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

, a very elegant poet and critic, was born at Instead in Norfolk in 1766. At an early age he was placed under the care of the rev. Dr. Samuel Parr, then master of the grammar-school at Norwich. Even at this period he exhibited a superior elegance of mind, taste, and genius. He had a certain pensiveness of manner, which conciliated esteem and sympathy; and which, though it might in part have been excited by the delicacy of his constitution, was promoted and increased by his studious pursuits. From Norwich he removed, in 1782, to Oxford, where he became a member of Trinity college, a circumstance for which the world was probably indebted for his celebrated publication on the old English poets. Thomas Warton was then resident, as senior fellow of the college, and Headley naturally became acquainted with his labours as a poetical historian, which confirmed the bias of his mind; and from this time the study of old English poetry superseded every other literary pursuit.

, a very singular adventurer, was the son of a clergyman, and a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, where he married, but left his country in consequence of an intrigue. Having had an opportunity of visiting the principal cities of Europe, he acquired a taste for elegant and refined pleasures, which by degrees qualified him for the management of public amusements. In 1708, when he was near fifty years old, he came to England on a negotiation from the Swiss at Zurich; but failing in his embassy, he entered as a private soldier in the guards for protection. By his sprightly engaging conversation, and insinuating address, he soon became a favourite with our young people of fashion, from whom he obtained the appellation of “the Swiss count,” by which name he is noticed in the “Tatler.” He had the address to procure a subscription, with which in 1709 he was enabled to furnish out the opera of “Thomyris,” which was written in English, and performed at the queen’s theatre in the Haymarket, with such success, that he g ined by this performance alone 500 guineas. The judicious remarks he made on several detects in the conduct of our operas in general, and the hints he threw out for improving those entertainments, soon established his character as a theatrical critic. Appeals were made to his judgment; and some very magnificent and elegant decorations, introduced upon the stage in consequence of his advice, gave such satisfaction to George II. who was fond of operas, that his majesty was pleased from that time to countenance him, and he soon obtained the chief management of the opera-house in the Haymarket. He then undertook to improve another species’of diversion, not less agreeable to the king, the masquerades, and over these he always presided at the king’s theatre. He was likewise appointed master of the revels. The nobility now caressed htm so much, and had such an opinion of his taste, that all splendid and elegant entertainments given by them upon particular occasions, and all private assemblies by subscription, were submitted to his direction, for which he was liberally rewarded.

, a celebrated scholar and critic, professor of politics and history at Leyden, and librarian of the university there, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, May 1SO, of an illustrious family, who had possessed the first places in the magistracy of that town. He was frequently removed in the younger part of his life. He began his studies at the Hague, and afterwards went with his parents into Zealand, where he was instructed in polite literature and philosophy. He soon learned the outlines of morality and politics, but did not relish logic, and had an unconquerable aversion to the niceties of grammar. He discovered early a strong propensity to poetry, and began to make verses before he knew any thing of prosody or the rules of art. He composed a regular elegy at ten years of age, upon the death of a play-fellow; and there are several epigrams and little poems of his, written when he was not above twelve, which shew a great deal of genius and facility. He is represented, however, as having been somewhat indolent, and not likely to make any progress in Greek Und Latin learning; on which account his father sent him, at fourteen years of age, to study the law in the university of Franeker. But from that time, as if he had been influenced by a spirit of contradK*:on, nothing would please him but classics; and he applies inmself there to Greek and Latin authors, as obstinately as he had rejected them in Zealand. He afterwards removed to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Joseph Scaliger; and was obliged to the encouragement and care of that great man for the perfection to which he afterwards arrived in literature, and which at the beginning of his life there was so little reason to expect. He published an edition of “Silius Italicus,” in 1600, professedly taken from an ancient ms. and added notes of his own, which he called “Crepundia Siliana,” to shew that they were written when he was extremely young. This edition was reprinted at Cambridge, 1646, 12mo. Heinsius was made Greek professor at eighteen, and afterwards succeeded Scaliger in the professorship of politics and history. When he was chosen librarian to the university, he pronounced a Latin oration, afterwards published, in which he described the duties of a librarian, and the good order and condition in which a library should be kept. Being a great admirer of the moral doctrine of the stoics, he wrote an elegant oration in praise of the stoic philosophy. He died Feb. 25, 1655, after having distinguished himself as a critic by his labours upon Silius Italicus, Theocritus, Hesiod, Seneca, Homer, Hesychius, Theophrastus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ovid, Livy, Terence, Horace, Prudentius, Maximus Tyrius, &c. He published two treatises “De Satira Horatiana,” which Balzac affirms to be masterpieces. He also wrote poems in various languages, which, have been often printed, and always admired. He was the author of several prose works, some of which were of the humourous and satirical cast; as “Laus Asini,” “Laus Pediculi,” &c.

, or Hemsterhusius, one of the most famous critics of his country, the son of Francis Hemsterhuis, a physician, was born at Groningen, Feb. 1, 1635. After obtaining the rudiments of literature from proper masters, and from his father, he became a member of his native university in his fourteenth year, 1698. He there studied for some years, and then removed to Leyden, for the sake of attending the lectures of the famous James Perizonius on ancient history. He was here so much noticed by the governors of the university, that it was expected he would succeed James Gronovius as professor of Greek. Havercamp, however, on the vacancy, was appointed, through the intrigues, as Ruhnkenius asserts, of some who feared they might be eclipsed by young Hemsterhuis; who in 1705, at the age of nineteen, was called to Amsterdam, and appointed professor of mathematics and philosophy. In the former of these branches he had been a favourite scholar of the famous John Bernouilli. In 1717, he removed to Franeker, on being chosen to succeed Lambert Bos as professor of Greek; to which place, in 1738, was added the professorship of history. In 1740 he removed to Leyden to accept the same two professorships in that university. It appears that he was married, because his father-in-law, J. Wild, is mentioned; he died April 7, 1766, having enjoyed to the last the use of all his faculties. He published, 1. “The three last books of Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon,” to complete the edition of which, seven books had been finished by Lederlin. This was published at Amsterdam in 1706. On the appearance of this work, he received a letter from Bentley, highly praising him for the service he had there rendered to his author. But this very letter was nearly the cause of driving him entirely from the study of Greek criticism: for in it Bentley transmitted his own conjectures on the true readings of the passages cited by Pollux from comic writers, with particular view to the restoration of the metre. Hemsterhuis had himself attempted the same, but, when he read the criticisms of Bentley, and saw their astonishing justness and acuteness, he was so hurt at the inferiority of his own, that he resolved, for the time, never again to open a Greek book. In a month or two this timidity went off, and he returned to these studies with redoubled vigour, determined to take Bentley for his model, and to' qualify himself, if possible, to rival one whom he so greatly admired. 2. “Select Colloquies of Lucian, and his Timon,” Amst. 1708. 3. “The Plutus of Aristophanes, with the Scholia,” various readings and notes, Harlingen, 1744, 8vo. 4. “Part of an edition of Lucian,” as far as the 521st page of the first volume; it appeared in 1743 in four volumes quarto, the remaining parts being edited by J. M. Gesner and Reitzius. The extreme slowness of his proceeding is much complained of by Gesner and others, and was the reason why he made no further progress. 5. % “Notes and emendations on Xenophon Ephesius,” inserted in the 36 volumes of the te Miscellanea Critica“of Amsterdam, with the signature T. S. H. S. 6.” Some observations upon Chrysostom’s Homily on the Epistle to Philemon,“subjoined to Raphelius’s Annotations on the New Testament. 7.” Inaugural Speeches on various occasions.“8. There are also letters from him to J. Matth. Gesner and others; and he gave considerable aid to J. St. Bernard, in publishing the ' Eclogae Thomae Magistri,” at Leyden, in 1757. His “Philosophical Works” were published at Paris in 1792, 2 vols. 8vo, but he was a better critic -than philosopher. Ruhnkenius holds up Hemsterhusius as a model of a perfect critic, and indeed, according to his account, the extent and variety of his knowledge, and the acuteness of his judgment, were very extraordinary.

, or Blind Harry, are the names given to a Scotch poet who lived in the fifteenth century, but of whom there are few memorials that can be relied on. It is conjectured that he wrote his celebrated “Actis & Deidis of Shyr Willam Wallace,” about 1446, and that he was then an old man. No surname is known; which belonged to Henry, nor is any thing known of his parentage or education. He discovers some knowledge in astronomy, in classical history, in the Latin and French languages, and in divinity; and some think he belonged to one or other of the religious orders, but this in a man blind from his infancy seems very improbable. He was a kind of travelling bard, visited the middle and south partsof Scotland, and probably the court of Scotland, and the great families. Wallace, his hero, was put to death in 1305, and Henry is supposed to have been born half a century later, but not too late for acquiring many particulars proper for his narrative, and it appears that he consulted with the descendants of some of Wallace’s contecaporaries. Besides this, he informs us that he followed very strictly a hook of great authority, a complete history of Wallace, written in Latin, partly hy John Blair and partly by Thomas Gray, both whom he mentions particularly, but no such work exists, nor can we tell whether he borrowed his many anachronisms and mistakes of persons and places from this work, or whether they were owing to defects in his own memory. Henry was blind from his birth; and that he should have acquired the knowjedge imputed to him, is much more wonderful than that he should be misled by traditionary reports. As he was blind, he fails in the descriptive parts of his poems, but for the same reason his invention is perpetually at work, and for matters of fact, he gives us all the wonders of romance. Many of his events never happened, and those which did are misplaced in point of time, or greatly exaggerated. His admirers are ready to allow that it is now impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is false in many of Henry’s relations but this can only be the case where the relation is all his own where we can appeal to other authorities, we frequently find him more erroneous than can easily be accounted for. A comparison has been formed between Henry’s “Wallace,” and Harbour’s “Bruce,” which terminates decidedly in Barbour’s favour. The “Bruce,” says an elegant critic, “is evidently the work of a politician as well as poet. The characters of the king, of his brother, of Douglas, and of the earl of Moray, are discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment; so that every event is prepared and rendered probable by the means to which it is attributed; whereas the life of Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down whole squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own muscular strength. Both poems are filled with descriptions of battles; but in those of Barbour our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of king Robert, to the brilliant rashness of Edward Bruce, or to the enterprizing stratagems of Douglas; while in Henry we find little more than a disgusting picture of revenge, hatred, and blood.” As a poet, however, he has considerable merit, and the numerous editions through which his “Wallace” has passed, affords a sufficient proof of his popularity during all that period, when his language would be understood and the nature of his narrative be acceptable. The only manuscript known of this poem, and from which all th printed copies have been taken, is now in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, and bears date 1488. The first printed edition was that of Edinburgh, 1570; but the best and more correct is that of the Morisons of Perth, 1790, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a German philosopher of the new school, was born in 1741, in a small town of Prussia, and was originally intended for the profession of a surgeon, but afterwards studied divinity, and was invited to Buckeburg, to officiate as minister, and to be a member of the consistory of the ecclesiastical council, In 1774 he was promoted by the duke of Saxe Weimar, to be first preacher to the court, and ecclesiastical counsellor, to which was afterwards added the dignity of vice-president cjf the consistory of Weimar, which he held until his death, Pec. 18, 1803. Some of his ficst works gained him great^ praise, both as a critic antj philosopher; such as his, 1. “Three fragments on the new German Literature,” Riga, 1776. 2. “On the Writings of Thomas Abbt,” Berlin, 1768; and “On the origin of Language,” ibid. 1772. But he afterwards fell into mysticism, and that obscure mode of reasoning which has too frequently been dignified, with the name of philosophy. The first specimen he gave of this was in his “Oldest Notices of the Origin of Mankind,” Riga, 1774; after which his system, if it may be so called, was more fully developed in his “Outlines of a philosophy of the history of Man,” of which an English translation was published in 1800, 4to, but without attracting much public notice. It was not indeed to be supposed that such extravagant opinions, conveyed in an obscure jargon, made up of new and fanciful terms, and frequently at variance with revealed religion, could be very acceptable to an English public.

Julius Scaliger has spoken with great contempt of Hesychius, and calls him a frivolous author, who has nothing that is good in him: “but, 7 ' says Baillet,” I believe this critic is very singular in his opinion. His son Joseph on the contrary declares that Hesychius is a very good author, though we have nothing left of him but an epitome, and though his citations are lost beyond recovery. Meric Casaubon also esteems him a most excellent grammarian; and Menage calls him the most learned of all the makers of dictionaries.",

, was a nephew of the former, under whom he made his principal studies at Gotha. He was born in 1719, at Usingen in Wetteravia, near Eisenach; and, when prepared by his uncle for academical lectures, completed his education at Jena. There, after some time, he began to teach philology, and continued his lectures for six years; -but in 1750 removed to Wolfenbuttel, where he was at first second master of the principal school but in 1759 became head-master. These situations he filled with the greatest credit being a good grammarian, a sound critic, and an admirable interpreter of Greek and Latin authors. He died in 1778, having made himself famous by several very learned publications; the chief of which are, 1. “A specimen of observations on the Ajax and Electra of Sophocles,” 1746, at Jena. 2. “An edition of Plutarch on Education, with the version of Xylander corrected, and his own annotations,” Leipsic, 1749. This tract, however, Wyttenbach pronounces to be one of those that are falsely ascribed to Plutarch. 3. “Flavii Mallii Theodori, de metris liber;.” from old manuscripts. This was printed in 4to, at Wolfenbuttel, in 1759. J. F. Heusinger was twice married, and left a son, who was also a man of learning.

, an ingenious and learned German, was born at Hamburg in 1596; and after a liberal education in his own country, went to France, and at Paris distinguished himself by uncommon parts and learning. He was educated a protestant, but afterwards by the persuasions of Sirmond the Jesuit, embraced the Roman catholic religion, and going from France to Rome, attached himself to cardinal Francis Barberini; who took him under his protection, and recommended him to favour. He was honoured by three popes, Urban VIII. Innocent X. and Alexander VII. The first gave him a canonry of St. Peter’s; the second made him librarian of the Vatican; and the third sent him, in 1665, to Christina of Sweden, whose formal profession of the Catholic faith he received at Inspruck. He spent his life in study, and died at Rome in 1661, Cardinal Barberini, whom he made his heir, caused a marble monument to be erected over his grave, with a Latin inscription much to his honour. He was very learned both in sacred and profane antiquity, was an acute critic, and wrote with the utmost purity and elegance. His works consisted chiefly of notes and dissertations, which have been highly esteemed for judgment and precision. Some of these were published by himself; but the greater part were communicated after his death, and inserted by his friends in their editions of authors, or other works that would admit them. His notes and emendations upon Eusebius’s book against Hierocles, upon Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras,” upon Apollonius’s “Argonautics,” upon the fragments of Demophilus, Democrates, Secundus, apd Sallustius the philosopher, upon Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus, &c. are to be found in the best editions of those authors. He wrote a “Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Porphyry,” which is printed with his notes on Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras;” and other dissertations/ of his are inserted in Grsevius’s “Collection of Roman Antiquities,” and elsewhere.

, usually called Lord Kames, an eminent Scotch lawyer, philosopher, and critic, the son of George Home of Kames, in the county of Berwick, was born at Kames in 1696. He was descended from an ancient and honourable family; being on his father’s side, the great grandson of sir John Home of Renton, whose ancestor was a cadet of the family of the earls of Home, who held the office of lord justice-clerk in the reign of king Charles II. His mother was a daughter of Mr. Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, and grand-daughter of Mr. Robert Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow, of whom an account is given in our third volume. His father having lived beyond his income, and embarrassed his affairs, Henry, on entering the world, had nothing to trust to but his own abilities and exertions, a circumstance which although apparently unfavourable, was always most justly regarded by him as the primary cause of his success in life. The only education he had was from private instructions at home from a tutor of the name of Wingate, of whom he never spoke in commendation.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

Of an author so well known, and whose merits have been so often and so minutely canvassed by classical critics, it would be unnecessary to say much in this place. Yet we know not how to refrain from adding the sentiments of an eminent living scholar, which cannot easily be rivalled for acuteness and elegance. The writings of Horace, says this learned critic, are familiar to us from our earliest boyhood, They carry with them attractions which are felt in every period of life, and almost every rank of society, They charm alike by the harmony of the numbers, and the pttrity of the fiction. They exhilarate the gay, and interest the serious, according to the different kinds of subjects upon which the poet is employed. Professing neither the precision of analysis, nor the copiousness of system, they have advantages, which, among the ordinary class of writers, analysis and system rarely attain. They exhibit human imperfections as they really are, and human excellence as it practically ought to be. They develope every principle of the virtuous in morals, and describe every modification of the decorous in manners. They please without the glare of ornament, and they instruct without the formality of precept. They are the produce of a mind enlightened by study, invigorated by observation; comprehensive, but not visionary; delicate, but not fastidious; too sagacious to be warped by prejudice, and too generous to be cramped by suspicion. They are distinguished by language adapted to the sentiment, and by effort proportioned to the occasion. They contain elegance without affectation, grandeur without bombast, satire without buffoonery, and philosophy without jargon. Hence it is that the writings of Horace are more extensively read, and more clearly understood, than those of almost any other classical author. The explanation of obscure passages, and the discussion of conjectural readings, form a part of the education which is given in our public schools. The merits of commentators, as well as of the poet himself, are the subjects of our conversation; and Horace, like our own countryman Shakspeare, has conferred celebrity upon many a scholar, who has been able to adjust his text, or to unfold his allusions. The works of some Roman and more Greek writers are involved in such obscurity, that no literary adventurer should presume to publish a variorum edition of them, unless he has explored the deepest recesses of criticism. But in respect to Horace, every man of letters knows where information is to be had, and every man of judgment will feel little difficulty in applying it to useful and even ornamental purposes.

Since Iris death have appeared, “Sermons,” 1810 and 1812, 3 vols. 8vo; “Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley, upon the historical question of the belief of the first ages in our Lord’s Divinity, originally published in the years 17S3, 1784, and 1786: afterwards revised and augmented, with a large addition of notes and supplemental disquisitions; by the author. The third edition. To which is added, an Appendix by the rev. Heneage Horsley,” 1812, 8vo “The Speeches in Parliament of Samuel Horsley, &c.” 1813, 8vo and lastly, “The Charges delivered at his several visitations of the dioceses of St. David’s, Rochester, and St. Asaph,” 1813, 8vo. In this enumeration of his printed works, a few temporary tracts of lesser importance may probably have escaped us, as being published without his name; but a complete edition of his works, for which there is likely to be a demand, will supply this deficiency. His papers in the Philosophical Transactions would form a very necessary part of such a collection. It may also be noticed here, that he occasionally wrote some very elaborate criticisms in the “British Critic,” the plan and principles of which Review he cordially approved.

, a learned English critic, was born at Widehope, near Cockermouth, in Cumberland, 1662; and, after having been educated in grammar and classical learning by Jerome Hechstetter, who lived in that neighbourhood, was entered in 1676 of Queen’s-college, Oxford. Soon after he had taken the degree of M. A. in 1684, he removed to University-college, of which he was unanimously chosen fellow in March 1686, and became a most considerable and esteemed tutor. In April 1701, on the resignation of Dr. Thomas Hyde, he was elected principal keeper of the Bodleian library; and in June following, accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. With this librarian’s place, which he held till his death, he kept his fellowship till June 1711, when, according to the statutes of the college, he would have been obliged to resign it; but he had just before disqualified himself for holding it any longer, by marrying Margaret, daughter of sir Robert Harrison, knight, an alderman of Oxford, and a mercer. In 1712, he was appointed principal of St. Maryby the chancellor of the university, through the interest of Dr. Radcliffe; and it is said, that to Hudson’s interest with^this physician, the university of Oxford is obliged for the very ample benefactions she afterwards received from him. Hudson’s studious and sedentary way of life, and extreme abstemiousness, brought him at length into a bad habit of body, which turning to a dropsy, kept him about a year in a very languishing condition. He died Nov. 27, 1719, leaving a widow, and one daughter.

