediae,” Amst. 1682, 12mo. This is the edition which his father was preparing when he died. 10. “Exercitationes aca­<Jemicae de pernicie et casu Judoe,” Leyden, 1683, 4to, an endeavour to reconcile the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke of the death of Judas. This involved him in a quarrel with Joachim Feller, against whom Gronovius defended himself in a second edition of this tract published at Leyden in 1702, and opened there a controversy with Perizonius. This produced from Gronovius, 11. “Notitia et illustratio dissertationis nuperse de morte Juda?,” Leyden, 1703, 4to; to which Perizonius replied, but the combatants became so warm that the curators of the university of Leyden thought proper to silence them both. 12. “Castigationes ad paraphrasim Graeeam Enchiridii Epicteti ex codice Mediceo,” Delft, 1683, 8vo. This includes the notes published in Berkelius’s edition of 1670. 13. “Dissertatio de origine Romuli,” Leyden, 1684, 8vo, in which he treats the commonly received notion of the origin of Romulus and Remus, and their being nursed by a wolf, as fabulous. 14. “Gemmae et sculpturae antiquse, &c.” a Latin translation of Leonard Augustini’s Italian description of these antiquities, with a learned preface by our author. 15. “Pomponii Melae libri tres de situ orbis,” Leyden, 1685, 8vo, without his name, and containing an on Vossius’s observations on that author. Vossius having defended himself in an appendix to his “Observationes ad Melam,” printed at London in 1685, 4to, Gronovius replied in, 16. “Epistola de argutiolis Isaaci Vossii,” 1687, 8vo, with his usual severity, which he increased in his notice of Vossius in a new edition of P. Mela, in 1696. This edition, besides the extracts of the cosmography of Julius and Honorius, and that ascribed to Æthicus, which were inserted in the former edition, contains the anonymous geographer of Ravenna. 17. “Epistola ad Johannem Georgium Graevium V. Cl. de Pallacopa, ubi Descriptio ejus ab Arriano facta liberatur ab Isaaci Vossii frustrationibus,” Leyden, 1686, 8vo. 18. “Notae ad Lucianum,” printed in Graevius’s edition of Lucian in 2 vols. Amst. 1686, 8vo. 19. “Variae Lectiones &, Notae in Stephanum Byzantinum de Urbibus:” inserted in the edition of that author published by Abraham Berkelius at Leyden in 1683, folio. 20. “Cebetis Thebani Tabula Graece & Latine,” Amst. 1689, 8vo. 21. “Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, cum Notis & Emendationibus Johannis Frederici Gronovii,” Leyden, 1687, 8vo, 1706, 4to. 22. “M. T. Ciceronis Opera quae extant omnia,” Leyden, 1692, 4 vols. 4to, and 11 in 12mo. 23. “Ammiani Marcellini Rerum gestarum, qui de XXXI supersunt, Libri XVIII.” Leyden, 1693, in folio and 4to. 24. “Johannis Frederici Gronovii de Sestertiis seu subsecivarum Pecuniae veteris Graecae & Romance Libri IV. &c.” Leyden, 1691, 4to, with several additions. 25. “De Icuncula Smetiana qua Harpocratem indigitarunt,” Leyden, 1693, 4to. 26. “Memoria Cossoniana; id est, Danielis Cossonii Vita breviter clescripta, cui annexa nova Editio veteris Monument! Ancyrani,” Leyden, 1695, 4to. 27. “Abraham! Gorlaei Dactylotheca cum Explicationibus,” Leyden, 1695, 4to. 28. “Harpocrationis tie Vocibus Liber; accedit Diatribe Henrici Stephani ad locos Isocrateos,” Leyden, 1696, 4to. 29. “O ratio de primis Incrementis Urbis Lugduni,” Leyden, 1696, 4to. 30. “Thesaurus GriEcarum Antiquitatum,” Leyden, 1697, &c. 13 vols. folio. Gronovius cannot be sufficiently commended for having undertaken this work after the example of Graevius, who published a body of the Roman antiquities. Laurent Beger, having found some things to object to in the three first volumes of this work, published at Berlin in 1702, in folio, “Colloquii quorundam de tribus primis Thesauri Antiquitatum GriEcarum voluminibus, ad eorum Auctorem Relatio.” 31. “Geographia antiqua; hoc est, Scylacis Periplus Maris Mediterranei, &c. &c.” Leyden, 1697, 4to. 32. “Appendix ad Geographiam antiquani,” Leyden, 1609, 4to. 33. “Manethonis Apotelesmaticorum Libri sex, nunc primum ex Bibliotheca Medicea eruti,” Leyden, 1698, 4to. 34. “De duobus LapU dibus in agro Dnyvenvoordiensi repertis,” Leyden, 1696, 4to. 35. “Rycquius de Capitolio Romano, cum Notis Gronovii,” Leyden, 1696, 8vo. 36. “.Q. Cnrtius cum Gronovii & Variorum Notis,” Amsterdam, 1696, 8vo. 37. “Suetonius a Salmasio recensitus cum Emendationibus J. Gronovii,” Leyden, 1698, 12mo. 33. “Phredri Fabulae cum Joan. Fred. Gronovii & Jac. Gronovii Notis & Nicolai Dispontini collectaneis,” Leyden, 1703, 8vo, 39. “Arriani Nicomediensis Expeditionis Alexandri Libri septem, & Historia Indica,”“Leyden, 1704, folio. This edition is a very beautiful one; and Gronovius displays in it the same extent of learning, which he does in all his other writings, and the same rude censure of all men of learning, who are not of his opinion. 40.” Minutii Felicis Octavius: accedunt Csecilius Cyprianus de Idolorum Vanitate, & Julius Firmicus Materuus de Errore profanarum Religionum,“Leyden, 1709, 8vo. 41.” Infamia Emendationum in Menandri Reliquias nuper editarum. Trajecti ad Rhenum, auctore Phiieleuthero Lipsiensi. Accedit Responsio M. Lucilii Profuturi ad Epistolam Caii Veracii Philelienis, qua; extat parte IX Bibliothecae selectte Jo. Clerici,“Leyden, 1710, 12mo. In this he attacks Dr. Bentley, who had assumed the name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis; and Le Clerc, who had published an edition of the fragments of Menander and Philander, and to whom he ascribes the letter inserted in the” Bibliotheque choisie,“which he animadverts upon. 42.” Decreta Romana & Asiatica pro Judseis ad cultum divinum per Asios Minoris urbes secure obeundum, a Josepho coliecta in Libro XIV. Archseologiae, sed male interversa & expuncta, in ^ublicam lucem restituta. Accedunt Suidae aliquot loca a vitiis purgata,“Leyden, 1711, 8vo. The notes on Suidas are levelled against Ludolfus Knster, who had published an edition of Suidas at Cambridge in 1705 in 3 vols. folio, and who wrote in vindication of himgelf,” Diatriba L. K. in qua Editio Suidse Cantabrigiensis contra Cavillationes Jacobi Gronovii Aristarchi Leydensis defenditur,“inserted in the 24th tome of the Bibiiotheque choisie, p. 49, and printed separately in 12mo. There was likewise a new edition with additions published at Amsterdam in 1712, 8vo, under the title of” Diatriba Anti-Gronoviana.“43.” Ludibria malevola Clerici, vel Prose riptio pravse Mercis ac Mentis pravissimae, quam exponit in Minutio Felice Joannes Clericus torn. 24. Bibliothecse selectae,“Leyden, 1712, 8 vo. 44.” Recensio brevis Mutilationum, quas patitur Suidas in Editione nupera Cantabrigise anni 1705, ubi varia ejus Auctoris loca perperam intellecta illustrantur, emendantur, & supplentur,“Leyden, 1713, 8vo. 45.” Severi Sancti, id est, Endeleichii Rhetoris de Mortibus Bourn Carmen ab Elia Vineto & Petro Pithseo servatum, cum Notis Job. Weitzii & Wolfgangi Seberi,“Leyden, 1715, 8vo, with a preface, though without his name. 46.” Herodoti Halicarnassei Historiarum Libri IX. Greece & Latine, cum Interpretatione Laurentii Vallx ex Codice Mediceo^“Leyden, 1715, folio. This edition had not the general approbation of learned men, who discovered very gross errors in it. The reader may see upon this subject a piece of Kuster, entitled” Examen Criticum Editionis novissimae Herodoti Gronovianae," inserted in the 5th tome of M. le Clerc’s Bibliotheque ancienne & moderne, p. 383, and another of Stephen Bergler in the Acta Eruditorum of Leipsic for 1716, p. 201, 337, and 417. Gronovius in this edition has attacked in the most furious manner several of the greatest men in the republic of letters, particularly Laurentius Valla, ^milius Portus, Henry Stephens, Holstenius, Dr. Thomas Gale, Ezechiel Spanheim, Salmasius, Isaac Vossius, Tanaquii Faber, John le Clerc, Kuster, Bochart, Grsevius, &c. He had a very extensive correspondence with the men of learning in Europe, and the utmost that can be said for his intemperate treatment of so many learned contemporaries, is, as we have been told, that his thoughts of many of them were kinder than his words.