, a Spanish poet and critic, and a member of the Spanish academy, was born at Zaira in Estremadura, about the year 1730. Among his countrymen he acquired considerable fame by the exercise of his poetical and critical talents, and was at least successful in one of his dramas, “La Raquel,” a tragedy, which, to many stronger recommendations, adds that of being exempt from the anachronisms and irregularities so often objected to the productions of the Spanish stage. He published “A Military library;” and “Poems” in 2 vols. printed at Madrid in 1778: but his principal work is his “Teatro Hespanol,” Madrid, 1785, 17 vols. 4to, a collection of what he reckoned the best Spanish plays, with prefaces, in which he endeavours to vindicate the honour of Spanish literature from the strictures of Voltaire, Linguet, Signorelli, and others of its adversaries; but on the whole, in the opinion of lord Holland, who appears well acquainted with this work, so far from retrieving the lost honours of the Spanish theatre, he has only exposed it to the insults and ridicule of its antagonists. La Huerta died about the close of the last century.

Mr. Kurd’s first literary performance, as far as can be ascertained, was “Remarks on a late book entitled ‘An Enquiry into the rejection of the Christian miracles by the Heathens, by William Weston, B. D.’” 1746. On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, he contributed some verses to the university collection of 1749. In the same year he took the degree of B. D. and published his “Commentary on Horace’s Ars Poetica,” in the preface to which he took occasion to compliment Mr. Warburton in a manner which procured him the acquaintance of that author, who soon after returned the eulogium, in his edition of Pope’s works, in which he speaks of Mr. Kurd’s Commentary in terms of the highest approbation. Hence arose an intimacy which remained unbroken during the whole of their lives, and is supposed to have had a considerable effect on the opinions of Mr. Hurd, who was long considered as the first scholar in what has been called the Warburtonian school. His Commentary was reprinted in 1757, with the addition of two Dissertations, one on the Province of the Drama, the other on Poetical Imitation, and a letter to Mr. Mason, on the “Marks of Imitation.” A fourth edition, corrected and enlarged, was published in 3 vols. 8vo. in 1765, with the addition of another Dissertation on the idea of universal Poetry; and the whole were again reprinted in 1776. It is needless to add that they fully established Mr. Kurd’s character as an elegant, acute, and judicious critic.

Although Mr. Kurd’s reputation as a polite scholar and critic had been now fully established, his merit had not attracted the notice of the great. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, in learned and unostentatious retirement, till, in Dec. 1756, he became, on the death of Dr. Arnald, entitled to the rectory of Thurcaston, as senior fellow of Emanuel college, and was instituted Feb. 16, 1757. At this place he accordingly entered into residence, and, perfectly satisfied with his situation, continued his studies, which were still principally employed on subjects of polite literature. It was in this year that he published “A Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation,” one of his most agreeable pieces of this class, which was afterwards added to the third edition of the “Epistles of Horace.” This obtained for him the return of an elegy inscribed to him by the poet, in 1759, in which Mason terms him “the friend of his youth,” and speaks of him as seated in “low Thurcaston’s sequester' d bower, distant from promotion’s view.” The same year appeared Mr. Kurd’s “Remarks on Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion.” Warburton appears to have been so much concerned in this tract, that we find it republished by Hurd in the quarto edition of that prelate’s works, and enumerated by him in his list of his own works. It appears to have given Hume some uneasiness, and he notices it in his account of his life with much acrimony. In 1759, he published a volume of “Dialogues on sincerity, retirement, the golden age of Elizabeth, and the constitution of the English government,” in 8vo, without his name. In this work he was thought to rank among those writers who, in party language, are called constitutional; but it is said that he made considerable alterations in the subsequent editions. This was followed by his very entertaining “Letters on Chivalry and Romance,” which with his yet more useful “Dialogues on foreign Travel” were republished in 1765, with the author’s name, and an excellent preface on the manner of writing dialogue, under the general title of“Dialogues moral and political.” In the year preceding, he wrote another of those zealous tracts in vindication of Warburton, which, with the highest respect for Mr. Kurd’s talents, we may be permitted to say, have added least to his fame, as a liberal and courteous polemic. This was entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Leland, in which his late ‘ Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence’ is criticized, and the bishop of Gloucester’s idea of the nature and character of an inspired language, as delivered in his lordship’s Doctrine of Grace, is vindicated from all the objections of the learned author of the dissertation.” This, with Mr. Kurd’s other controversial tracts, is republished in vol. VIII. of the late authorized edition of his works, with the following lines, by way of advertisement, written not long before his death "The controversial tracts, which make up this volume, were written and published by the author at different times, as opportunity invited, or occasion required. Some sharpness of style may be objected to them; in regard to which he apologizes for himself in the words of the poet:

It was now that he devoted himself wholly to the Lutheran party, to advance which he laboured incessantly both by his writings and actions. We do not know the exact time when he quitted the castle of Ebernberg; but it appears, that in January 1523, he left Basil, where he had flattered himself with the hopes of finding an asylum, and had only been exposed to great daggers. Erasmus, though his old acquaintance and friend, had here refused a visit from him, for fear, as he pretended, of heightening the suspicions which were entertained against him but his true reason, as he aftersvards declared, in a letter to Melancthon, was, “that he should then have been under a necessity of taking into his house that proud boaster, oppressed with poverty and disease, who only sought for a nest to lay himself in, and to borrow money of every one he met.” This refusal of P>asmus provoked Hutten to attack him severely, and accordingly he published an “Expostulatio” in 1523, which Erasmus answered the same year, in _a very lively piece, entitled, “Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Ilutteni.” Hutten probably intended to reply, had he not been snatched away by death; but he died in an island of the lake Zurich, where he had liimself for security, August 1523. tie was a man of little stature; of a weak and sickly Constitution; extremely brave, but passionate: for he was mot satisfied with attacking the Roman Catholics with his pen, he attacked them also with his sword. He acquainted Luther with the double war which he carried on against the clergy. “I received a letter from Hutten,” says Luther, “filled with rage against the Roman pontiff, declaring he would attack the tyranny of the clergy both with his pen and sword: he being exasperated against the pope for threatening him with daggers and poison, and commanding the bishop of Mentz to send him bound to Rome.” Camerarius says, that Hutten was impatient, that his aif and discourse shewed him to be of a cruel disposition and applied to him what was said o Demosthenes, namely, that “he would have turned the world upside down, had his power been equal to his will.” His works are numerous, though he died young. A collection of his “Latin Poems” was published at Francfort in 1538, 12mo; all which, except two poemsj were reprinted in the third part of the “Deliciae Poetarum Germanorum.” He was the author of a great many works, chiefly satirical, in the way of dialogue; and Thuanus has not scrupled to compare him to Lucian. Of this cast were his Latin Dialogues on Lutheranism, published in 4to, in 1520, and now very scarce. He had also a considerable share in the celebrated work called “Epistolae virorum obscurorum,” which Meiners, in his “Liv$s of Illustrious Men,” says, was the joint work of Ulrick and Crotus Rubianus, alias John Jaeger, of Dornheim,in Thuringia. The produc“­tions of each, according to Meiners, may easily be distinguished. Wherever we are struck with the” peculiar levity, rapidity, and force of the style with a certain sol- ­dier-like boldness and unclerical humour, in obscene jests and pictures, and comical representations of saints, reliques, &c. with no small degree of keenness in the relation of laughable anecdotes, with a knowledge of Italy, to be obtained only by experience, with a pleasant explanation and derivation of words in the style of the monkish schools; 'in all these places, the hand of Ulrick Hutten may be traced.“That these letters were the work of different hands, says an acute critic, is not improbable; but we are not certain that Crotus Rubianus had any share in them; nor can we tell from what authority it is sq affirmed. Goethe, who wrote his” Tribute to the memory of Ulrick of Hutten," translated into English by Antony Aufrtre, esq. 1789, and who wrote that some years before the appearance of Meiners’ Biography, seems to have led the latter into this opinion. With much more probability might Reuchlin have been mentioned, who, indeed, by some has been supposed the sole author. Upon the whole, however, there is most reason to think them Hutten' s.

, a learned English critic and divine, was born about 1571, at Newport in the Isle of Wight; and, being put to Winchester-school, became a scholar upon the foundation, and thence a fellow of New college in Oxford, 1593. He commenced M. A. in 1599; and the same year, having collated several Mss. of the Philobiblion of Richard of Durham, he published it in 4to at Oxford, with an appendix of the Oxford Mss. and dedicated it:o sir Thomas Bodley, apparently to recommend himself to the place of librarian to him, when he should have completed his design. Meanwhile James proceeded with the same spirit to publish a catalogue of all the Mss. in each college- library of both universities and in the compiling of it, having free access to the Mss. at Oxford, he perused them carefully, and, when he found any society careless of them, he borrowed and took away what he pleased, and put them into the public library. These instances of his taste and turn to books effectually procured him the designation of the founder to be the first keeper of the public library; in which office he was confirmed by the university in 1602. He filled this post with great applause and commencing D. D. in 1614, was promoted to the subdeanery of Wells by the bishop of that see. About the same time, the archbishop of Canterbury also presented him to the rectory of Mongeham in Kent, together with other spiritual preferments. These favours were undeniably strong evidences of his distinguished merit, being conferred upon him without any application on his part. In 1620, he was made a justice of the peace; and the same year resigned the place of librarian, and applied himself more intensely to his studies. Of what kind these were, we learn thus from himself: “I have of late,” says he in a letter, May 23, 1624, to a friend, “given myself to the reading only of manuscripts, and in them I find so many and so pregnant testimonies, either fully for our religion, or against the papists, that it is to be wondered at.” In another letter to archbishop Usher, the same year, he assures the primate he had restored 300 citations and rescued them from corruptions, in thirty quires of paper. He had before written to Usher upon the same subject, Jan. 28, 1623, when having observed that in Sixtus Sinensis, Alphonsus de Castro, and Antoninus’s Summae, there were about 500 bastard brevities and about 1000 places in the true authors which are corrupted, that he had diligently noted, and would shortly vindicate them out of the Mss. being yet only conjectures of the learned, be proceeds to acquaint him, that he had gotten together the flower of the English divines, who would voluntarily join with him in the search. “Some fruits of their labours,” continues he, “if your lordship desires, I will send up. And might I be but so happy as to have other 12 thus bestowed, four in transcribing orthodox writers, whereof we have plenty that for the substantial points have maintained our religion (40l. or 50l. would serve); four to compare old prints with the new; four other to compare the Greek translations by the papists, as Vedelius hath done with Ignatius, wherein he hath been somewhat helped by my pains; I would not doubt but to drive the papists out of all starting-holes. But alas! my lord, I have not encouragement from our bishops. Preferment I seek none at their hands; only 40l. or 60l. per ann. for others is that I seek, which being gained, the cause is gained, notwithstanding their brags in their late books.” In the convocation held with the parliament at Oxford in 1625, of which he was a member, he moved to have proper commissioners appointed to collate the Mss. of the fathers in all the libraries in England, with the popish editions, in order to detect the forgeries in the latter. This project not meeting with the desired encouragement, he was so thoroughly persuaded of the great advantage it would be both to the protestant religion and to learning, that, arduous as the task was, he set about executing it himself. We may form a probable conjecture of his plan, from a passage in the just cited letter to Usher, where he expresses himself thus: “Mr. Briggs will satisfy you in this and sundry other projects of mine, if they miscarry not for want of maintenance: it would deserve a prince’s purse. If I was in Germany, the state would defray all charges. Cannot our estates supply what is wanting? If every churchman that hath 100 per annum and upwards, will lay down but Is. for every hundred towards these public works, I will undertake the reprinting of the fathers, and setting forth of five or six orthodox writers, comparing of books printed with printed or written; collating of popish translations in Greek; and generally whatsoever shall concern books or the purity of them. I will take upon me to be a magister of S. Patalii in England, if I be thereunto lawfully required.”

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in 1592, and admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, Sept. 23, 1608. In October 1611, he took the degree of B A. and in Jan. 1615, that of M. A. in which year also he became probationer fellow of his college. Having entered into holy orders, he preached frequently, and arrived to the degree of bachelor in divinity. Upon what occasion we know not, he travelled abroad; and was in Russia, in 1619, a tour to which country was very uncommon in those days. He was esteemed to be well versed in most parts of learning, and was noted, among his acquaintance, as a good Grecian and poet, an excellent critic, antiquary, and divine; and was admirably skilled i'n the Saxon and Gothic languages. As for his preaching, it was not approved of by any of the university, excepting by some of the graver sort. Of three sermons, delivered by him before the academics, one of them, concerning the observation of Lent, was without a text, according to the most ancient manner; another was against it, and a third beside it; “shewing himself thereby,” says Anthony Wood, “a humourous person.” Selden was much indebted to him for assistance in the composition of his “Marmora Arundeliana,” and acknowledges him, in the preface to that book, to be “Vir multijugae studiique indefatigabilis.” Mr. James also exerted the utmost labour and diligence in arranging and classifying sir Robert Cotton’s library; and it is somewhat singular that bishop Nicolson imputes the same kind of blame to him, of which Osborn, the bookseller, more coarsely accused Dr. Johnson, when compiling the Harieian Catalogue, viz. “that being greedy of making extracts out of the books of our history for his own private use, he passed carelessly over a great many very valuable volumes.” Nothing was wantnig to him, and to the encouragement of his studies, but a sinecure or a prebend; if he had obtained either of which, Wood says, the labours of Hercules would have seen/ted to be a trifle. Sir Symonds D'Ewes has described him as an atheistical profane scholar, but otherwise witty and moderately learned. “He had so screwed himself,” adds sir Symonds, “into the good opinion of sir Robert Cotton, that whereas at first he only permitted him the use of some of his books; at last, some two or three years before his death, he bestowed the custody of his whole library on him. And he being a needy sharking companion, and very expensive, like old sir Ralph Starkie when he lived, let out, or lent out, sir Robert Cotton’s most precious manuscripts for money, to any that would be his customers; which,” says sir Symonds, “1 once made known to sir Robert Cotton, before the said James’s face.” The whole of these assertions may be justly suspected. His being an atheistical profane scholar does not agree with Wood’s account of him, who expressly asserts that he was a severe Calvinist; and as to the other part of the accusation, it is undoubtedly a strong circumstance in Mr. James’s favour, that he continued to be trusted, protected, and supported, by the Cotton family to the end of his clays. (See our account of Sir Robert Cotton, vol. X. p. 326 et seqq.) This learned and laborious man fell a victim to intense study, and too abstemious and mortified a course of living. His uncle, Dr. Thomas James, in a letter to Usher, gives the following character of him: “A kinsman of mine is at this present, by my direction, writing Becket’s life, wherein it shall be plainly shewed, both out of his own writings, and those of his time, that he was not, as he is esteemed, an arch-saint, but an archrebel; and that the papists have been not a little deceived by him. This kinsman of mine, as well as myself, should be right glad to do any service to your lordship in this kind. He is of strength, and well both able and learned to effectuate somewhat in this kind, critically seen both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, knowing well the languages both French, Spanish, and Italian, immense and beyond all other men in reading of the Mss. of an extraordinary style in penning; such a one as I dare balance with any priest or Jesuit in the world of his age, and such a one as I could wish your lordship had about you; but paupertas inimica bonis est monbus, and both fatherless and motherless, and almost (but for myself) I may say (the: more is pity) friendless.”

, an eminent antiquary, architect, and critic, was probably a native of Verona, and flourished in the sixteenth century. He was of the order of the Dominicans, but in his travels, and during his scientific labours, wore the habit of a secular priest. When at Rome, where he was first known as an architect, he began to apply to the study of classical antiquities, and made a judicious collection of inscriptions, which he dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici. He was some time at the court of the emperor Maximilian I. and thence went to France about 1500, where Louis X. appointed him royal architect. He built at Paris two bridges over the Seine, that of Notre Dame, and the little bridge. In the mean time, while he had leisure, he employed it in examining ancient manuscripts, and had the felicity to recover all the letters of Pliny the younger, and the work of Julius Obsequens on prodigies. These he arranged for publication, and sent them to Aldus Manutius, by whom they were both printed in 1508, 8vo. He also collated several other classics, and illustrated Caesar’s Commentaries by useful notes and figures, and was the first to give a design of the famous bridge which Caesar built across the Rhine. On his return to Italy, he edited the fine edition of Vitruvius, printed by Aldus in 1511, and enriched it with designs. When the famous bridge the Rialto was burnt down in 1513, he gave a magnificent design for a new one; but that of an inferior architect being preferred, he quitted Venice, and went to Rome, where, after the death of Bramante, he was employed on St. Peter’s church. His last work was the bridge over the Adige, at Verona, which he built in 1520: He died about 1530, at a very advanced age.

His death formed a very remarkable aera in the literary world. For a considerable time the periodical journals, as well as general conversation, were eagerly occupied on an event which was the subject of universal regret; and every man hastened with such contributions as memory supplied, to illustrate a character in which all took a lively interest. Numerous anecdotes were published, some authentic and some imaginary, and the general wish to knew more of Johnson was for some years insatiable. At length the proprietors of his printed works met to consider of a complete and uniform edition, but as it was feared that the curiosity which follows departed genius might soon abate, some doubt was entertained of the policy of a collection of pieces, the best of which were already in the hands of the public in various forms; but this was fortunately overruled, and these collected Works have very recently been printed for the fifth time, and will probably be long considered as a standard book in every library. Less fortunately, however, sir John Hawkins, who was one of Johnson’s executors, and professed to be in possession of materials for his Life, was engaged to write that Life, as well as to collect his Works. They accordingly appeared in 1787, in 11 vols. 8vo. Of the Life it is unnecessary to add any thing to the censure so generally passed. Sir John spoke his mind, perhaps honestly but his judgment must have been as defective as his memory,when he decided with so much prejudice and so little taste or candour, on the merits of his author, and of other eminent persons, whom, as a critic humorously said, “he brought to be tried at the Middlesex quarter sessions.” In collecting the Works, he inserted some which no man could suspect to be Johnson’s, while he omitted other pieces that had been acknowledged. A more correct arrangement, however, has been since adopted.

In 1632, as already remarked, was published at Aberdeen “Epigrammata Arturi Johnstoni;” and in 1633, he translated Solomon’s Song into Latin elegiac verse, and dedicated it to his majesty; in 1637, he edited the “Deliciae Poetarum Scoticorum,” to which he was himself a large contributor, and which, says Dr. Johnson, would have done honour to any country. His Psalms were reprinted at Middleburg, 1642; London, 1657; Cambridge,; Amsterdam, 1706 Edinburgh, by William Lauder, 1739 and at last on the plan of the Delphin classics, at London, 1741, 8vo, at the expence of auditor Benson, who dedicated them to his late majesty, and prefixed to this edition memoirs of Dr. Johnston, with the testimonies of various learned persons. A laboured, but partial and injudicious comparison between the two translations of Buchanan and Johnston, was printed the same year by Benson, in English, in 8vo, entitled <* A Prefatory Discourse to Dr. Johnston’s Psalms,“&c. and” A Conclusion to it.“This was ably answered by the learned Ruddiman in” A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,“1745, 8vo. Johnston’s translations of the” Te Deum, Creed, Decalogue,“&c. were subjoined to the Psalms. His other poetical works are his” Parerga,“and his” Musae Aulicse,“or commendatory verses upon persons of rank in church and state at that time. Johnston is evidently entitled to very high praise as a Latin poet; and the late lord Woodhouselee seems to admit that from his days the Latin muses have deserted the northern part of our island: Benson’s comparison between Buchanan and Johnston was absurd enough, but it is not fair that Johnston should suffer by his editor’s want of taste. The abler critic we have just mentioned, does not think Johnston’s attempt to emulate Buchanan as a translator of the Psalms, greatly beyond his powers; for, although taken as a whole, his version is certainly inferior (as indeed what modern has, in Latin poetry, equalled Buchanan) yet there are a few of his Psalms, such as the 24th, 30th, 74th, 81st, 82d, 102d, and above all, the 137th, which, on comparison, lord Woodhouselee says, will be found to excel the corresponding paraphrase of his rival. And Dr. Beattie seems to speak in one respect more decidedly. Johnston, he says,” is not so verbose as Buchanan, and has of course more vigour;" but he very justly censures the radical evil of Johnston’s Psalms, his choice of a couplet, which keeps the reader always in rnind of the puerile epistles of Ovid.

In 1731, he published “Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, ancient and modern,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a collection of critical remarks, of which, however, he was not the sole, though the principal, author: Pearce, Masson, Dr. Taylor, Wasse, Theobald, Dr. Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, and others, were contributors to it. This work was highly approved by the learned here, and was translated into Latin at Amsterdam, and continued on the same plan by D'Orville and Burman. In 1751, archbishop Herring, unsolicited, gave him the living of St. Dunstan in the East, London. This prelate had long entertained a high and affectionate regard for him had endeavoured to serve him in many instances with others and afterwards, in 1755, conferred upon him the degree of D. D. This same year, 1751, came out his first volume of “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History,” 8vi. This work was inscribed to die earl of Burlington by whom, as trustee for the Boylean Lecture, he had, through the application of bishop Herring and bishop Sherlock, been appointed, in 1749, to preach that lecture. There is a preface to this volume of more than forty pages, which, with much learning and ingenuity, displays a spirit of liberty and candour. These “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical fiistory” were continued, in tour succeeding volumes, down to the year 1517, when Luther began the work of reformation; two, published by himself, in 1752 and 1754; and two, after his death, in 1773. In 1755, he published “Six Dissertations upon different Subjects,” 8vo. The sixth dissertation is, “On the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil;” and the remarks in this, tending to establish the great antiquity of the doctrine of a future state, interfered with Warburton in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” and drew upon him from that quarter a very severe attack. He made no reply; but in his “Adversaria” was the following memorandum, which shews that he did not oppose the notions of other men, from any spirit of envy or contradiction, but from a full persuasion that the real matter of fact was as he had represented it. “I have examined,” says he, “the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil; and upon that dissertation I am willing to stake all the little credit that I have as a critic and philosopher. I have there observed, that Homer was not the inventor of the fabulous history of the gods: he had those stories, and also the doctrine of a future state, from old traditions. Many notions of the Pagans, which came from tradition, are considered by Barrow, Serm. viii. vol. II. in which sermon the existence of God is proved from universal consent.”

Jungius seems to have eminently distinguished himself in the several studies of theology, medicine, mathematics, metaphysics, and botany, upon all which pursuits his opinions and observations are handed down to us in his writings, though the most famous part of his work, entitled “Doxoscopiae Physicze Minores,” is upon the last mentioned subject, botany. This book was first printed at Hamburgh, in 4to, A.D. 1662, and again, in 1679, under the care of Martin Fogel, with this additional title, “Prsecipuarum opinionum physicarum.” A copy of the former edition of this work is in the Linnoean library, having been presented to Linnæus by his pupil, professor P. D. Giseke, of Hamburgh. The botanical part of it, included in the third section of the second part, occupies about 100 pages, and contains many judicious and acute rules for making distinct species of plants, as well as some curious remarks upon genera. He was a great critic in botanical nomenclature; and constructed a variety of terms which agree with those of Linnasus, and his remarks upon botanical discrimination have been of considerable advantage to succeeding botanists, and many of his definitions are repeatedly made use of by our immortal countryman, Ray. He was the first who projected and raised a literary society in Germany, though this institution did not share a better fate than the one which had just before been founded in this country (and which appears to have served for its model) by Hugh Latimer, Thomas Linacre, and others, for the purpose of discussing and illustrating Aristotle’s philosophy. They both Bourished but for a short period, though the Heunetic or Ereunetic society, as it was called, established by professor Jungius, was on a far more comprehensive plan than the other, and may indeed be considered as having, in some measure, embraced the same views with which the royal society was afterwards instituted in Great Britain. The fame of Jungius was originally diffused through this country by his noble pupil, the honourable Charles Cavendish, who appears to have studied under him at Hamburgh. This gentleman was brother to the earl of Newcastle, who had the care of Charles I. when a youth.

After a careful course of these studies and researches, he announced his having discovered that the Gothic was the mother of all the Teutonic tongues; whence sprang the old Cimbrian, transmitted to posterity by the remains of the Runic, as likewise the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, in which the inhabitants of the country expressed their thoughts at that time. From the AngloSaxon, which itself is either a branch of the Gothic or its sister, and daughter of the same mother, sprang the English, Scotch, Belgtc, and the old language of Friesland. From the Gothic and Saxon languages sprang that of the Francs, which is the mother-tongue of Upper-Germany. He was so passionately fond of this study, that, after thirty years chiefly spent upon it in England, being informed there were some villages in Friesland where the ancient language of the Saxons was preserved, he went thither and lived two years among them. Then, returning into Holland, he met with the old Gothic ms. called the Silver One, because the four gospels are written there in silver Gothic letters. He devoted his whole study in the explication of it, which he completed in a little time, and published it, with notes of Dr. Marshall, in 1665, under the title “Glossarium Gothicum in quatuor evangelia Gothica,” Dordrac, 1665, 4-to. Dr. Marshall’s performance is entitled <e Observationes in evangeliorum versiones per antiquas duas, Gothicam sc. & Anglo-Saxonicam," &c. ibid. Junius returned into England in 1674, in order to peruse such English-Saxon books as had hitherto escaped his diligence, especially those in the Cottonian library. In Oct. 1676, he retired to Oxford. He was now 87, and intended not to leave that beloved university any more. At first he had lodgings opposite to Lincoln college, for the sake of Dr. Marshall, rector of that society, who had been his pupil in the study of the Northern languages, and was then a great critic, as well as Junius, in them. Afterwards, he intended to put some of his notes and collections into order; and, to avoid the interruption of frequent visits, he removed to an obscure house in St. Ebbe’s parish, where he digested some things for the press^ and made a deed of gift of all his Mss. and collections to the public library.

In 1697 he took a share with his fellow-collegians at Christ-church, in the memorable dispute concerning the authenticity of Phalaris’s Epistles. His first appearance in that controversy was owing to his being accidentally present at a conversation between Dr. Bentley and Mr. Bennet the bookseller, concerning the ms. of Phalaris in the King’s library. Mr. Boyle, when answering Bentley’s Dissertation, applied to our author for the particulars of what passed on that occasion; which he received in the short but expressive letter which Boyle has printed in his book, in 1698, with the testimonies of Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gibson (who had been employed as the collator). Stung by these stubborn facts, Dr. Bentley, in the enlarged edition of his Dissertation, 1699, endeavoured to invalidate their force, by an attempt to weaken the credibility of the witnesses. On Dr. King, in particular, he has condescended to bestow near eight pages of his preface, a short specimen of which is annexed to the Letter we have last referred to. In a second letter to Mr. Boyle, our author with great modesty refutes the groundless calumny, and proves that Dr. Bentley himself has confirmed his testimony in every particular, except having omitted the great critic’s beautiful similitude of “a squeezed orange.”

, an eminent German critic, was born in 1738, at Bischofswerden, near Dresden, where his father was a clergyman. As to his first years, he used to tell Harles that he could not remember how they were spent, except that he was seven years old before his parents could by any means prevail on him to learn any thing. Soon after that, however, he was suddenly seized with such an attachment to letters, that his parents spared no expence to gratify his taste, and to enable him to cultivate his talents to the best advantage. He employed his leisure hours in composing and, reciting German verses, 'and profited very much under Foerstelius, who was his private preceptor, and afterwards at Misna, under Weiss and Cleman.nus. He studied afterwards at Gorlitz, under Baumeister, who taught him the classics, and lodged him in his house. Here Klotz used to say he spent more happy days than he was persuaded he should ever see again. During his stay here, which lasted two years, he gave a specimen of his powers in versification, by a poem composed on the “Destruction of Zittau,” which was laid waste in 1757. In 1758 he proceeded to Leipsic to study jurisprudence, and while here he published several papers in the “Acta Eruditorum,” and some separate pieces. In 1761 he published his “Opuscula Poetica,” containing twenty-three odes, three satires, and as many elegies. From Leipsic he repaired to Jena, where he opened a school, which was well attended. Having accepted of an invitation to a professorship at the university of Gottingen in 1762, he set off for that place, and almost immediately after his arrival he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, he recovered, and immediately published a treatise “De Verecundia Virgilii,” to which were added three dissertations relative to the eclogues of the poet. He also published “Miscellanea Critica,” and applied himself to the study of ancient gems and paintings, with which he became well acquainted. His celebrity had now increased so much, that he received two offers in the same day, one from the prince of Hesse Darmstadt, to be professor of the Oriental languages at Giessen, and the other from his Prussian majesty, to be professor of eloquence at Halle. While he was deliberating respecting the choice he should make, he was nominated by his Britannic majesty to be professor of philosophy at Gottingen, with an increased salary, which induced him to remain in that city, till some attempts were made to ruin his reputation. He then quitted Gottingen, and accepted an offer made him by his Prussian majesty, of being professor of philosophy and eloquence at Halle, with the rank and title of aulic counsellor. While preparing for his departure, he published “Historia Nummorum Contumeliosonini et Satyricorum,” containing a history of these coins; and on his removal to Halle he gave the public another work of the same kind, and at the same time he effected, what had been often attempted before without success, the institution of a new society, called the “Literary Society of Halle.” Here also the king conferred upon him the rank of privy-counsellor, and accompanied this mark of honour with a considerable addition to his salary. He died in 1771, and just before his death, revised every thing which he had written on coins, and published “Opuscula, nummaria quibus Juris Antiqui Historiceque nonnnila capita explicantur.” His other works, not already noticed, were, 1. “Pro M. T. Cicerone adversus Dionem Cassium et Plutarchum dissertatio,” Gorlitz, 1758, 4to. 2. “Ad virum doct. I. C. Reichelium epistola, qua de quibusdam ad Homerum pertinentibus disputatur,” Leipsic, 1758, 4to. 3. “Carminum liber unus,” ibid. 1759, 8vo. 4. “Mores Eruditorum,” Altenburgh, 1760, 8vo. 5. “Genius Sxculi,” ibid. 1760. 6, “Opuscula Poetica,” ibid. 1761, 8vo. 7. “Oratio pro Lipsii latinitate,” Jena, 1761, 8vo. 8. “Libellus de minutiarum studio et rixandi libidine grammaticorum quorundam,” ibid. 1761, 8vo. y. “Animadversiones in Theophrasti characteres Ethiros,” jbid. 8vo. 10.“Dissertatio de felici audacia Horatii,” I 762, 4to. 11. “Elegiae,” ibid. 8vo. 12. “Funus Petri Burmanni secundi,” Altenburgh, 8vo. This is a very complete account of the life, &c. of Burman. 13. “Uidicula Litteraria,” ibid. 8vo, a satirical work on useless studies and pursuits. 14. “Vindiciie Horatianae,” against Hardouin, Bremen, 1764, 8vo. 15. “Stratonis epigrammata, uunc primum edita,” Altenburgh, 1764, 8vo. 16. “Epistolae Homericae,” ibid. 1764, 8vo. 17. An edition of Vida, 1766, and of Tyrtacus, 1767. To these may be added many philosophical dissertations, theses, prefaces, &c. enumerated by Harles.

None of our writers, in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, can justly contest the superiority of Knolles, who, in his History of the Turks, has displayed all the excellencies that narration can admit. His style, though somewhat obscured by time, and sometimes vitiated by false wit, is pure, nervous, elevated, and clear. A wonderful multiplicity of events is so artfully arranged, and so distinctly explained, that each facilitates the knowledge of the next. Whenever a new personage is introduced, the reader is prepared by his character for his actions. When a nation is first attacked, or city besieged, he is made acquainted with its history or situation: so that a great part of the world is brought into view. Tfie descriptions of this author are without minuteness, and the digressions without ostentation. After other praises of the work, Dr. Johnson concludes with remarking, that nothing could have sunk Knolles into obscurity, but the remoteness and barbarity of the people whose story he relates. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that our great critic took the fable of his “Irene” from this work.

, a learned critic, was born in the month of Feb. 1670 at Blomberg, a little town in Westphalia, where his father was a magistrate. He learned polite literature under his elder brother, who taught it in the college of Joachim at Berlin. He distinguished himself so early in life, that on the recommendation of baron Spanheim, he was appointed tutor to the two sons of the count de Schewerin, prime-minister of the king of Prussia. He had also the promise of a professorship in the college of Joachim at Berlin but, till that should be vacant, Kuster, who was then but about five-and-twenty, resolved to travel into Germany, France, England, and Holland. He went first to Francfort upon the Oder, where he studied the civil law for some time; and thence to Antwerp, Ley den, and Utrecnt, where he remained a considerable time, and wrote several works. In 1699, he passed over into England, and the year following into France, where his chief employment was to collate Suidas with three manuscripts in the king’s library. About the end of this year he returned to England, and in four years finished his edition of Suidas, on which he may be said to have meditated day and night. He relates himself, that, being one night awaked by thunder and lightning, he became so alarmed for this work, that he rose immediately, and carried it to bed with him, as his most valuable treasure. It was published at Cambridge in 1705, and is by far the best edition of that valuable Lexicon; and Le Clerc tells us, that the university furnished part of the expence of it. The Bodleian library has lately become possessed of a copy, covered from one end to the other with manuscript notes by D'Orville and others. Kuster was honoured with the degree of doctor by the university of Cambridge, and had several advantageous offers made him to continue there; but was obliged to wave them, being recalled to Berlin, to take possession of the professorship, which had been promised him. He afterwards resigned this place, and went to Amsterdam; where, in 1710, he published an edition of “Aristophanes,” in folio, whicb the public had been prepared some time to expect by an account as well as a specimen of that work, given by LeClerc in his “Bibliotheque choisie,” for 1708. This excellent edition, emphatically called editio optima, coi.'t.tins for the first time some new Scholia on the “Lysistrata,” some notes of Isaac Casaubon on the “Equites,” and of Spanheim and Bentley, on a few of the earlier plays. It is, upon the whole, a noble production, and has been long esteemed by the first literary characters abroad and at home. Kuster gave an edition also of “Mill’s Greek Testament” the same year; in which he had compared the text with twelve manuscripts which Mill never saw. Of these twelve there were nine in the king of France’s library; but, excepting one, which has all the books of the New Testament, the rest contain no more than the four Gospels. The tenth manuscript belonged to Carpzovius, a minister of Leipsic, and contains the four Gospels. The eleventh was brought from Greece by Seidel, of Berlin; but it has not the four Gospels. The last, which Kuster most highly valued, was communicated to him by Bornier, who bought it at the public sale of the library of Francius, professor of rhetoric at Amsterdam. After Kuster’s preface, follows a letter of Le Clerc concerning Mill’s work. From Amsterdam he removed to Rotterdam, and went some time after to Antwerp, to confer with the Jesuits about some doubts he had in religious matters; the consequence of this was his being brought over to the Roman catholic religion, and his abjuring that of the Protestants July 25, 1713, in the church of the noviciates belonging to the Jesuits. The king of France rewarded him with a pension of 2000 livres; and as a mark of "distinction, ordered him to be admitted supernumerary associate of the academy of inscriptions. But he did not enjoy this new settlement long; for he died October 12, 1716, of an abscess in the pancreas, aged only forty-six.

, son of Humphry Kynaston, citizen of Chester (descended from a younger branch of the Kynastons of Bronguin, in the county of Montgomery), was born at Chester, Dec. 5, 1728; admitted a commoner in Brazen-nose college, Oxford, March 20, 1746; elected scholar, on the foundation of Sarah dutchess dowager of Somerset, in the said college, Aug. I of the same year took the degree of B. A. Oct. 16, 1749 was elected fellow June 14, 1751 and took the decree of M. A. June 4, 1752. He obtained no small reputation by an Oratiuncula, entitled, “De Impietate C. CornelioTacito falso objectata; Oratio ex Instituto Viri cl. Francisci Bridgman , militis, habita in Sacello Collegii JEnei Nasi Oxon. Festo Sancti Thomre, Decembris 2':, A. D. 1761, a J. K. A. M. Coll. ejusdem Socio;” in which he endeavoured to disprove the false allegations (for such he really thought them) of Famianus Strada (the excellent critic, and most elegant writer) against Tacitus, on his impiety and sovereign contempt of the Supreme. On the apprehension of the notorious miss Blandy, Mr. Kynaston took an active part, from the time of her conviction till her body was secured from indecent treatment. In this business he barely steered free from censure. His method was, to be with her as much as postible when the ordinary (the learned, well-known, but credulous Mr. Swinton, whom she gained to countenance her hypocrisy) was absent; and was suspected to have given hopes of pardon, in concert with another person, also of Brazen-nose College, to the morning of her execution, when she appeared in that studied genteel dress and attitude which she could not possibly have put on had she been watchfully attended by a firmer-minded instructor. In 1764, he published “A collection of papers relative to the prosecution now carrying on in the Chancellor’s Court in Oxford, against Mr. Kynaston, by Matthew Maddock, clerk, rector of Cotworth and Holywell, in the county of Huntingdon, and chaplain to his grace of Manchester, for the charge of adultery alleged against the said Matthew Maddock,” 8vo. From the date of this publication (the cause of which operated too severely on his high sense of honour) he resided, in not the best state of health, at Wigan principally, loved and respected by a few select friends. On the 27th of March, 1783, Mr. Kynaston had the misfortune to break his left arm, near the shoulder; but, the bones having been properly replaced, he was thought out of danger. It brought on his death, however, in the June following.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

, a physician, born at Segovia in 1499, was high in the confidence of the emperor Charles V. at whose court he passed a considerable part of his life. He published “Annotations upon Dioscorides” and an “Epitome of the Works of Galen,” with a life of this author and “A Treatise of Weights and Measures.” He was a respectable critic, and died in 1560.

His next occupation was that of an assistant at the free school of Wakefield, then superintended by Mr. Clarke; and while here he took deacon’s orders, and became, it is said, “a popular preacher.” In 1759, Mr. Clarke recommended him as preceptor to the sons of Robert Cracroft, esq. of Hackthorn, near Lincoln. Mr. Cracrdft had nine sons, and Mr. Langhorne must have been fully employed in the family; yet he added to theirs the tuition of Mr. Edmund Cartwright, a young gentleman of a poetical turn, who afterwards published an elegy, entitled “Constantia,” on the death of his preceptor’s wife. During his residence at Hackthorn, our author published a volume of his poems, for the relief of a gentleman in distress; and in the same year a poem, entitled “The Death of Adonis,” from the Greek of Bion. Public opinion gave him no encouragement to reprint this last, but he derived from it the advantage of being noticed as a critic of considerable acumen in Greek poetry.