, a learned critic, was of Hoistein, in Germany, but we know nothing of his parents, nor in what year he was born. He laid the foundation of his studies at Rensburg, under Jonsius, and went afterwards to Jena, where he was in 1654. He continued some years in this city, manifesting a strong inclination for letters, and making diligent search after ancient inscriptions. He was at Francfort in July 1658, when the emperor Leopold was crowned; and went thence to Holland, where John Frederic Gronovius recommended him to Nicolas Heinsius, as a young man of uncommon parts and learning, who had already distinguished himself by some publications, and from whom greater things were to be expected. His parents in the mean time wanted to have him at home, and offered at any price to procure him a place at court, if he WQuld but abandon letters, which they considered as a frivolous and unprofitable employment. But he remained inexorable preferring a competency with books to any fortune without them and above all, was particularly averse from a court, where “he should,” he said, “be constantly obliged to keep the very worst of company.”

, a Prussian botanist, whose proper name was Wieland, was born at Koenigsberg, and after several extensive journeys into Palestine, Egypt, Africa, and Greece, was carried prisoner into Barbary; but being redeemed by the celebrated Fallopius, afterwards succeeded him in the botanical chair at Padua, and died in 1587 or 1589. Haller characterizes him as a learned but desultory writer, an acrimonious critic, even of the excellent Conrad Gesner, but especially of Matthiolus, whom he violently hated. He had little or no merit as a practical botanist, nor did he scarcely attempt to describe or define any plants. He published a learned essay on the “Papyrus,” in quarto, at Venice, in 1572, and various controversial epistles. His “Synonyma Piantarum,” one of the earliest works of its kind, appeared long after his death, in 1608, at Franc fort, in octavo.

, an eminent critic, was born of a good family at Angers, in 1575. He lost his father and mother when a child; and the small estate they left him was wasted by the imprudence of his guardians. He applied himself, however, intensely to books; and, with a view to improve himself by the conversation of learned men, he took a journey to Paris in 1599. The acquaintance he formed with the sons of Claudius du Puy proved very advantageous to him; for, the most learned persons in Paris frequently visited these brothers, and many of them met every day in the house of Thuanus, where Mess, du Puy received company. After the death of that president, they held those conferences in the same place; and Guyet constantly made one. He went to Rome in 1608, and applied himself to the Italian tongue with such success as to be able to write Italian verses. He was much esteemed by cardinal du Perron and several great personages. He returned to Paris by the way of Germany, and was taken into the house of the duke d'Epernon, to teach the abbot de Granselve, who was made cardinal de la V alette in 1621. His noble pupil, who conceived so great an esteem for him as always to entrust him with his most important affairs, took him to Rome, and procured him a good benefice; but Guyet, after his return to Paris, chose to live a private life rather than in the house of the cardinal, and resided in Burgundy college. Here he spent the remainder of his life, employed in his studies; and wrote a dissertation, in which he pretended to shew that the Latin tongue was derived from the Greek, and that all the primitive words of the latter consisted only of one syllable; but of this they found, after his death, only a vast compilation of Greek and Latin words, without any order or coherence, and without any preface to explain his project. But the reading of the ancient authors was his favourite employment, and the margins of his classics were full of notes, many of which have been published. Those upon Hesiod were imparted to Graevius, who inserted them in his edition of that author, 1667. The most complete collection found among his papers was his notes upon Terence; and therefore they were sent to Boeclerus, and afterwards printed. He took great liberties as a critic: for he rejected as supposititious all such verses as seemed to him not to savour of the author’s genius. Thus he struck out many verses of Virgil discarded the first ode in Horace and would not admit the secret history of Procopius. Notwithstanding the boldness of his criticisms, and his free manner of speaking in conversation, he was afraid of the public; and dreaded Salmasius in particular, who threatened to write a book against him if he published hjs thoughts about some passages in ancient authors. He was generally accounted a man of great learning, and is said to have been a sincere and honest man. He was cut for the stone in 1636; excepting which, his long life was hardly attended with any illness. He died of a catarrh, after three days illness, in the arms of James du Puy, and Menage his countryman, April 12, 1655, aged eighty. His life is written in Latin, with great judgment and politeness, by Mr. Portner, a senator of Ratisbon, who took the supposititious name of Antonius Periander Rhaetus; and is prefixed to his notes upon Terence, printed with those of Boeclerus, at Strasburg, in 1657, an edition in no great estimation.