But whatever may be in this, his employment as a critic we are told, procured him many acquaintances among literary men, while the vein of ridicule which he indulged in treating several of the subjects that fell under his consideration, created him many enemies, who in their turn endeavoured to depreciate his performances. As no judgment can now be pronounced on the articles which he wrotCj it is impossible to say whether this vein of ridicule was employed as the just chastisement of arrogance and immorality, or substituted for fair and legitimate criticism. Illibefality has not often been imputed to the journal in which he wrote; and as to his enemies, we know of none more formidable than Churchill, Kelly, and Kenrick, two of whom were libellers by profession. Smollett, whose jealousy of the Monthly Review led him often to disgrace his talents by invidious attacks on the supposed writers belonging to it$ bestows almost uniform praise on Langhorne’s various works.

Amidst these engagements he found leisure to give to the world two productions strongly marked by the peculiarities of his style and turn of thinking the one entitled “Frederick and Pharamond, or, The Consolations of Human Life,” 8vo the other, “Letters supposed to have passed between M. de St. Evremond and Waller” In this last, while he was allowed to have preserved their characters tolerably, he was at the same time accused, by the critic in the Monthly Review, of taking frequent opportunities to compliment himself on the merit of the letters he had written for St. Evremond and Waller. This produced a complaint from Langhorne, which was answered by the Reviewer, respectfully indeed, but not in the manner that might have been expected from an associate. It is from this circumstance that we have been led to conjecture that his connexion with the Review ceased when he left London in consequence of his obtaining the living of Blagdon. “Frederick and Pharamond” was begun with a view to alleviate the afflictions of a friend, and pursued perhaps to alleviate his own. It attempts that by argument which is rarely accomplished but by time.

, a young lady of considerable poetical talent, was born Feb. 26, 1722. Her father, at thistime was gardener to judge Blencowe, at Marston St. Lawrence, in Northamptonshire. She was brought up under the care of a pious and sensible mother, who died a few years before her. The little education which she received, consisted wholly in being taught to read and write, and it is said that she was for some time cook-maid in a gentleman’s family: with all these disadvantages, however, she began at a very early age to compose verses, at first with the approbation of her parents, who afterwards, imagining an attention to poetry would be prejudicial to her, endeavoured by every possible means to discountenance such pursuits. These, however, were ineffectual, and she was at last left to follow her inclination. She died the 12th of November, 1746, at Brackley; and after her death two volumes of her Poems were printed in 8vo, in. 1748 and 1751, by subscription, the proposals for which were drawn up by Mr. Garrick. Mr. Hawkins Browne was editor of the second volume. Our late amiable poet and critic, Cowper, had a high opinion of Mrs. Leapor’s poetry.

, an eminent Hebrew and Greek scholar and critic, was the son of a poor mechanic at Strasburgh, where he was born July 18, 1672. His parents were so unable to give him education, that he must have been obliged to work at his father’s trade, had he not found an early patron in Froereisen, a learned townsman, who placed him at ten years old in the public school, at his own expence. Lederlin’s extraordinary proficiency rewarded this generous friend, whom, however, he had the misfortune to lose by death in 1690. This would have been irreparable, if his talents had not already recommended him to other patrons, and his school education being finished, he was enabled to pursue his studies at the university with great reputation. He received his master’s degree in 1692, and at the persuasion of Boeder the medical professor, Obrecht, and others, he opened a school for the Hebrew and Greek, of which languages, he was in 1703, constituted professor, and was for many years one of the greatest ornaments of the university of Strasburgh. He died Sept. 3, 1737, leaving various monuments of learning and critical skill. Among those, we may enumerate, i. his edition of Julius Pollux’s “Onomasticon,” 1706, 2 vols. fol. 2. His “Homer’s Iliad,” Amst. 1707, 8 vols. 12mo, Gr. & Lat. Lederlin edited only a part of this edition, which on his death, Mr. Dibdin says, was completed by Bergler. But in this case there must have been an edition posterior to 1737, when Lederlin died. 3. “Vigerus de praecipuis Grsecae dictionis idiotismis,” Strasburgb, 1709, 8vo. 4. “Brissonii de regio Persarum principatu,” ibid. 1710. 5. “Æliani varise historiae,” ibid. 1713, 8vo, which Harles says is superior to Scheffer*s edition, but must yield to that of Perizonius. He published also some critical dissertations on parts of the Greek Testament, on which he was accustomed to lecture.

, a learned uivine and translator, the son of a citizen of Dublin, was born in that city in 1722. The first rudiments of classical education he received at the seuool kept by the celebrated Dr. Sheridan, whose talents and success in forming excellent scholars, were then well known. In 17^7 he entered a pensioner in Trinity college; and in 1741 was elected a scholar commenced bachelor of arts in 1742, and was a candidate for a fellowship in 1745, in which he failed at this time, but succeeded the following year by the unanimous voice of the electors, On bein^ thus placed in a state of independence, he did not resign himself to ease and indolence, but was conspicuous for the same ardent love of knowledge which appeared in the commencement of his studies, and was predominant throughout his whole life. In 1748 he entered into holy orders, and from a deep sense of the importance of his profession, drew up a discourse “On the helps and impediments to the acquisition of knowledge in religious and moral subjects,” wtiich was much admired at that time, but no copy is now to be found In 1754, in conjunction with Dr. John Stokes, he published, at the desire of the university, an edition of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” with a Latin version and notes, which we do not find mentioned by any of our classical bibliographers, except Harwood, who says it is in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1760 Dr. Leiand published the first volume of his English “Translation of Demosthenes,” 4to, with notes critical and historical; the second volume of which appeared in 1761, and the third in 1770. This raised his reputation very high as a classical scholar and critic, and public expectation was farther gratified in 1758 by his “History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon, the father of Alexander,” 2 vols. 4to. His attention to the orations of Demosthenes and Æschmes, and to Grecian politics, eminently qualified him for treating the life of Philip with copiousness and accuracy. After this he proceeded with translations of Æschines, and the other orations of Demosthenes. In 1762, he is supposed to have written, although he never formally avowed it, the ingenious historical romance of “Longsword, earl or Salisbury.”

Upon the revival of the royal academy of sciences, in 1699, he was made associate chemist, and at the end of the year became a pensionary. In 1707 he began to feel the infirmities of age, and had a slight attack of apoplexy, which not being so severe as to hinder him from going abroad, he attended the academy for a considerable time, but at length being confined to his house, he resigned his pensionary’s place. Another stroke of apoplexy in 1715, after seven days, put a period to his life June 19, at 4ie age of seventy. His principal works are, 1. The “Cours cle Chymie” before mentioned. 2. “An universal Pharmacopeia.” 3. “Diet. Universel des Drogues simples,” a very useful work. 4. “A Treatise of Antimony; containing the chemical analysis of that mineral,” which involved him in a controversy with an anonymous critic, irv which he was not very successful.

, a very learned critic, was born at Isch, a country-seat of his father, between Brussels and Louvain, Oct. 18, 1547. He was descended from ancestors who had been ranked among the principal inhabitants of Brussels. At six years of age he was sent to the public school at Brussels, and soon gave proofs of uncommon parts. He tells as himself in one of his letters, that he acquired the French language, without the assistance of a master, so perfectly as to be able to write it before he was eight years old. From Brussels he was sent, at ten years old, to Aeth; and, two years after, to Cologne, where at the Jesuits’ college he prosecuted his literary and philosophical studies. Among the ancients, he learned the precepts of morality from Epictetus and Seneca, and the maxims of civil prudence from Tacitus. At sixteen, he was sent to the university of Louvain; and having now acquired a knowledge of the learned languages, applied himself to the civil law; but his principal delight was in belles lettres and ancient literature; and, therefore, losing his parents, and becoming his own master before he was eighteen, he projected a journey to Italy, for the sake of cultivating them. Before, however, he set out, he published three books of various readings, “Variarum Lectionum Libri tres,” which laid the foundation of his literary fame; and his dedication of them to cardinal Perenettus, a great patron of learned men, served to introduce him to the cardinal, on his arrival in 1567, at Rome, where he lived two years with him, was nominated his secretary, and treated with the utmost kindness and generosity. His time he used to employ in the Vatican, the Farnesian, the Sfortian, and other principal libraries, which were open to him, and where he carefully collated the manuscripts of ancient authors, of Seneca, Tacitus, Plautus, Propertius, &c. His leisure hours he spent in inspecting the most remarkable antiquities, or in cultivating the acquaintance of the literati then residing at Rome, Antonius Muretus, Paulus Manutius, Fulvius Ursinus, Hieronymus Mercurialis, Carolus Sigonius, Petrus Victorius, and others, from whose conversation he could not fail to reap advantage and encouragement in his studies.

Mr. Lloyd, even by Wood’s account, left an excellent character behind him: “he was a very industrious and zealous person, charitable to the poor, and ready to do good offices in his neighbourhood; he commonly read the service every day in his church at Northop, when he was at home, and usually gave money to such poor children as would come to him to be catechised.” As an author, however, Wood appears to have been a little jealous of Lloyd; speaks of him as being “a conceited and confident per­*on;” who “took too much upon him to transmit to posterity the memoirs of great personages;” by which “he obtained among knowing men not only the character of a most impudent plagiary, but a false writer, and a mere scribbler, especially upon the publication of his * Memoirs,' wherein are almost as many errors as lines.” “At length,” adds Wood, “having been sufficiently admonished of his said errors, and brought into trouble for some extravagancies in his books, he left off writing, retired to Wales, and there gave himself up to the gaining of riches.” That all this is not true, modern inquirers of reputation, who have repeatedly referred to Lloyd, seem to be convinced: he is in truth a compiler, like others of his contemporaries; but, although he must rank greatly under, he certainly belongs to the same class with Fuller and Wood himself. la his style he partakes more of the former than the latter, and having titled the subject of his pen “Worthies,” he is, s, a little too anxious to support their claim, and regardless- of those circumstances which form ajust, if not a perfect, character. Lloyd has preserved many minutiae of eminent men, not to be found, or not easily, to be found, elsewhere. These remarks apply to his two principal works, so often quoted by modern biographers, “The Statesmen and favourites of England since the Reformation, &c.” 166.5, 8vo, reprinted in 1670; and his “Memoirs of the Lives, &c.” of persons who suffered for their loyalty during the rebellion, Lond. 1668, folio. This last is the more valuable of the two, and is so far from deserving the character Wood has given, of containing as “many errors as lines,” that, while we admit it is not free from errors, we have found it in general corroborated by contemporary writers, and even by Wood himself. Of the first of these works, an edition was published by Charles Whitworth, esq. in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, with additions from other writers, with a view to restore the light and shade of character. “Mr. Lloyd,” says an anonymous critic, “is professedly the white-washer of every character and personage that falls under his brush, particularly of the loyalists of Charles I. and II.; but his editor has seamed it with some sable strokes, some drawn from lord Herbert, and some from his own stores, which are supplied from Rapin, and other republican writers of little credit and less abilities. The true merit of Lloyd is, that notwithstanding the sameness of most of his characters, he serves them up to his readers so differently dressed, that each seems to be a new dish, and to have a peculiar relish.”

, a Greek scholar and critic, was born at Dijon Oct. 18, 1659. By much study he made himself master of the beauties of the Greek tongue, a merit not common in his time; and has left us poetical translations of Anacreon, Sappho, Bion, and Moschus, with notes. He wrote several tragedies in imitation of the Greek poets; and he copied them chiefly in thisj that, in subjects of terror and cruelty, he never introduced love. But he also copied them in common-place prolixity and want of action and plot; while he could never equal the beauty of their diction. Of those tragedies in the Grecian taste h never brought but two upon the stage, viz. the “Medea” and “Electra.” He died March 30, 1721.

, the author of an admired work “On the Sublime,” was a Grecian, and probably an Athenian, though some authors fancy him a Syrian. He was born in the third century. His father’s name is entirely unknown; by his mother Frontonis he was allied to Plutarch. We know nothing of the employment of his parents, their station in life, or the beginning of his education; but from a fragment of his it appears, that his youth was spent in travelling with them, which gave him an opportunity to increase his knowledge and improve his mind. Wherever men of learning were to be found, he was present, and lost no opportunity of forming a familiarity and intimacy with them. Ammonius and Origen, philosophers of great reputation in that age, were two of those whom he visited, and heard with the greatest attention. The travels of Longinus ended with his arrival at Athens, where he fixed his residence. Here he pursued the studies of humanity and philosophy with the greatest application. Here also he published hit “Treatise on the Sublime,” which raised his reputation to such a height, as no critic either before or since could ever reach. His contemporaries there had so great an opinion of his judgment and taste, that they appointed him sovereign judge of all authors; and every thing was received or rejected by the public according to the decision of Longinus.

And fill their critic with a poet’s fire

But this last line, so often quoted, forms the great objection which modern critics have advanced against this celebrated treatise, viz. his exemplifying rather than explaining the sublime. His taste and sensibility were exquisite, but his observations are too general, and his method too loose. The precision of the true philosophical critic, says Warton, is lost in the declamation of the florid rhetorician. Instead of shewing for what reason a sentiment or image is sublime, and discovering the secret power by which they affect a reader with pleasure, he is ever intent on producing something sublime himself. It has likewise been objected, that although he defines the sublime with precision, he frequently departs from his own rule, and includes whatever, in any composition, pleases highly. Some, therefore, of his instances of the sublime are mere elegancies, without the most distant relation to sublimity. His work, however, in other respects, is one of the most valuable relics of antiquity, and is admirably calculated to give excellent general ideas of beauty in writing. Brurker remarks that Longinus must have seen the Jewish scriptur.es, as he quotes a passage from the writings of Moses, as an example of the sublime (Gen. i. 3) “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”

mercy or moderation; and his servile the merits of an insignificant controflatterers exalted the master-critic far versy, his victory was clearly estaabove Aristotle and Longinus, as- blished by the silent confession of Warsaulted every modern dissenter who burton and his slaves." Gibbon’s Merefused to consult the oracle, and to enoirs, 4to, p. 136.

Lord Lyttelton’s literary character has been so long established that it is unnecessary to add much on the subject. His Miscellaneous Works have been often reprinted, and, although in some of them rigid criticism may find objections, cannot be read without pleasure and advantage. His “History of Henry II.” is also now a standard work, valuable both for matter and style. His “^Persian Letters,” written when a very young man, are included among his miscellaneous works, but Dr. Warton informs us that he had intended to discard them, as there were principles and remarks in them that he wished to retract and alter. The reader finds them, however, as originally published, and they contain many shrewd remarks and just ridicule on the manners of the times. His juvenile pieces were not always his worst. Dr. Warton remarks that his Observations on the life of Cicero contain perhaps a more dispassionate and impartial character of that great orator than is exhibited in the panegyrical volumes of Middleton. It may here be noticed that some of his letters to Warton Occur in Wooll’s Life, by which we learn that lord Lyttelton made him his chaplain in 1756. As a poet, we do not find among critics any wide departure from Dr. Johnson’s opinion. Lord Lyttelton’s poems are to be praised chiefly for correctness and elegance of versification and style. His “Advice to Belinda,” though for the most part written when he was very young, contains, Dr. Johnson says, “much truth and much prudence, very elegantly and vigorously expressed, and shows a mind attentive to life, and a power of poetry which cultivation might have raised to excellence.” As far, however, as this implies that lord Lyttelton did not cultivate his powers, we are inclined to think our great critic in error. Lord Lyttelton was very early a poet, and appears to have not only valued his talent, but acquired his first reputation from the exercise of it. He was very early a critic too, as appears by his account of Glover’s “Leonidas,” printed in 1737, and few men were oftener consulted by young poets in the subsequent part of his life. Mickle may be instanced as one whose first pieces were carefully perused and corrected by him, and although Mickle was disappointed in the hopes he entertained from him as a patron, he often owned his obligations to him as a critic. Lord Lyttelton’s was the patronage of kindness rather than of bounty. He courted the acquaintance and loved the company of mn of genius and learning, with whom his correspondence also was extensive, but he had little of his own to give away, and was so long of the party in opposition to ministers, as to have very little state interest.

, third son of sir Thomas, and brother to George lord Lyttelton, was born at Hagley, in 1714. He was educated at Eton-school, and went thence first to University-college, Oxford, and then to the InnerTemple, where he became a barrister at law; but entering into orders, was collated by bishop Hough to the rectory of Alvechurch, in Worcestershire, Aug. 13, 1742. He took the degree of LL. B. March 28, 1745; LL. D. June 18 the same year; was appointed king’s chaplain in Dec. 1747, dean of Exeter in May 1748, and was consecrated bishop of Carlisle, March 21, 1762. In 1754 he caused the cieling and cornices of the chancel of Hagley church to be ornamented with shields of arms in their proper colours, representing the paternal coats of his ancient and respectable family. In 1765, on the death of Hugh lord Willoughby of Parham, he was unanimously elected president of the society of antiquaries; a station in which his distinguished abilities were eminently displayed. He died unmarried, Dec. 22, 1768. His merits and good qualities are universally acknowledged; and those parts of his character which more particularly endeared him to the learned society over which he so worthily presided, shall be pointed out in the words of his learned successor dean Milles: “The study of antiquity, especially that part of it which relates to the history and constitution of these kingdoms, was one of his earliest and most favourable pursuits; and he acquired g cat knowledge in it by constant study and application, to which he was led, not only by his natural disposition, but also by his state and situation in life. He took frequent opportunities of improving and enriching this knowledge by judicious observations in the course of several journies which he made through every country of England, and through many parts of Scotland and Wales. The society has reaped the fruits of these observations in the most valuable papers, which his lordship from time to time has communicated to us; which are more in number, and not inferior either in merit or importance, to those conveyed to us by other hands. Blest with a retentive memory, and happy both in the disposition and facility of communicating his knowledge, he was enabled also to act the part of a judicious commentator and candid critic, explaining, illustrating, and correcting from his own observations many of the papers which have been read at this society. His station and connections in the world, which necessarily engaged a very considerable part of his time, did not lessen his attention to the business and interests of the society. His doors were always open to his friends, amongst whom none were more welcome to him than the friends of literature, which he endeavoured to promote in all its various branches, especially in those which are the more immediate objects of our attention. Even this circumstance proved beneficial to the society, for, if I may be allowed the expression, he was the centre in which the various informations -on points of antiquity from the different parts of the kingdom united, and the medium through which they were conveyed to us. His literary merit with the society received an additional lustre from the affability of his temper, the gentleness of his manners, and the benevolence of his heart, which united every member of the society in esteem to their head, and in harmony and friendship with each other. A principle so essentially necessary to the prosperity and even to the existence of all communities, especially those which have arts and literature for their object, that its beneficial effects are visibly to be discerned in the present flourishing state of our society, which I flatter myself will be long continued under the influence of the same agreeable principles. I shall conclude this imperfect sketch of a most worthy character, by observing that the warmth of his affection to the society continued to his latest breath; and he has given a signal proof of it in the last great act which a wise man does with resp'ect to his worldly affairs; for, amongst the many charitable and generous donations contained in his will, he has made a very useful and valuable bequest of manuscripts and printed books to the society, as a token of his affection for them, and of his earnest desire to promote those laudable purposes for which they were instituted.” The society expressed their gratitude and respect to his memory by a portrait of him engraved at their expence in 1770.

In 1747 Mallet published his “Hermit, or Amyntor and Theodora,” a poem in which Dr. Johnson allows that there is copiousness and elegance of language (which indeed appear in most of Mallet’s works), vigour of sentiment, and imagery well adapted to take possession of the fancy. It abounds also with many excellent moral precepts, which receive weight and energy from the sanction of religion, a foundation on which Mallet did not always build. Dr. Warton was much censured for saying in his “Essay on the Life and Writings of Pope,” that “the nauseous affectation of expressing every thing pompously and poetically, is nowhere more visible than in a poem lately published, called Amyntor and Theodora;” but Warton was not a rash critic, and retained the sentence in the subsequent editions of his “Essay.”

Mr. Steevens having published a second edition of his Shakspeare, in 1778, Mr. Malone, in 1780, added two supplementary volumes, which contained some additional notes, Shakspeare’s poems, and seven plays which have been ascribed to him. There appears up to this time to have been no interruption to their friendship; but, on the contrary, Mr. Steevens, having formed a design of relinquishing all future editorial labours, most liberally made a present to Mr. Malone of his valuable collection of old plays, declaring that he himself was now become “a dowager commentator.” It is painful to think that this harmony should ever have been disturbed, or that any thing should have created any variance between two such men, who were so well qualified to co-operate for the benefit of the literary world. Mr. Matone, having continued his researches into all the topics which might serve to illustrate our great dramatist, discovered, that although much had been done, yet that much still remained for critical industry; and that a still more accurate collation of the early copies than had hitherto taken place was necessary towards a correct and faithful exhibition of the author’s text. His materials accumulated so fast, that he determined to appear before the world as an editor in form. From that moment he seems to have been regarded with jealousy by the elder commentator, who appears to have sought an opportunity for a rupture, which he soon afterwards found, or rather created. But it is necessary to go back for a moment, to point out another of Mr. Malone’s productions. There are few events in literary history more extraordinary in all its circumstances than the publication of the poems attributed to Rowley. Mr. Malone was firmly convinced that the whole was a fabrication by Chatterton; and, to support his opinion, published one of the earliest pamphlets which appeared in the course of this singular controversy. By exhibiting a series of specimens from early English writers, both prior and posterior to the period in which this supposed poet was represented to have lived, he proved that his style bore no resemblance to genuine antiquity; and by stripping Rowley of his antique garb, which was easily done by the substitution of modern synonymous words in the places of those obsolete expressions which are sprinkled throughout these compositions, and at the same time intermingling some archaeological phrases in the acknowledged productions of Chatterton, he clearly showed that they were all of the same character, and equally bore evident marks of modern versification, and a modern structure of language. He was followed by Mr. Warton and Mr. Tyrwhitt, in his second Appendix; and the controversy was soon at an end. While Mr. Malone was engaged in his Shakspeare, he received from Mr. Steevens a request of a most extraordinary nature. In a third edition of Johnson and Steevens’s Shakspeare, which had been published under the superintendance of Mr. Reed, in 1785, Mr. Malone had contributed some notes in which Mr. Steevens’s opinions were occasionally controverted. These he was now desired to retain in his new edition, exactly as they stood before, in order that Mr. S. might answer them. Mr. Malone replied, that he could make no such promise; that he must feel himself at liberty to correct his observations, where they were erroneous; to enlarge them, where they were defective; and even to expunge them altogether, where, upon further consideration, he was convinced they were wrong; in short, he was bound to present his work to the public as perfect as he could make it. But he added, that he was willing to transmit every note of that description in its last state to Mr. Steevens, before it went to press; that he might answer it if he pleased; and that Mr. Malone would even preclude himself from the privilege of replying. Mr. Steevens persisted in requiring that they should appear with all their imperfections on their head; and on this being refused, declared that all communication on the subject of Shakspeare was at an end between them. In 1790, Mr. Malone’s edition at last appeared and was sought after and read with the greatest avidity. It is unnecessary to point out its merits; the public opinion upon it iias been long pronounced. It cannot indeed be strictly said that it met with universal approbation. Mr. Ritson appeared against it in an angry and scurrilous pamphlet, replete with misrepresentations so gross, and so easy of detection, though calculated to mislead a careless reader, that Mr. Malone thought it worth his while to point them out in a letter which he published, addressed to his friend Dr. Farmer. Poor Ritson, however, has not been the only one who has attempted to persuade the world that they have been mistaken in Mr. Malone’s character as a critic. Mr. Home Tooke in particular, who, whatever were his talents as a grammarian, or his knowledge as an Anglo-Saxon, had by no means an extensive acquaintance with the literature of Shakspeare’s age, has mentioned Mr. Malone and Dr. Johnson with equal contempt, and immediately after proceeds to sneer at Mr. Tyrwhitt. It may readily be supposed that Mr. Malone would not feel very acutely the satire which associated him with such companions. But, to counterbalance these puny hostilities, his work gained the highest testimonies of applause from all who were best qualified to judge upon the subject, and from men whose approbation any one would be prpud to obtain. Dr. J. Warton, in a most friendly letter, which accompanied a curious volume of old English poetry which had belonged to his brother Thomas, and which he presented to Mr. Malone as the person for whom its former possessor felt the highest esteem and the most cordial regard, observes to him that his edition is by far, very far, the best that had ever appeared. Professor Person, who, as every one who knew him can testify, was by no means in the habit of bestowing hasty or thoughtless praise, declared to Mr. Malone’s biographer, that he considered the Essay on the three parts of Henry the Sixth as one of the most convincing pieces of criticism that he had ever read; nor was Mr. Burke less liberal in his praises.

, an ingenious and learned French Jesuit, who has written Latin poetry, was born in the diocese of Clermont, in 1581. He was one of the most ambitious imitators of Virgil; and wrote in the same measure, the same number of books, and in the three different kinds to which that illustrious poet applied himself. Thus we have of Mambrun, “Eclogues,” “Georgics, or four books upon the culture of the soul and the understanding;” and an heroic poem in twelve books, entitled “Constantine, or idolatry overthrown. We cannot, however, say that he has imitated the genius and judgment of Virgil as well as he has his exterior form and ceconomy. He is, indeed, allowed to have had great talents for poetry, and was a good critic, as he has sufficiently shewn in a Latin Peripatetic dissertation upon an epic poem; so that it is not without some foundation that Menage has called him” a great poet, as well as a great critic.“His” Peripatetic dissertation“was published at Paris, 1652, 4to; his” ConstantiYie,“at Amsterdam, 1659, in 12mo; his” Eclogues and Georgics," at Fleche, 1661, in 12mo; in which year also he died, aged eighty.

, a schoolmaster of considerable learning, but chiefly known as the antagonist of the celebrated Ruddiman, was born about the beginning of the last century, at Whitewreatb, in the parish of Elgin, and county of Murray, and was educated, first at the parish school of Longbride, and afterwards at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1721. He was afterwards appointed schoolmaster of the parish school of Touch, in the county of Aberdeen; and at length, in 1742, master of the poor’s hospital, in the city of Aberdeen. While in this station, his zeal for the character of the very celebrated Scotch historian and poet, Buchanan, led him to join the party of Scotch scholars, politicians, and writers, who were dissatisfied with Ruddiman’s edition of Buchanan’s worfcs, published in 1715, 2 vols. folio, and Jie determined himself to give a new edition more agreeable to the views he entertained of Buchanan as a historian, which, he being a staunch presbyterian, were of course adverse to Ruddiman’s well known sentiments. In the mean time he thought it necessary to show the errors and defects of Ruddiman’s edition, and accordingly published a work, the title of which will give the reader some idea of its contents: “A censure and examination of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s philological notes on the works of the great Buchanan, more particularly on the history of Scotland; in which also, most of the chronological and geographical, and many of the historical and political notes, are taken into consideration. In a letter to a friend. Necessary for restoring the true readings, the graces and beauties, and for understanding the true meaning of a vast number of passages of Buchanan’s writings, which have been so foully corrupted, so miserably defaced, so grossly perverted and misunderstood: Containing many curious particulars of his life, and a vindication of his character from many gross calumnies,” Aberdeen, 1751. This work, which extends to 574 pages small octavo, forms a very elaborate examination of Ruddiman’s edition, not only as referring to classical points, but matters of history, and is distinguished throughout by an unjustifiable contempt for Ruddiman’s knowledge and talents. Blameable as this was, and as his style generally is, he evidently proves that he was no mean verbal critic, and that his researches into the history of Buchanan and his works had been very extensive. With a better temper he might have proved an antagonist more worthy of Rnddiman’s serious attention. The latter, however, replied in 1754, in a pamphlet entitled “Anticrisis, or a Discussion of the scurrilous and malicious libel published by one James Man of Aberdeen,” 8vo, which was followed by “Audi alteram partem; or a further vindication of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s edition of the great Buchanan’s works,” 1756, 8vo. Both these contain an able vindication of the author; but the latter is particularly valuable, on account of the critical remarks Ruddiman offers on Burman’s philological notes on Buchanan.

The character of Aldus as a printer is so well known to every scholar, and to such only it can be interesting, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it here. But he may be considered also as an original benefactor to the literature of the age. He published a Latin grammar of his own composition; and in 1515, after his death, was published by his friend Marcus Musurus, a Greek grammar, which Aldus had compiled with great research and industry. He wrote likewise a treatise “de metris Horatianis,” which is reprinted in Dr. Combe’s edition of that poet. He produced a Greek dictionary, printed by himself, in folio, 1497, and reprinted by Francis D' Asola in 1524. He was likewise the author of many of the Latin translations of the classics, wrote many letters, some of which have been published, and for some years after he settled at Venice, gave a course of lectures on the best Greek and Roman authors, which was attended by a great number of students. Aldus, however, has not escaped the censures of criticism. Urceus Codrus, the learned professor of Bologna, complained, that he suffered many errors to escape uncorrected, in his editions of the Greek authors; that he sold his copies too dear; and printed them with an useless and unsuitable width of margin. Later critics have not been sparing of remarks somewhat similar. Krnesti, in his notes on the Letters of Pliny, blames Aldus for excessive boldness of conjectural criticism. In the preface to his Tacitus, the same critic remarks, that Aldus rarely made on the second and subsequent editions of the works he printed, any alterations but such as consisted in neglected errors of the press. It is indeed true, that the editions of Greek works printed by Aldus, are not always so correct as his Latin and Italian editions. But their defects are owing to the disadvantages of Aldus’s situation, much rather than to negligence, or inability in himself, as a printer and a man of letters. He had not always a sufficient number of manuscripts to collate: and sometimes he could not have the benefit of the judgment of a sufficient number of the learned upon the difficulties which occurred to him. After beginning to print any particular work, he often had not leisure to pause for a sufficient length of time, over the difficulties occurring in the progress of the edition. He might, in some instances, also, print a manuscript which he did not approve, lest it should otherwise have been lost to posterity.

, a learned German critic, was born at Arnheim, a town of Gueldres, in 1548. His father, who was a man of rank and learning, observing in him a more than ordinary inclination for books, took particular care of his education. He had him taught at home the elements of the Latin tongue, and then sent him to school at Deventer, where he learned the Greek under Noviomagus. Marcilius, having made a great progress in both languages, was removed thence to the university of Louvain, where he applied himself to philosophy and civil law; and, having finished his studies, went to Paris, and thence to Toulouse, where he taught polite literature many years. Returning to Paris, he taught rhetoric in 1578, in the college of Grassins, and afterwards read lectures in several other colleges successively. In 1602, he was made royal professor of the Latin tongue, and the belles lettres: and died March 15, 1617. Though he was not a critic of the first rank, yet he did not deserve the contemptuous treatment which Scaliger has given him. He published an edition in Greek and Latin of “Pythagoras’s Golden Verses,” at Paris, 1585, with commentaries, which John Albeit Fabricius has called learned; and notes upon many of the ancient authors, Persius, Horace, Martial, Catullus, Suetonius, Aulus Gellius, &c. which are to be found in several editions of their works. He was also the author of some Latin works, as, “Historia Strenarum,” 1596, 8vo “Lusu’s de Nemine,” &c. and some poems and orations.

Repeated attacks of the gout, and an accumulation of infirmities, at length put an end to Mr. Markland’s life, at Milton-court, July 7, 1776, in the eighty-third year of his age. His will was short. He bequeathed his books and papers to Dr. Heberden, and every thing else to Mrs. Martha Rose, the widow with whom he lived, and whom he made sole executrix, although he had a sister, Catherine, then living, and not in good circumstances. This is the more remarkable, as we find in his letters, expressions of affectionate anxiety for this sister; but he delayed making his will until the year before his death, when his memory and faculties were probably in some degree impaired. He had formerly entertained hopes of being able to make some acknowledgment to Christ’s-hospital for his education, and to Peterhouse, from which he had for so many years received the chief part of his maintenance; but, to use his own words, “as the providence of God saw fit that it should be otherwise, he was perfectly satisfied that it was better it should be as it was.” Immediately on his death, his friend Mr. Strode and Mr. Nichols went to Milton-court, to give directions for the funeral, which was performed, strictly agreeable to his own request, in the church of Dorking, where a brass plate commemorates his learning and virtues. Several of his books, with a few ms notes in them, after the death of Dr. Heberden, were sold to Mr. Payne; and some of them were purchased by Mr. Gough, and others are now in the possession of Dr. Burney, Mr. Heber, Mr. Hibbert, &c. c. Such are the outlines of the history of this excellent scholar and critic, concerning whom many additional particulars may be found in our authority. The most conspicuous trait in his character was his singular and unwearied industry. The scholar, who secludes himself from tlic world for the purposes of study, frequently abandons himself to desultory reading, or at least is occupied at intervals only, in deep and laborious research. This, however, was not the case with Markland. The years that successively rolled over his head, in the course of a long life, constantly found him engaged in his favourite pursuits, collating the classic authors of antiquity, or illustrating the book of Revelation. Of the truth of this remark, which we borrow from his amiable relative, his correspondence affords sufficient testimony; and the proofs which he there displays, even after he had passed his eighty-first year, of vigour and clearness of intellect, are perfectly astonishing. To this we may add what has recently been said of iMr. Markland, that “for modesty, candour, literary honesty, and courteousness to other scholars, he has been considered as the model which ought to be proposed for the imitation of every critic.” With exception to the opinions of Warburton and Hurd, which were concealed when they might have been answered, and published when they were not worth answering, his deep and extensive learning appears, from the concurrent testimony of his contemporaries and survivors, to have been at all times most justly appreciated; and a tribute, of great value, has lately been paid to his memory by Dr. Burney in tho preface to his “Tentamen de Metris ahæschylo in Choricis Cantibus adhibitis,” where he places him among the “magnanimi heroes” of the eighteenth century, Bentley, Dawes, Taylor, Toup, Tyrwhitt, and Porson.

He produced some writings; as, 1. “Observationes in Evangeliorum versiones perantiquas duas, Gothicas scilicet & Anglo-Saxonicas,” &c. Dordrecht, 1665. 2. “The Catechism set forth in the book of Common Prayer, briefly explained by short notes, grounded upon Holy Scripture/' Oxf. 1679. These short notes were drawn up by him at the desire of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to be used by the ministers of his diocese in catechising their children. 3.” An Epistle for the English reader, prefixed to Dr. Thomas Hyde’s translation into the Malayan language of the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles,“Oxf. 1677. 4. He took a great deal of pains in completing” The Life of Archbishop Usher,“published by Dr. Richard Parr, sometime fellow of Exeter college, Lond. 1686. Wood tells us,” that he was a person very well versed in books, a noted critic, especially in the Gothic and English-Saxon tongues, a painful preacher, a good man and governor, and one every way worthy of his station in the church; and that he Whs always taken to be an honest and conscientious puritan.“Dr. Hickes, in” The Life of Mr. John Kettlewell,“p. 3, styles him” a very eminent person in the learned world; and observes, that what he has published shewed him to be a great man.“Dr. Thomas Smith styles him also a most excellent man,” vir pra’stantissimus," and adds, that he was extremely well skilled in the Saxon, and in the Eastern tongues, especially the Coptic; and eminent for his strict piety, profound learning, and other valuable qualifications.

During some of these intervals he executed a very important task, which devolved on him in consequence of the death of his friend Gray. This justly-celebrated poet gratified him by a visit at Aston in 1770, and after his return to Pembroke-hall, was seized with the gout in his stomach, which proved suddenly fatal. Mason hastened to Cambridge to pay the last duties of friendship, but arrived too late for the funeral, which had been conducted by Dr. Brown, master of Pembroke-hall, who was appointed jointexecutor. To Mason, Gray left the sum of 500l. with all his books, manuscripts, musical instruments, medals, &c. and Mason undertook to write his life, and to publish such of his manuscripts as might appear to be worthy of his high character in the literary world. In his biography he chose to deviate from the usual plan, by adopting one which seemed to present more advantages. Objections have been made to it, because the biographer seldom appears either as the narrator or the critic, but it must be allowed that the whole is rendered more interesting, and that the attention of the reader being constantly fixed on the principal character, he is enabled to form a more impartial opinion than if he had perused no evidence but the assertions of the biographer. The plan has since been followed in the cases of Johnson, Cowper, sir William Jones, Mrs. Carter, and Dr. Beattie and where lives of equal importance to literary curiosity are to be recorded, which cannot be often, it appears to be not only the most engaging species of minute biography, but also the most impartial.

in these last capacities an acute critic, music of all its ornaments, as Jack

Mr. Mason’s life appears to have been principally devoted to the duties of his profession, occasionally relieved by the cultivation of the fine arts. His associates, at least in the latter part of his life, were few. He had the misfortune to survive the greater number whose friendship he had cultivated in his early years, and he was not ambitious *t>f new connections. This brought on him the imputation of that pride, or distance of manner, which is ascribed to men of unsocial habits. But Mason’s heart was not inaccessible, and his friendships were inviolable. The simplicity, hdwever, attributed to him in his young days by Gray, and the patience with which lord Orford informs us, he heard his faults, did not accompany him through life. On the publication of Gray’s life, he was ready to allow that “twenty-five years had made a very considerable abatement in his general philanthropy” and by philanthropy he seems here to mean a diffidence of opinion on matters of literature, and an -unwillingness to censure acknowledged merit. It can have no reference to philanthropy in the more general acceptation of the word, for he was to the last, liberal, humane, and chai-itaWe. What it really means, indeed, we find in the work just alluded to. The contemptuous notice of Waterland, Akenside, and Shenstone, which he did not suppress in Gray, he employed himself with more harshness whenever he could find an opportunity to attack the writings of Dr. Johnson. The opinion this great critic pronounced on Gray may be probably, quoted as the provocation, and great allowance is to be made for the warmth and zeal with which he guards the memory of his departed friend. But surely one of his notes on Gray’s Letters may be here fairly quoted against him. “Had Mr. Pope disregarded the sarcasms of the many writers that endeavoured to eclipse his poetical fame, as much as Mr. Gray appears to have done, the world would not have been possessed of a Dunciad; but it would have been impressed with a more amiable idea of its author’s temper.” Nor was his prosecution of Murray, for taking about fifty lines from his works of Gray into an edition which that bookseller published, much to the credit of his liberality, especially as he refused to drop the prosecution, when requested to name his own terms of compensation. Such httlenesses are to be regretted in a maa who was the friend of genius and literature, whose circumstances placed him far above want, and whose regular discharge of the duties of piety and humanity bespoke an ambition for higher enjoyments than fame and wealth caa yield. Of his regard for sacred truth, and the respect due to it, he exhibited a proof in a letter to lord Orford on his lordship’s childish epitaph on two piping bullfinches, to which he received an answer that was probably not very satisfactory.