Judge Hale, probably in consequence of his rule of favouring and relieving those that were lowest, and perhaps owing to the connections he had formed in early life, was now very charitable to the nonconformists, and screened them as much as possible from the severities of the law. He thought many of them had merited highly in the affair of the king’s restoration, and at least deserved that the terms of conformity should not have been made stricter than they were before the war. In 1671 he was promoted to the place of lord chief justice of England, and behaved in that high station with his usual strictness, regularity, and diligence; but about four years and a half after this advancement, he was attacked by an inflammation in the diaphragm, which in two days time broke his constitution to that degree that he never recovered; for his illness turned to an asthma, which terminated in a dropsy. Finding himself unable to discharge the duties of his function, he petitioned in January 1675-6, for a writ of ease; which being delayed, he surrendered his office in February. He died December 25th following, and was interred in the church-yard of Alderley, among his ancestors; for he did not approve of burying in churches, but used to say, “That churches were for the living, and church-yards for the dead.” He was twice married, having by his first wife ten children, all of whom he outlived except his eldest daughter and youngest son. The male line of the family became extinct in 1784, by the death of his great grandson, Matthew Haje, esq. barrister at law. To enter more minutely into the character of this great and good man would be to enlarge this article beyond all reasonable bounds. The testimonies to the excellence of his character are numerous. Whoever knew him spoke well of him. One enemy only, Roger North (in his Life of the Lord Keeper North) has endeavoured to lessen the respect due to sir Matthew Hale’s character; but in so doing, it has been justly remarked, has degraded his own. Sir Matthew was, for the brightness and solidity of his genius, the variety and elegance of his learning, and the politeness of his manners, the delight and envy of his contemporaries. His knowledge in divinity and humanity was a radicated habit: and there was scarce ever any appeal from his judgment as a casuist or a critic. Biirnet’s Life of Hale cannot be too often read.

, an eminent divine and critic, usually distinguished by the appellation of The Ever Memorable, was the fourth son of John Hales, of High Church, near Bath, in Somersetshire, by Bridget his wife, one of the Goldsburghs of Knahill, in Wiltshire. He was born April 19, 1584, at Bath, where his father then resided, but according to his register at Corpus college, Oxford, at Highchurch. His parents, who are stated to have been of “genteel quality,” placed him to school at Mells and Killmaston,'in Somersetshire, until fit for the university, in which he was entered of Corpus college April 16, 1597, but being then under age, was not sworn till April 17> 1599. He continued at this college until he toolc his bachelor’s degree in arts July 9, 1603, and had distinguished himself in the interval by equal diligence and proficiency in his studies. The reputation he thus acquired engaged the attention of sir Henry Savile, then warden of Mertoncollege, who being always desirous of increasing the number of its learned members, persuaded him to remove; and accordingly he was chosen probationer of Merton in September, and admitted fellow Oct. 13, 1606. He proceeded to his master’s degree in 1609. He had not been long in this station before the warden availed himself of his assistance in preparing his edition of St. Chrysostom’s works, and found him a very able coadjutor, as he was an excellent Greek scholar. His reputation indeed for skill in this language was such as to procure him the place of lecturer in Greek in the college.

, a learned German professor, was born February 16, 1633, at Breslaw. Some theses which he maintained did him so much honour, that he was invited to Gotha, where he was made professor of morality, politics, and history; and appointed afterwards professor of history, politics, and rhetoric, at Breslaw, 1661 librarian of the Elizabeth library, in the same city, 1670 - y patron of the college of Elizabeth, 1631 and in 1688, teacher and inspector of all the schools of the Augsburg confession in that country. He died at Breslaw, April 24, 1709. He wrote many works which established his reputation among his countrymen as an acute critic and profound scholar. His principal performance, and that for which he is most esteemed among scholars, is his book “De Romanarum rerum Scriptoribus,” 2 vols. 4to, 1669, 1675, to which was added another, “De By z an tin arum rerum Scriptoribus Grsecis,” 1677, 4to. His other publications, also on history and antiquities, are in considerable repute.