Mason’s correctness is almost proverbial, and his ambition undoubtedly was to be equally correct and elegant: yet his style must often lead the reader to question his judgment, and to wonder that he could not see what every one else saw. That a man with so many endowments as a scholar, a critic, and an admirer of the simplicity of the ancients, should have fallen so frequently into a style ornamented with a finical profuseness, would be sufficiently remarkable, if his decorations had readily presented themselves; but, when we see him so frequently pausing for an epithet that incumbers what it cannot illustrate, when we see him more attentive to novelty than strength of imagery, and above all, taxing his memory to produce repeated alliterations, we are forced to conclude that judgment is not always consistent, or that in some men it occasionally exists independent of true taste. With these exceptions, however, few indeed of the modern poets in our collections deserve a higher rank than Mason, as a lyric and descriptive poet, nor has he given any finished piece to the world from which examples of excellence may not be quoted.

, a counsellor in the parliament of Toulouse, where he was born in 1580, and afterwards president of the court of aids at Montpelier, died in 165O, at the age of seventy, with the reputation of being one of the best Greek scholars of his time. We have by him some notes on Harpocration, Paris, 1614, 4to. 2. Some remarks on a treatise on mountains and rivers, attributed to Plutarch. 3. And some “Opuscula,” which display him in the light of a judicious critic.

, an English critic, was born in Staffordshire in 1697, and was educated at Mertoncollege in Oxford, of which he became a fellow. In 1732, hepublished notes on Milton’s Paradise Regained, and in the following year was promoted to a canonry in the church of Worcester. He was author of several small tracts, containing critical remarks on the English poets; and his notes were not neglected by the late bishop Newton, in publishing his edition of Milton He was greatly esteemed by the learned in general, and died at Worcester in 1769, aged 72. Dr. Newton thus speaks of him in his preface to the Paradise Regained. After enumerating the assistance given by friends, he adds, “I had the honour of all these for my associates and assistants before, but I have been farther strengthened by some new recruits, which were the more unexpected, as they were sent me by gentlemen with whom. I never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance. The Rev. Mr. Meado-vcourt, canon of Worcester, in 1732 published a critical dissertation, with notes, upon the Paradise Regained, a second edition of which was published in 1748; and he likewise transmitted to me a sheet of his manuscript remarks, wherein he hath happily explained a most duficult passage in Lycidas, better than any man had done before him” The passage alluded to is the 160th line of that poem, in which Mr Mtad.nvcourt explained the words “Bellerus,” and “Bayonu’s hold.” He was author also of eleven printed sermons, which are enumerated in Cooke’s Preacher’s Assistant.

, a German writer on philosophical subjects, was born in 1718, at Ammendorff, near Halie in Saxony. He appeared first as an author in 1745, when he published, in German, 1. His “Representation of a Critic,” being his delineation of the character of a perfect critic. In the same year he produced, 2. “Instructions how any one may become a Modern Philosopher,” 8vo. We have a translation in this country, called “The Merry Philosopher, or Thoughts on Jesting,” published in 1764, from the German of Meier, but whether a translation of the last- mentioned work, we know not. It is a very dull performance. Whatever merit might belong to his works on philosophical and critical subjects, they were peculiarly his own, for he was not master of the learned languages. Yet his work on the elements of all the polite arts, was received by his countrymen with no inconsiderable approbation. It is entitled, 3. “Introduction to the elegant arts and sciences;” and was printed at Halle, in 8vo, 1748—1750; and republished, in three parts, in 1754—1759. J. Matthew Gesner, however, in his “Isagoge,” is frequently severe against this, author, and particularly derides his form of Æsthetics, which had been much applauded. Meier died in 1777.

We are told, by his biographer Fabroni, that being not a little in awe of the satirical talents of that writer, he had cultivated his kindness with no little anxiety; and thus, it may be supposed, obtained this compliment. He was now appointed by the pope, canon of St. Angelo in Piscina; and continued to publish several works, in Latin as well as in Italian as, “Orationes de morum, philosophise, humanarumque literarum studiis, et de Leonis X. P. M. laudtbus.” But his Latin compositions did not so well satisfy the learned as those he produced in his own language; and their criticisms led him to write and publish a tract, “De poesis innocentia, et de literatorum hominum invidia.” This, however, was prior to the present period, as it bears date in 1675. He published now a poetical version of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in Italian, which was so much approved by pope Clement XI. that he ordered it to be distributed to the cardinals in passion-week. Menzini was admitted a member *of the society of Arcadi, under the name of Euganius, under which we have seen him mentioned by the satirist: and being also admitted of the academy Delia Crusca, he was very anxious to have his verses cited in their dictionary, as authority. In this he could not prevail, except after a time for his satires, in which he had revived some classical Italian expressions then growing obsolete. In 1731, however, long after his death, and in the fourth edition of that vocabulary, all his Italian works were admitted, as affording classical citations. Towards the end of life he became dropsical, and died at the age of fifty-eight, in 1704. He left the fortune of a poet, his works only, which he bequeathed to a friend and they were in 1730 1734, published collectively, in 4 vols. 8vo, the contents of which are recited by Fabroni. An edition of his “Art of Poetry” has lately been published by Mr. Mathias, perhaps the most accomplished Italian scholar and critic in this kingdom. His satires were published with Salvini’s notes, in 1759, 8vo, and with those of Rinaldo Maria Bracci, at Naples in 1763, 4to.

, or Mercerus, a celebrated philologer, uas a native of Usez in Languedoc. He was bred to. the study of jurisprudence, which he quitted for that of the learned languages, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Chaldee; and in 1549, succeeded Vatablus in the professorship of Hebrew in the royal college at Paris. Being obliged to quit the kingdom during the civil wars, he retired to Venice, where his friend Arnoul du Ferrier resided as French ambassador; but returned with him afterwards to France, and died at Usez, his native place, in 1572. He was a little man, worn by excess of application, but with a voice which he could easily make audible to a large auditory. His literature was immense, and among the proofs of it are the following works: 1. “Lectures on Genesis, and the Prophets,” Geneva, 1598, folio. 2. “Commentaries on Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles,” 1573, 2 vols. folio, which have been much esteemed. 3. “Tables of the Chaldee Grammar,” Paris, 1550, 4to. These are all written in Latin. He was considered as inclined to Calvinism. His son Josiah Le Mercier, an able critic, who died December 5, 1626, published an excellent edition of “Nonnius Marcellus;” notes on Aristae ­netus, Tacitus, DictysCretensis, and Apuleius’s book “De Deo Socratis,” and an “Eulogy,” on Peter Pithon; some of his letters are in Goldast’s collection. Salmasius was his son-in-law.

Thus lived Metastasio. Always employed in writing, sometimes by imperial, sometimes by regal command: always anxious about the merit of his productions, and always composing such as ought to have removed all anxiety. He died, after a short illness, on the 12th of April, 1782, being just eighty-four. Farinelli, aletterto whom, from mademoiselle Martinetz, gives the most exact account of his death, lived only to September of the same year. Metastasio was interred in the parish church of St. Michael, in Vienna. His funeral rites were performed with splendor by signior Joseph Martinetz, whom he had made his heir. The inheritance he left, “consisted in a well furnished habitation, a coach, horses, a great quantity of princely presents, a very ample and select collection of books, with a capital of 130,000 florins; from, which, however, were to be deducted twenty thousand for each of Metastasio’s sisters, and three thousand for each of his younger brothers.” The circumstances of his life are chiefly preserved by means of his letters, a large collection of which has been published; and they are used by his English biographer for amplifying the narrative. His correspondents are among the most extraordinary men of his time, and, in all points of view, his character was respectable, and indeed amiable. His life has frequently been written, and his works appear united in editions published in several parts of Europe. He was an enemy to that pompous, verbose, and obscure style which prevailed in his country a few years ago; and he was persuaded that the first duty of a writer, in prose or verse, is to be understood. “The style of Metastasio,” says an Italian critic, “never fails to please those who give way to their own feelings, more than persons of profound meditation; and I would rather be accused of partiality to him whom I venerate and love, than ranked with cold philosophers and deep thinkers, whom I may respect but cannot love.” He regarded “Atilio Regolo,” as his best opera; “Betnlia liberata,” as his best oratorio; and “Artaserse,” as the most fortunate of his dramas; for, however set or sung, it was always successful. To give a list of his works, as they are always found collectively, would be superfluous. Dr. Burney has given one that is very ample, and arranged in chronological order, with the character and peculiarities of each. Hence it appears, that he produced twenty- six operas, eight oratorios, or sacred dramas, besides occasional pieces, such as we should call masques, in great numbers; with cantatas, canzonets, sonnets, and every kind of miscellaneous poetry. He wrote also, some translations from classics; an excellent analysis of Aristotle’s poetics, entitled “Estrato delP Arte Poetica d'Aristotile, et consideration! sur la medesima;” with short accounts of all the Greek dramas, tragic and comic, and his own critical remarks. Few authors have been more prolific, and none, perhaps, so completely successful in every effort of the mind. It is a pleasing reflection that Metastasio was always as much beloved for his amiable qualities, as admired for those by which he was constituted a poer, and one of the most enchanting of all poets. Perfectly master of the resources of his art, he reduced the opera to rules. He banished from it machines, and other improbabilities, which amuse the eye without affecting the heart; substitnting natural situations of interesting personages, which often produce the full effect of tragedy. His actions are great, his characters well conceived and supported, and his plots conducted with address. There are scenes of Metastasio’s, says Voltaire, worthy of Corneille when he avoids declamation, or of Racine when he is not languid. Never, therefore, was patronage better bestowed than that of Gravina; and though such talents could not have been hidden, their early maturity and final perfection must be in a great part attributed to the culture and attentions of that able master.

, a celebrated biblical critic, and professor of divinity and the oriental languages, was born at Halle, in Lower Saxony, in 1717. His first education was private, but in 1729 he was sent to the public school of the orphan-house, where he studied diviniiy and philosophy, and at the same time he occasionally attended the lectures of his father, who was professor of divinity and the oriental languages. During the latter part of his time at school, he acquired a great facility in speaking Latin, and in thinking systematically, from the practice of disputation, in which one of the masters frequently exercised him. In 1733, he entered into the university of Halle, where he applied himself to the study of mathematics, metaphysics, theology, and the oriental languages. He also prepared himself for pulpit services, and preached with great approbation at Halle and other places. In 1739 he took a degree in philosophy, and soon after was appointed assistant lecturer under his father, having shewn how well qualified he was for that situation, by publishing a small treatise “De Antiquitate Punctorum Vocalium.” In 1741 he left his own country with a view of visiting England, and passing through Holland, became acquainted with the celebrated Schultens, from whom he received many marks of the most friendly attention. Upon his arrival in England, he engaged to officiate for the German, chaplain to the court, who was at that time in an infirm state of health, and continued to preach at the palace-chapel nearly a year and a half. During this period he visited the university of Oxford, greatly increased his knowledge of the oriental languages, and formed an intimacy with some of the first literary characters of that age, particularly with Dr. Lowth, afterwards bishop of London, on some of whose lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum” he attended. Upon his return to Halle, he resumed his labours as assistant to his father, and delivered lectures on the historical books of the Old Testament, the Syriac and Chaldee languages, and also upon natural history, and the Roman classics; but seeing no prospect of a fixed establishment, he left Halle in 1745, and went to Gottingen, in the capacity of private tutor. In the following year he was made professor extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Gottingen, and, in 1750, professor in ordinary in the same faculty. In 1751 he was appointed secretary to the newly instituted Royal Society of Gottingen, of which he afterwards became director, and about the same time was made aulic counsellor by the court of Hanover. During 1750, he gained the prize in the Royal Academy of Berlin, by a memoir “On the Influence of Opinions on Language, and Language on Opinions.” While the seven years’ war lasted, Michaelis met with but little interruption in his studies, being exempted,in common with the other professors, from military employment; and when the new regulations introduced by the French in 1760, deprived them of that privilege, by the command of marshal Broglio it was particularly extended to M. Michaelis. Soon after this, he obtained from Paris, by means of the marquis de Lostange, the manuscript of Abulfeda’s geography, from, which he afterwards edited his account of the Egyptians; and by the influence of the same nobleman, he was chosen correspondent of the “Academy of Inscriptions at Paris,” in 1764, and elected one of the eight foreign members of that institution. In 1760, the professor gave great offence to the orthodox clergy, by publishing his “Compendium of dogmatic Theology,” consisting of doctrinal lectures which he had delivered by special licence from the government. Shortly after this, Michaelis shewed his zeal for the interests of science and literature, by the part which he took in the project of sending a mission of learned men into Egypt and Arabia, for the purpose of obtaining such information concerning the actual state of those countries, as might serve to throw light on geography, natural history, philology, and biblical learning. He first conceived the idea of such a mission, which he communicated by letter to the privy counsellor Bernstorf, who laid it before his sovereign Frederic V. king of Denmark. That sovereign was so well satisfied of the benefits which might result from the undertaking, that he determined to support theexpence of it, and he even committed to Michaelis the management of the design, together with the nomination of proper travellers, and the care of drawing up their instructions. Upow the death of Gesner in 1761, Michaelis succeeded in the office of librarian to the Royal Society, which he held about a year, and was then nominated to the place of director, with the salary for life of the post, which he then resigned. Two years afterwards he was invited by the king of Prussia to remove to Berlin, but his attachment to Gottingen led him to decline the advantages which were held out to him as resulting from the change. In 1766 he was visited at Gottingen by sir John Pringle, whom he had known in England, and Dr. Franklin. With the first he afterwards corresponded on the subject of the leprosy, spoken of in the books of Moses, and on that of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. The latter subject was disscussed in the letters which passed between them during 1771, and was particularly examined by the professor. This correspondence was printed by sir John Pringle in 1773, under the title of “Joan. Dav. Michaelis de Epistolse, &c. LXX. Hebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joan. Pringle, Baronettum; primo privatim missse, nunc vero utriusque consensu publice editae.” In 1770, some differences having arisen between Michaelis and his colleagues in the Royal Society, he resigned his directorship. In 1775 his well-established reputation had so far removed the prejudices which had formerly been conceived against him in Sweden, that the count Hbpkin, who some years before had prohibited the use of his writings at Upsal, now prevailed upon the king to confer upon him the order of the polar star. He was accordingly decorated with the ensignia of that order, on which occasion he chose as a motto to his arms, “libera veritas.” In 1782 his health began to decline, which he never completely recovered; in 1786 he was raised to the rank of privy counsellor of justice by the court of Hanover; in the following year the academy of inscriptions at Paris elected him a foreign member of that body; and in 178S he received his last literary honour by being elected a member of the Royal Society of London. He continued his exertions almost to the very close of life, and a few weeks before his death, he shewed a friend several sheets in ms. of annotations which he had lately written on the New Testament. He died on the 22d of August, 1791, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. He was a man of very extensive and profound erudition, as well as of extraordinary talents, which were not less brilliant than solid, as is evident from the honours which were paid to his merits, and the testimony of his acquaintance and contemporaries. His application and industry were unwearied, and his perseverance in such pursuits as he conceived would prove useful to the world, terminated only with the declension of his powers. His writings are distinguished not only by various and solid learning, but by a profusion of ideas, extent of knowledge, brilliancy of expression, and a frequent vein of pleasantry. In the latter part of his life he was regarded not only as a literary character, but as a man of business, and was employed in affairs of considerable importance by the courts of England, Denmark, and Prussia. His works are very numerous, and chiefly upon the subjects of divinity and oriental languages. A part of them are written in Latin, but by far the greater number in German. Of the Conner class there are these 1. “Commentatio de Battologia, ad Matth. vi. 7.” Bremen, 1753, 4to. 2. “Paralipomena contra Polygamiam,” ibid. 1758, 4to. 3. “Syntagma commentationum,” Goett. 1759 1767, 4to. 4. “Curse in versionem Syriacam Actuurn Apostolorum,” Goett, 1755, 4to. 5. “Compendium Theologize dogmatics?,” ib. 1760, 8 vo. 6. “Commentationes resize soc. Scientiarum Goettingerrsis, per annos 1758 1762,” Bremen, 1775, 4to. 7. “Vol. II. Ejusdem, 1769.” 8. “Spicilegium Geographies Hebrseorum exterae, post Bochartum,” Goett. 1769 1780, 2 torn. 4to. 9. “Grammatica Chaldaica,” ib. 1771, 8vo. 10. “Supplementa ad Lexicon Hebraicum,” 1784 1792, 6 torn. 4to. 11. “Grammatica Syriaca,” Halae, 1784, 4to. The following are in German: 12. “Hebrew Grammar,” Halle, 1778, 8vo.13. “Elements of Hebrew accentuation,” ib. 1741, 8vo. 14. “Treatise on the Law of Marriage, according to Moses,” Goett. 1768, 4to. 15. “Paraphrase and Remarks on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus, Timothy, and Philemon,” Bremen, 1769, 4to. 16. “Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,” Bremen, 1750, 8vo. 17. “Prophetical plan of the preacher Solomon,” ib. 1762, 8vo.18. “Thoughts on the Doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin,” Hamb. 1752, 8vo. 19. “Plan of typical Divinity,” Brem. 1763, 8vo. 20. “Criticism of the means employed to understand the Hebrew language.” 21. “Critical Lectures on the principal Psalms which treat of Christ,” Frankf. 1759, 8vo. 22. “Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Frankf. 1784, 2 vols. 4to, 2$. “Questions proposed to a society of learned Men, who went to Arabia by order of the king of Denmark,” ib. 1762, 8vo. 24. “Introduction to the New Testament,' 7 a second edition, Goett. 1788, 2 vols. 4to. 25.” Miscellaneous Writings,“two parts, Frankf. 1766 8, 8vo. 26.” Programma concerning the seventy-two translators,“Goett. 1767, 8vo. 27.” Dissertation on the Syriac language, and its use,“Goett. 1768, 8vo. 28.” Strictures concerning the Protestant Universities in Germany,“Frankf. 1775, 8vo. 29.” Translation of the Old Testament,“Goett. 1769 83, 13 parts. 30.” Fundamental Interpretation of the Mosaic Law,“Frankf. 1770-5, 6 parts, with additions, 8vo. 31.” Of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,“Goett. 1772, 8vo. 32.” Arabic Grammar and Chrestomathy,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 33.” Oriental and exegetical Library,“Frankf. 1771—89, 24 parts, and two supplements, 8vo. 34.” New Oriental and exegetical Library,“Goett. 1786 91, 9 parts. 35.” Of the Taste of the Arabians in their Writings,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 36.” Dissertation on the Syriac Language and its uses, together with a Chrestomathy,“ib. 1786, 8vo. 37.” On the Duty of Men to speak Truth,“Kiel, 1773, 8vo. 38.” Commentary on the Maccabees,“Frankfort, 1777, 4to. 39.” History of Horses, and of the breeding of Horses in Palestine,“&c. ib. 1776, 8vo. 40.” Thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin and Satisfaction,“Bremen, 1779, 8vo. 41.” Illustration of the History of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ,“Halle, 1783, 8vo. 42.” Supplement, or the fifth Fragment of Lessing’s Collections,“Halle, 1785, 8vo. 43.” German Dogmatic Divinity,“Goett. 1784, 8vo. 44.” Introduction to the Writings of the Old Testament,“Hamb. 1787, 1st vol. 1st part, 4to: 45.” Translation of the Old Testament, without remarks,“Goett. 1789, 2 vols. 4to. 46.” Translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790, 2 vols. 4to 47.” Remarks for the unlearned, relative to his translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790 92, 4 parts, 4to. 48.” Additions to the third edition of the Introduction to the New Testament,“ibid. 1789, 4to. 49.” Ethics," a posthumous work, published by C. F. Steudlin, Goett. 1792, 2 parts, 8vo.

Of those with which the English scholar has been brought acquainted, one of the principal is the “Introduction to the New Testament,” translated into English from the first edition, and published in 1761, in a quarto volume. In 1788, the fourth edition was published in two volumes quarto. The object of this work, which is purely critical and historical, is to explain the Greek Testament, with the same impartiality, and the same unbiassed love of truth, with which a critic in profane literature would examine the writings of Homer, Virgil, &c. The first volume contains an examination of the authenticity, inspiration, and language of the New Testament. The second volume contains a particular introduction to each individual book of the New Testament. An English translation of it has been published by the rev. Herbert Marsh, in six volumes, royal 8vo. To this we may add another very important translation of his “Mosaisches Recht,” or “Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,” by Alexander Smith, D. D. minister of the Chapel of Garioch, Aberdeenshire, 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. This, says the learned translator, has always been esteemed the chef d* cewvre of Michaelis, but although a work of very great importance, demands the application of somewhat of that precautionary chastening, which Dr. Marsh has so judiciously applied in the “Introduction to the New Testament.” From Dr. Smith, also, the public have reason to expect a memoir of the life and writings of Michaelis, more ample than has yet appeared in this country.

Among other schemes w hich he hoped might eventually succeed in relieving his embarrassments, he appears to have now had some intentions of going to Jamaica, but in what capacity, or with what prospects, he perhaps did not himself know. There was, however, no immediate plan soeabily practicable, by which he could expect at some distant period to satisfy his creditors, and the consciousness of this most painful of all obligations was felt by him in a manner which can be conceived only by minds of the nicest honour and most scrupulous integrity. While in this perplexity, he was cheered by a letter from lord Lyttelton, in which his lordship assured him that he thought his genius in poetry deserved to be cultivated, but would not advise the republication of his poem without considerable alterations. He declined the offer of a dedication, as a tiling likely to be of no use to the poet, “as nobody minded dedications;” but suggested that it might be of some use if he were to come and read the poem with his lordship, when they might discourse together upon what he thought its beauties and faults. In the mean time he exhorted Mickle to endeavour to acquire greater harmony of versification; and to take care that his diction did not loiter into prose ^ or become hard by new phrases, or words unauthorized by the usage of good authors. In answer to this condescending and friendly letter, Mickle informed his lordship of his real name, and inclosed the elegy of “Pollio” for his lordship’s advice. This was followed by another kind letter from lord Lyttelton, in which he gave his opinion, that the correction of a few lines would make it as perfect as any thing of that kind in our language, and promised to point out its faults when he had the pleasure of seeing the author. An interview accordingly took place in the month of February 1764, when his lordship, after receiving him with the utmost politeness and affability, begged him not to be discouraged at such difficulties as a young author must naturally expect, but to cultivate his very promising poetical powers; and, with his usual condescension, added, that he would become his schoolmaster. Other interviews followed this very flattering introduction, at which Mickle read with him the poem on “Providence,” and communicated his plan for treating more fully a subject of so much intricacy, intimating that he had found it necessary to discard the philosophy of Pope’s ethics. But, as in order to render his talents as soon productive as possible, he had now a wish to publish a volume of poems, he sent to his noble friend that on “Providence,” “Pollio,” and an “Elegy on Mary Queen of Scots.” This produced a long letter from his lordship, in which after much praise of the two former, he declined criticising any part of the elegy on Mary, because he wholly disapproved of the subject. He added, with justice, that poetry should not consecrate what history must condemn; and in the view his lordship had taken of the history of Mary, he thought her entitled to pity, but not to praise. In this opinion Mickle acquiesced, from convenience, if not from conviction, and again sent his lordship a copy of “Providence,” with further improvements, hoping probably that they might be the last; but he had the mortification to receive it back from the noble critic so much marked and blotted, that he began to despair of completing it to his satisfaction. He remitted, therefore, a new performance, the “Ode on May Day,” begging his lordship’s opimion “if it could be made proper to appear this spring (1765) along with the one already approved.”

Whether any answer was returned to this application, we are not told. It is certain no volume of poems appeared, and our author began to feel how difficult it would be to justify such tardy proceedings to those who expected that he should do something to provide for himself. He had now been nearly two years in London, without any other subsistence than what he received from his brothers, or procured by contributing to some of the periodical publications, particularly the British and St. James’s Magazines. All this was scanty and precarious, and his hopes of greater advantages from his poetical efforts were considerably damped by the fastidious opinions of the noble critic who had voluntarily undertaken to be his tutor. It now occurred to Mickle to try whether his lordship might not serve him more essentially as a patron; and having still some intention of going to Jamaica, he took the liberty to request his lordship’s recommendation to his brother William Henry Lyttelton, esq. who was then governor of that island. This produced an interview, in which lord Lyttelton intimated that a recommendation to his brother would be of no real use, as the governor’s patronage was generally bespoke long before vacancies take place; he promised, however, to recommend Mickle to the merchants, and to one of them then in London, whom he expected to see very soon. He also hinted that a clerkship at home would be desireable, as England was the place for Mickle, but repressed all hopes from this scheme, by adding, that as he (lord Lyttelton) was in opposition, he could ask no favours. He then mentioned the East Indies, as a place where perhaps he could be of service; and after much conversation on these various schemes, concluded with a promise, which probably appeared to his client as a kind of anti-climax, that he would aid the sale of his “Odes” with his good opinion when they should be published.

Soon after the publication of the “Lusiad,” he returned to London, and was advised by some who probably in this instance consulted his fame less than his immediate interest, to write a tragedy, The story of his tragedy, which was entitled “The Siege of Marseilles,” was taken from the French history in the reign of Francis I. When completed, his friends recommended it to Garrick, wbo allowed its general merit, but complained of the want of stage effect, and recommended him to take the advice of Dr. Warton. This able critic was accordingly called in, with his brother Thomas, and with Home the author of “Douglas.” In compliance with their opinion, Mickle made great alterations, and Thomas Warton earnestly recommended the tragedy to Garrick, but in vain; and Mickle, his biographers inform us, was so incensed at this, that he resolved to appeal to the judgment of the public by printing it.

Although there is no species of poetry of which he had not afforded favourable specimens, and many striking images and animated descriptions are discoverable in his original pieces, and while we allow that his imagination is considerably fertile, his language copious, and his versification rich and various, yet it cannot be denied that there are too- many marks of imitation in all his lesser poems, and that his fame must rest principally, where it is more than probable he intended it should, on his translation of the Lusiad. This work, which is now rising in reputation, is inferior only to Pope’s Iliad, according to the general opinion, which perhaps may be controverted. Pope has given an English poem of unquestionable beauty, but, we may say with Bentley, it is not Homer. Mickle has not only transfused the spirit, but has raised the character of his original. By preserving the energy, elegance, and fire of Camoens, he has given an “English Lusiad,” a work which, although confessedly borrowed from the Portuguese, Has all the appearance of having been invented- in the language in which we find it. In executing this, indeed, it must be confessed that Mickle has taken more liberties with his original than the laws of translation will allow; but they are of a kind not usually taken by translators, for he has often introduced beauties of his own equal to any that come from the pen of Camoens. In acknowledging that he has taken such freedoms, however, he has not specified the individual passages; a neglect for which some have praised his humility, and others have blamed his injustice. But with this exception, he has successfully executed what he purposed, not only to make Camoens be understood and relished, but “to give a poem that might live in the English language.” Nor ought it to be omitted in this general character of the Lusiad, that in his preliminary dissertations, he has distinguished himself as a scholar, a critic, and a historian.

In 1662 he resided in Jewin-street, and from this he removed to a small house in the Artillery-walk, adjoining Bunhill-fields, where he continued during the remaining part of his life. While living in Jewin-street, he married his third wife, Elizabeth Minshull, the daughter of a gentleman of Cheshire. He was now employed on “Paradise Lost,” to which alone, of all his works, he owes his fame. Whence he drew the original design has been variously conjectured, but nothing very satisfactory has been produced. It was at a very early period that he meditated an epic poem, but then thought of taking his subject from the heroic part of English history. At length “after long choosing, and beginning late,” he fixed upon “Paradise Lost:” a design so comprehensive, that it could, says Dr. Johnson, be justified only by success. We may refer to that eminent critic, and his other biographers, for a regular examination of the beauties and detects of this immortal poem, as well as for many particulars relative to the times and mode in which he composed. These it would have been delightful to trace, had our information been as accurate as it is various; but, unhappily, every step in Milton’s progress has been made the subject of angry controversy, and they who can take any pleasure in the effusions of critical irritation, may be amply gratified in the more recent lives of Milton.

, an ingenious and learned Frenchman, and one of the best writers of his time, was born at Paris in 1674. At sixteen he entered into the congregation of the fathers of the oratory, and was afterwards sent to Mans to learn philosophy. That of Aristotle then obtained in the schools, and was the only one which was permitted to be taught; nevertheless Mongault, with some of that original spirit which usually distinguishes men of uncommon abilities from the vulgar, ventured, in a public thesis, which he read at the end of the course of lectures, to oppose the opinions of Aristotle, and to maintain those of Des Cartes. Having studied theology with the same success, he quitted the oratory in 1699; and soon after went to Thoulouse, and lived with Colbert, archbishop of that place, who had procured him a priory in 1698. In 1710 the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, committed to him the education of his son, the duke of Chartres; which important office he discharged so well that he acquired universal esteem. In 1714, he had the abbey Chartreuve given him, and that of Vilieneuve in 1719. The duke of Chartres, becoming colonel-general of the French infantry, chose the abbe* Mongault to fill the place of secretary-general made him also secretary of the province of Dauphiny and, after the death of the regent, his father, raised him to other considerable employments. All this while he was as assiduous as his engagements would permit in cultivating polite literature; and, in 1714, published at Paris;, in 6 vols. 12mo, an edition of “Tully’s Letters to Atticus,” with an excellent French translation, and judicious comment upon them. This work has been often reprinted, and is justly reckoned admirable; for, as Middleton has observed, in the preface to his “Life of Cicero,” the abbe Mongault “did not content himself with the retailing the remarks of other commentators, or out of the rubbish of their volumes with selecting the best, but entered upon his task with the spirit of a true critic, and, by the force of his own genius, has happily illustrated many passages which all the interpreters before him had given tip as inexplicable.” He published also a very good translation of “Herodian,” from the Greek, the best edition of which is that of 1745, in 12mo. He died at Paris, Aug. 15, 1746, aged almost seventy-two.

But poetry was not la Monnoye’s only province: to a perfect skill in poetry, he joined a very accurate and extensive knowledge of the languages. He was also an acute critic: and no man applied himself with greater assiduity to the study of history, ancient and modern. He was perfectly acquainted with all the scarce books, that had anything curious in them, and was well versed in literary history. He wrote “Remarks on the Menagiana:” in the last edition of which, printed in 1715, in 4 vols. 12mo, are included several pieces of his poetry, and a curious dissertation on the famous book “De tribus Impostoribus.” His “Dissertation on Pomponius Laetus,” at least an extract of it, is inserted in the new edition of Baillet’s “Jugemens des Sgavans,” published in 1722, with a great nnmber of remarks and corrections by la Monnoye. He also embellished the “Anti-Baillet of Menage;” with corrections and notes. He was a great benefactor to literature, by his own productions, and the assistance which he communicatd very freely, upon all occasions, to other authors. Among others, he favoured Bayle with a great number of curious particulars for his “Dictionary,” which was liberally acknowledged. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1728, in his 88th year. Mr. de Sallingre published at the Hague “A Collection of Poems by la Monnoye,” with his eulogium, to which we owe many of the particulars given above. He also left behind him “A Collection of Letters,” mostly critical several curious “Dissertations” three hundred “Select Epigrams from Martial, and other Poets-, ancient and modern, in French verse;” and several other works in prose and verse, in French, Latin, and Greek, ready for the press. A collection of his works in 3 vols. 8vo, was published in 1769. He deserved that the French academy should admit into their list a person on whom they had so often bestowed their laurels, and he might, doubtless, have obtained that honour sooner, had he sued for it: but, as he declined sueh solicitation, he was not elected till 1713, on the death of abbe Regner des Marias. He married Claude Henriot, whom he survived, after living many years with her in the strictest amity; as appears from a copy of his verses, and also from the epitaph he wrote for himself and his wife. He had accumulated a very curious and valuable library, but was obliged, by the failure of the Missisippi scheme, to propose selling it, in order to support his family. This the duke de Villeroi hearing, settled an annual pension of 6000 livres upon him; for which he expressed his gratitude, in a poem addressed to that nobleman. It is said, however, that the duke did it only upon condition, that himself should inherit the library after the death of la Monnoye, who accepted the terms.

lord Halifax as Bufo occurs in the Pope, with a ludicrous anecdote re­“Prologue to the Satires,” and yet in specting Halifax’s talents as a critic.

highly of him, but they had not at that dinners.“time fallen out. The cause of their ”To charge all unmerited praise with the guilt of flattery, and to suppose that the encomiast always knows and feels the falsehoods of his assertions, is surely to discover great ignorance of human nature and human life. In determinations depending not on rules, but on experience and comparison, judgment is always in some degree subject to affection. Very near to admiration is the wish to admire. Every man willingly gives value to the praise which he receives, and considers the sentence passed in his favour as the sentence of discernment. We admire in a friend that understanding which selected us for confidence; we admire more, in a patron, that judgment which, instead of scattering bounty indiscriminately, directed it to us; and, if the patron be an author, those performances which gratitude forbids us to blame, affection will easily dispose us to exalt. To these prejudices, hardly culpable, interest adds a power always operating, though not always, because not willingly, perceived. The modesty of praise wears gradually away; and perhaps the pride of patronage may be in time so increased, that modest praise will no longer please.“The opinion of the same critic, on the poetry of Montague, may safely be quoted, as it seems to be the general one. <c It would now be esteemed no honour, by a contributor to the monthly bundle of verses, to be told, that, in strains either familiar or solemn, he sings like Montague.” His poems and speeches, with memoirs of his life, were published in 1715. The former were inserted in Dr. Johnson’s edition of the English Poets, but although they have served to make his name more familiar with the public, it is in political history that his character appears to greatest advantage.

She had early distinguished herself as an author first by “Three Dialogues of the Dead,” published along with lord Lyttelton’s afterwards by her classical and elegant “Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” ia which she amply vindicated our great poet from the gross, illiberal, and ignorant abuse, thrown out against him by Voltaire. This is indeed a wonderful performance, as all, who will examine it impartially, must admit. It is a ridiculous supposition that she was assisted by her husband, whose talent lay in mathematical pursuits, which indeed absorbed the whole of his attention. Many years after she bad received the approbation of all persons of critical taste on this performance, it fell into the hands of Cowper the poet, who, on reading it, says to his correspondent, “I no longer wonder that Mrs. Montague stands at the head of all that is called learned, and that every critic veils his bonnet to her superior judgment:” “The learning, the good sense, the sound judgment, and the wit displayed in it, fully justify, not only my compliment, but all compliments that either have been already paid to her talents, or shall be paid hereafter.”

More recently, in 1799, his memory has been revived in France by an extravagant eloge from the pen of a French lady, Henrietta Bourdic-viot, who assures us that it was in the works of Montaigne that she acquired the knowledge of her duties.“But we rather incline to the more judicious character given of this author by Dr. Joseph Warton.” That Montaigne,“says this excellent critic,” abounds in native wit, in quick penetration, in perfect knowledge of the human heart, and the various vanities and vices that lurk in it, cannot justly be denied. But a man who undertakes to transmit his thoughts on life and manners to posterity, with the hope of entertaining and amending future ages, must be either exceedingly vain or exceedingly careless, if he expects either of these effects can be produced by wanton sallies of the imagination, by useless and impertinent digressions, by never forming or following any regular plan, never classing or confining his thoughts, never changing or rejecting any sentiment that occurs to him. Yet this appears to have been the conduct of our celebrated essayist; and it has produced many awkward imitators, who, under the notion of writing with the fire and freedom of this lively old Gascon, have fallen into confused rhapsodies and uninteresting egotisms. But these blemishes of Montaigne are trifling and unimportant, compared with his vanity, his indecency, and his scepticism. That man must totally have suppressed the natural love of honest reputation, which is so powerfully felt by the truly wise and good, who can calmly sit down to give a catalogue of his private vices, publish his most secret infirmities, with the pretence of exhibiting a faithful picture of himself, and of exactly pourtraying the minutest features of his mind. Surely he deserves the censure Quintilian bestows on Demetrius, a celebrated Grecian statuary, that he was nimius in veritate, ct similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior; more studious of likeness than of beauty."

, a learned critic, was born in 1531, at Paris. His taste for the belles lettres induced him to visit Italy, where Paul Manutius employed him in his printingoffice at Venice. He afterwards taught Greek and cosmography at Vicenza, but was called from 'thence by the duke of Ferrara, in 1555. Morin at length acquired the esteem of St. Charles Boromeo, and pope Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. engaged him in the edition of the Greek Bible of the LXX. 1587, the Latin translation is 1588, fol. and in the edition of the Vulgate, 1590, fol. He died in 1608. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres and languages, and has left among his works published by Quetif in 1675, an excellent treatise on the proper use of the sciences, of which Dupin has given a long analysis, as well as of his other works, and bestows great praise on his extensive knowledge of languages and ecclesiastical history.

, a Welsh antiquary and poet, was born in the isle of Anglesey in the year 1702, and died in 1765 at Penhryn, in Cardiganshire. He surveyed the coast of Wales in 1737, by order of the admiralty-board; and his work was published in 1748. Some of his poetical pieces in the Welsh language have been printed, and he left above eighty volumes of manuscripts of antiquity, now deposited in the Welsh charity-school, GraysInn lane, London. It was his intention to have compiled a Welsh dictionary, as appears by his correspondence in the Gentleman’s Magazine. His brother Richard was also a poet and critic in his native language. He was clerk in the navy pay-office, and superintended the printing of two valuable editions of the Welsh Bible. He died in 1779. William Morris, another brother, was a great collector of Welsh manuscripts, and died comptroller of the customs at Holyhead in 1764.