Harte’s poems, in general are entitled to considerable praise, although it may probably be thought that he was a better critic than a poet, and exhibited more taste than genius. His attachment to Pope led him to an imitation of that writer’s manner, particularly in the “Essay on Rear son,” and that on “Satire.” His “Essay on Reason” has been somewhere called a fine philosophical poem. It might with more propriety be called a fine Christian poem, as it has more of religion than philosophy, and might be aptly entitled An Essay on Revelation. The “Essay on Satire” has some elegant passages, but is desultory, and appears to have been written as a compliment to the “Dunciad” of Pope, whose opinions he followed as far as they respected the merits of the dunces whom Pope libelled.

In 1766, Dr. Hawkesworth was the editor of three additional volumes of Swift’s Letters, with notes and illustrations. In this publication he discovers an uncommon warmth against infidel publications, and speaks of Bolingbroke and his editor Mallet with the utmost detestation: that 4 in this he was sincere, will appear from the following proof. We have already mentioned, that in 1744 he succeeded Dr. Johnson as the writer or compiler of the parliamentary debates in the Gentleman’s Magazine; in this office, if it maybe so termed, he continued until 1760, when the plan of the Magazine was improved by a Review of New Publications. Mr. Owen Ruffhead was the first who filled this department, and continued to do so about two years, according to sir John Hawkins, when he was succeeded by Dr. Hawkesworth; but there must have been an intermediate reviewer, if sir John be correct in the time when Mr. Ruffhead ceased to write, as Dr. Hawkesworth’s first appearance as a critic 'is ascertained, upon undoubted authority, to have been April 1765. In the month of October of that year, there appeared in the Magazine an abstract of Voltaire’s “Philosophical Dictionary,” by a correspondent. Dr. Hawkesworth’s friends, to vyhom it appears his connection with the Magazine was no secret, were alarmed to see an elaborate account of so impious a work; and one of them wrote to him on the subject. An extract from his answer, now before us, and dated Nov. 8, 176:5, will perhaps fill up a chasm in his personal as well as literary history.

, a learned schoolmaster, the son of Robert Hayne, of Thrussington, in Leicestershire, was born probably in that parish, in 1581, and in 1599 was entered of Lincoln-college, Oxford, where, being under the care of an excellent tutor, he obtained great knowledge in philosophy, to which, and his other studies, he was the more at leisure to give diligent application, as he was, by a lameness almost from his birth, prevented from enjoying the recreations of youth. In 1604 he took his bachelor’s degree, and became one of the ushers of merchant taylors’ school, London: and after taking the degree of master, was usher at Christ’s hospital. He was a noted critic, an excellent linguist, and a solid divine, highly respected by men of learning, and particularly by Selden. He died July 27, 1645, and was buried in Christ-church, London, where a monument was erected over his grave, (destroyed in the fire of London) with an inscription to his memory, as an antiquary, a teacher, and a man of peace. He bequeathed his books to the library at Leicester (which is commemorated in an inscription in that place), except a few which he left to the library at Westminster. He gave also 400l. to be bestowed in buying lands or houses, in or near Leicester, of the yearly value of 24l. for ever, for the maintenance of a schoolmaster in Thrussington, or some town near thereto, to teach ten poor children, &c. Fifteen are now educated in this school. He founded also two scholarships in Lincoln-college, the scholars to come from the free-school at Leicester, or in defect of that, from the school at Melton, &c. Several other acts of charity are included in his will. His works are, I. “Grammatices Latinae Compendium, 1637, reprinted in 1649, 8vo, with two appendices. 2.” Linguarum cognatio, seu de linguis in genere,“&c. Lond. 1639, 8vo. 3.” Pax in terra; seu tractatus de pace ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1639, 8vo. 4.” The equal ways of God, in rectifying the unequal ways of man,“ibid. 1639, 8vo. 5.” General View of the Holy Scriptures or the times, places, and persons of the Holy Scripture,“&c. ibid. 1640, fol. 6.” Life and Death of Dr. Martin Lutlier," ibid. 1641, 4to.