, an illustrious German divine, was born at Lubeck, in 1695, of a noble family, which might seem to open to his ambition a fair path to civil promotion; but his zeal for the interests of religion, his thirst after knowledge, and particularly his taste for sacred literature, induced him to consecrate his talents to the service of the church. Where he was educated we have Dot learned; fcut he is said to have given early indications of a promising capacity, and of a strong desire of mental and literary improvement; and, when his parents proposed to him the choice of a profession, the church suggested itself to him as a proper department for the exercise of that zeal which disposed him to be useful to society. Being ordained a minister in the Lutheran church, he soon distinguished himself as an eloquent and useful preacher. His reputation in this character, however, was local and confined, but the fame of his literary ability diffused itself among all the nations of Christendom. The German universities loaded him with literary honours the king of Denmark invited him to settle at Copenhagen the duke of Brunswick called him thence to Helmstadt, where he filled the academical chair was honoured with the character of ecclesiastical counsellor to the court an,d presided over the seminaries of learning in the duchy of Wolfembuttle and the principality of Blakenburg. When a design was formed of giving an uncommon degree of lustre to the university of Gottingen, by filling it with men of the first rank in letters, king George II. considered Dr. Mosheim as worthy to appear at the head of it, in quality of chancellor; and he discharged the duties of that station with zeal and propriety, and his conduct gave general satisfaction. Here he died, universally lamented, in 1755. In depth of judgment, in extent of learning, in purity of taste, in the powers of eloquence, and in a laborious application to all the various branches of erudition and philosophy, he is said to have had very few superiors. His Latin translation of Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” enriched with large annotations, discovered a profound acquaintance with ancient learning and philosophy. His illustrations of the Scriptures, his labours in defence of Christianity, and the light he cast upon religion and philosophy, appear in many volumes of sacred and prophane literature. He wrote, in Latin, 1. “Observationes sacra?, et historico- critic^,” Amst. 1721, 8vo. 2. “Vindicise antiquae Cnristianorum discipline, adv. J, Tolandi Nazarenum,” Hamb. 1722, 8vo. 3, “De aetate apologetici Tertulliani et initio persecutionis Christianorum sub Severo, commentatio,” Helm. 1724, 4to. 4. “Gallus glorias J. Christi, Spiritusque Sancti obtrectator, publicae contemtioni expositus,” Helm. 1736, 4to. 5. “Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica,” Helm. 1741, 4to. 6. “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum commentarii,” ibid. 1753, 4to. 7. “Historia Mich. Served,” &c. But that by which he is best known in this country is his church-history. This was at first a small work, which appeared under the title of “Institutiones Historic Christiana?,” and passed through several editions. He was repeatedly urged by his learned friends to extend a work which they represented as too meagre for the importance of the subject. He acknowledged the objection, but alleged various avocations as an excuse for non-compliance. At length, however, he acceded to the wish of the public, and having employed two years in the augmentation and improvement of his history, he published it in 1755, before the end of which year he died. This was soon after translated into English by Dr. Maclaine, of whom we have recently given some account, and is now a standard book in our libraries. The best edition, as we have noticed in Maclaine’s article, is that of which Dr. Charles Coote was the editor and contimlator, in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo. This edition is also enriched by a masterly dissertation from the pen of Dr. Gteig, of Stirling, on the primitive form of the church, calculated to obviate certain prejudices which Mosheim had discovered in various parts of his otherwise Valuable history.

, a very ingenious and learned critic, was descended from a good family, and born at Muret, a village near Limoges, in France, April 11, 1526. We know not who were his masters, nor what the place of his education; but it was probably Limoges. JJencius, in his funeral oration on him, and Bullart say that be spent his youth at Agen, where he had Julius Caesar Scaliger for his preceptor; but Joseph Scaliger, his son, denies this, and affirms that Muretus was eighteen when he first came to Agen, to see his father. He adds, that he passed on thence to Auch, where he began to teach in the archiepiscopal college, and to read lectures upon Cicero and Terence. After some stay in this place, he went to Villeneuve; where he was employed by a rich merchant in the education of his children, and at the same time taught Latin in a public school. Two years after his settling here, he went to Agen, to pay a visit to Scaliger, who had the highest opinion and affection for him, and who ever kept up a most intimate correspondence with him. He removed from Villeneuve to Paris, from Paris to Poictiers, from Poictiers to Bourdeaux in 1547, and from Bourdeaux to Paris again in 1552. This year he recited in the church of the Bernardins, his first oration, “De dignitate ac praestantia studii theologici;” and this year also he printed his poems, entitled “Juvenilia;” from the dedication of which we learn, that he taught at that time philosophy and civil law.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Clooniquin, in the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, Dec. 27, 1727. His father, Richard Murphy, who was a merchant, perished in 1729, in one of his own trading-vessels for Philadelphia, probably in a violent storm, but no intelligence of the ship, or any of its passengers or crew, ever transpired. From this time the care of the subject of the present article devolved upon his mother, who, in 1735, removed, with her children, to London but Arthur was sent, at the age of ten, to the English college at St. Omer’s, where he remained six years and made very extraordinary proficiency in Greek and Latin, a love for which he retained all his life, and particularly improved his acquaintance with the Latin classics. On his return to England, in 1744, he resided with his mother till August 1747, when he was sent to Cork, to an uncle Jeffery French, in whose counting-house he was employed till April 1749. After this his uncle destined him to go to Jamaica to overlook a large estate which he possessed in that island; but his inclination was averse to business of every kind, and he returned to his mother in London, in 1751. Here he either first contracted, or began at least to indulge, his predominant passion for the theatre, although placed in the counting-house of Ironside and Belchier, bankers. In October 1752, he published the first number of “The Gray’s-Inn Journal,” a weekly paper, which he continued for two years, and which served to connect him much with dramatic performers and writers, as well as to make him known to the public as a wit and a critic. On the death of his uncle, he was much disappointed in not finding his name mentioned in his will, and the more so as he had contracted debts, in faith of a good legacy, to the amount of three hundred pounds. In this embarrassed state, by the advice of the celebrated Foote, he went on the stage, and appeared for the first time in the character of Othello. Jn one season, by the help of strict economy, he paid off his debts, and had at the end of the year four hundred pounds in his pocket. With this sum he determined to quit the stage, on which, as a performer, notwithstanding the advantages of a fine person, and good judgment, he made no very distinguished figure, and never used to be more offended than when reminded of this part of his career.

Being a man of very extensive learning, he composed, at his leisure-hours, several curious works, as, 1. “De Arthritide symptomatica Dissertatio, 1703,” 8vo. 2. “De Arthritide^anomala sive interna Dissertatio, 1707,” 8vo. Of these two books, one upon the regular, the other upon the irregular or inward gout, he gave an account in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 3. “Julii Vitalis Epitaphitim: cum Commentario, 1711,” 8vo, a work much praised by Mr. Moyle. 4. “De Legionibus Epistola.” This letter concerning the Roman legions was addressed to sir Hans Sloane. 5. “De Aquilis Romania Epistola, 1713,” 8vo, addressed to Gisbert Cuper, consul of Deventer, who had affirmed that the Roman eagles were of massy gold or silver; while Musgrave maintained, that they were only plated over, in which opinion he was joined by Moyle. 6. “Inscriptio Terraconensis; cum Commentario.” 7. “Geta Britannicus. Accedit Domus Severianae Synopsis chronologica; et de Icuncula quondam M. Regis jElfridi Dissertatio, 1715,” 8vo. That is, “Observations upon a fragment of an equestrian stone Statue, found near Bath, which Musgrave believes to have been set up in honour of Geta, after his arrival in Britain; together with a chronological Synopsis of the family of Severus; and a dissertation upon a piece of Saxon antiquity found at Athelney in Somersetshire, being king Alfred the Great’s Amulet.” 8. “Belgium Britannicum;” or, “An account of that part of South Britain which was anciently inhabited by a people called Belgae, and now comprehends Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire,” 1719, 8vo. To this work is prefixed a dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove that Britain was formerly a peninsula, and joined to France about Calais. All the above tracts on antiquities were published together at Exeter, in 1720, 4 vols. 8vo. In 1776 a posthumous dissertation of his on the gout was published under the title of “De Arthritide primogenia et regulari,” 8vo. He had left the manuscript to his son William Musgrave, M. B. by whom it was committed to the press, but he dying when the work was nearly completed, the sheets remained in the warehouse of the Clarendon press until the above-mentioned period, when it was published by the author’s grandson, the late Dr. Samuel Musgrave, of Exeter, a gentleman once noted (about 1761) for his pretended political discoveries respecting the private history of the peace, and afterwards as a Greek scholar and critic. He studied at Leyden, where in 1762 he published “Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo,” 8vo, and when he took his degree, “Apologia pro medicina Empirica,” 1763, 4to. After his return he practised physic at Exeter, and bestowed much time on collating various Mss. of Euripides, which collations, with his notes, were incorporated in an edition of that classic printed at Oxford in 1778, 4 vols. 8vo. Dr. Harwood gives a very unfavourable opinion of this edition, nor has it been in general much prized by foreign critics. Dr. Musgrave died July 3, 1782, greatly reduced in circumstances, and after his death was edited by Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the benefit of his family, “Two Dissertations,” on the Grecian mythology, and the chronology of the Olympiads.

As a satirist, his most virulent paper-war was carried on with Gabriel Harvey, particularly in his tract, entitled “Have with you to Saffron-Walden,” which was Harvey’s residence. His dramatic pieces were only three “Dido, queen of Carthage,” a tragedy, 1594, 4to 2. “Summer’s Last Will and Testament,” a comedy, 1600, 4to and “The Isle of Dogs,” above-mentioned, not published. He engaged on the side of the church against Martin Marprelate; and the following are supposed to have formed his share of this controversy: “A Countercuffe given to Martin, junior,” &c.; “Martin’s month’s minde” “The Returne of the renowned cavaliero Pasquill of England,” &c. all published in 1589, 4to, and analyzed, with specimens, in vol. II. of the “Bibliographer.” Nash wrote with considerable ease, harmony, and energy, yet Ma lone says, that “of all the writers of the age of queen Elizabeth, Nash is the most licentious in his language; perpetually distorting words from their primitive signification, in a manner often puerile and ridiculous, but more frequently incomprehensible and absurd.” He pleased his own age, however, for we find that his “Have with you to Saffron-Walden,” passed through six editions; and an eminent poetical critic and antiquary thinks that Malone must have formed his severe censure of Nash from this piece, which was intended to ridicule the inflated and turgid language of Harvey, in his astrological tracts. The style of “Pierce Penniless,” adds sir E. Brydges, is very dissimilar, and his “Address to the two Universities,” published in 1589, is written in a vein of spirited and judicious criticism, of which the English language has no contemporary example.

, son of the preceding, had a learned education in the university of Cambridge. He had been made knight of the Bath as early as 1616, at the creation of Charles prince of Wales, and had stood as the eldest son of a peer, at the state in the house of lords, at sixty-three, and was an eminent instance of filial duty to his father, before whom he would not put on his hat, or sit down, unless enjoined to do it. He was bred in the best manner; for besides the court, and choicest company at home, he was sent to travel, and then into the army, and served as a captain under sir Francis Vere. He sat in many parliaments, until secluded by that which condemned the king. After this he lived privately in the country, at Tostock, in Suffolk; and towards the latter end of his life, entertained himself with justice-business, books, and (as a very numerous issue required) oeconomy. He published a little tract on that subject, entitled “Observations and advices Œconomical,” Lond. 1669, 12mo. Afterwards he published another tract, entitled “Passages relating to the Long Parliament,” with an apologetic, or rather recantation preface; for he had at first been active against the King. He wrote also the “History of the Life of Edward Lord North, the first Baron,” Lord Orford says, “sensibly, and in a very good style,” though this critic seems to think he fails in impressing the reader with much respect for his ancestor. After his death appeared a volume of essays, entitled “Light in the way to Paradise; with other occasionals,” Lond. 1682, 8vo. These essays shew that he was steadfast in his religion, that of the established church, and led an exemplary life. He outlived his father ten years, and died June 24, 1677. By his wife Anne, daughter and co-heir to sir Charles Montagu, he had a numerous family, of which six sons and four daughters lived to maturity. Three of his sons form the subject of the ensuing articles.

, ridiculed in the Taller by the name of Mr. Omicron, “the Unborn Poet,” descended from an ancient family of the name, originally seated at Oldmixon, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, and was born in 1673. Where he was educated is not known. He appears to have been early a writer for the stage; his first production was “Amyntas,” a pastoral, and his second, in 1700, an opera, neither of much merit or success. He Soon, however, became a violent party-writer, and a severe and malevolent critic. In the former light he was a strong opponent of the Stuart family, whom he has, on every occasion, endeavoured to vilify without any regard to that impartiality which ought ever to be the essential characteristic of an historian. As a critic he was perpetually attacking, with evident tokens of envy and malevolence, his several contemporaries; particularly Addison, Eusden, and Pope. The last of these, however, whom he had attacked in different letters which he wrote in “The Flying Post,” and repeatedly reflected on in his “Prose essays on Criticism,” and in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” written in imitation of Bouhours, has introduced him into his “Dunciad,” with some very distinguishing marks of eminence among the devotees of dulness. In the second book of that severe poem, where the dunces are contending for the prize of dulness, by diving in the mud of Fleet-ditch, he represents our author as mounting the sides of a lighter, in order to enable him to take a more efficacious plunge. Oldmixon’s malevolence of abuse entitled him to the above-mentioned honour; and, to the disgrace of the statesmen of that time, his zeal as a virulent party-writer procured him the place of collector of the customs at the port of Bridgewater, but he died at his house in Great Pulteney-street, aged sixty-nine, July 9, 1742. He left a daughter, who died in 1789, at Newiand in Gloucestershire, aged eighty-four. Another of his daughters sung at Hickford’s rooms in 1746. He lies buried in Ealing church.

Opie having been admitted an associate of the Royal Academy in 1786, and an academician in the year following, upon the dismissal of Mr. Barry from the body, aspired to the honour of being professor of painting, but resigned his pretensions in favour of Mr. Fuseli, who was chosen. When that gentleman was appointed to the station of keeper in 1805, he again advanced his claim, and vyas unanimously received. He had previously tried his power in literary composition, with no slight degree of success; first in the life of sir J. Reynolds, in Dr. Wolcot’s edition of Pilkington’s dictionary, and again in the publication of a plan for the formation of a national gallery, “tending at once to exalt the arts of his country and immortalize its glories.” He afterwards, in 1804, read two lectures on painting at the Royal Institution, which were fraught with instructions, and were received with applause; though it has been observed by a judicious critic, that the style in, which they were composed was “abrupt, crowded, and frequently unmethodical; rather rushing forward himself, than leading his auditors to the subject.” Nevertheless, his exertions on this occasion drew upon him respect, the more, perhaps, as he was not generally known to be a man fond of literature; and the world were the more surprised to hear refined sentiments in easy and even elegant language, from one who was not unfrequently represented as coarse and vulgar in mind and manner. In fact, Opie by no means merited such an unfavourable report; he was plain and unaffected, and spoke his mind freely; was manly and energetic, yielding little to folly or caprice, and by no means adapted to gratify the vain and ignorant; but he was not wilfully offensive, and condemned warmly those who were so.

We will conclude our account of this eminent father with what a learned and candid critic of our own has delivered concerning him. Origen, says Jortin, “was very learned and ingenious, and indefatigably industrious. His whole life, from his early years, was spent in examining, teaching, and explaining, the scriptures; to which he joined the study of philosophy, and all polite literature. He was humble, modest, and patient under great injuries and cruel treatment, which he received from Christians and Pagans: for, though he ever had a considerable number of friends and admirers, on account of his amiable qualities and accomplishments, he was persecuted and calumniated by men, who had neither his learning nor his virtue, degraded from the order of presbyters, driven from his home, and excommunicated by one Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who envied him, says Eusebius, for the reputation which he had gained. His inquisitive genius, and his mixing philosophy with Christianity, led him, perhaps, into some learned singularities and ingenious reveries; but he was by temper far from dogmatizing in such points, from fomenting schisms, and setting up himself for the head of a party. He lived in times when Christians were not so shackled with systems and determinations as they were afterwards, nor so much exposed to disingenuous and illiberal objections; and had more liberty to pursue their inquiries, and to speak their mind. He was ever extremely sober and exemplary, practising what 'he preached to others; and he lived and died poor, and destitute even of common conveniences.” It may be necessary to add, that there was a sect of ancient heretics, who resembled, and even surpassed, the abominations of the Gnostics: they were called Origenians, but appear to have derived their name from some person totally distinct from the preceding Origen, whose followers were called Origenists.

, a very learned critic, and the correspondent of many eminent English scholars, was born at Amsterdam, July 28, 1696, of a family originally from France. He was intended for commerce by his father, who nevertheless gave him a classical education under David Hoogstraten and the celebrated Hemsterhuis. It was Peter Bdrman, however, who prevailed on his father to change his destination, and allow him to become a scholar by profession. He was accordingly sent, in 1715, to the university of Leyden, where he studied the Greek language and literature under James Gronovius; history, antiquities, and rhetoric under Peter Burman, the oriental languages underHey man and Schaaf, and jurisprudence under Schulting and No.odt. Before his academical course was completed, viz. in 1718, he visited England, where one of his brothers John-Leonard was settled as a merchant. His object on this visit was to form an acquaintance with some of the literati of that age; but principally to inspect the public libraries in London, Oxford, and Cambridge. He remained, however, here only from July to the beginning of Autumn, when he returned to Leyden; and, having finished his studies, took the degree of doctor of law Feb. 3, 1721. He then went to the Hague, with a view to the bar, but became dissatisfied with the profession, and seems from this time to have relinquished every pursuit but that of general literature. In 1723 be began his travels by visiting Antwerp, Brussels, Louvain, and lastly France, where he spent a twelvemonth. At Paris he became acquainted with many eminent characters, particularly Monfaucon, Sallier, Fraguier, Sevin, Chamillart, Bouquet, Boivin, and Tournemine, who respectively introduced him to the societies of the learned, and to the most noted libraries and museums. In the month of August 1724, he returned to Amsterdam; but had not been long there before the dangerous illness of one of his brothers rendered it necessary for him to revisit London, where he remained a year, employed as he had been at Paris, in the company of the learned, and among the libraries. Here he became intimate with Bentley, Chishull, Sherard, Cunningham, Mead, Potter, Hutchinson, Markland, Wasse, &c. &c.

He published, in 1750, in quarto, a new edition of “Chereas and Callirhoe;” and a new edition of the Greek Anthology was expected from him, for which he had some valuable materials, and one of Theocritus, perhaps also one of Catullus, Tibulius, and Propertius but all these undertakings were frustrated by the unexpected death of this labprious and acute critic, which took place Sept. 13, or 14, 1751. He left a son John, who was born in 1734. What D'Orville published is to be found in a collection, in imitation of one begun in England by Jortin, in 1731, under the title of “Observationes Miscellaneae,” a work of profound erudition, which he edited along with Burman, as far as Jo vols. 8vo; and after Burman’s death, D'Orville published four additional volumes, under the title of “Observationes Miscellaneae Novae,” the last of which was completed a few clays before his death. Of his dissertations inserted in these volumes, two have been greatly admired, “Exercitatio de inscriptionibus Deliacis,” and “Diatribe in Inscriptiones quasdam,” &c. Some years after his death, his travels and observations in Sicily were published by Peter Burman, the younger, under the title “Simula, quibus Siciliae veteris rudera, additis antiquitatum tabulis illustrantur,” &c. 1764, fol. His only other publication was a controversial pamphlet against Cornelius Pauw, Amst. 1737, 8vo, in which he retorts on that author for some of the severities he was too much accustomed to exercise upon his learned contemporaries. D'Orville had a brother Peter, who died in 1739. He wrote some elegant Latin poems, a collection of which was published at Amsterdam, in 1740.

Dr. Johnson has endeavoured to account for his failure on the stage with more precision than perhaps was necessary, as the circumstance is far from being uncommon. This kind of inability, says that eminent critic, he shared with Shakspeare and Jonson, as he shared likewise some of their excellences. It seems reasonable to expect that a great dramatic poet should without difficulty become a great actor that he who can feel, could express that he who can excite passion, should exhibit with great readiness its external modes but since experience has fully proved, that of those powers, whatever be their affinity, one may be possessed in a great degree by him who has very little of the other; it must be allowed that they depend upon different faculties, or on different use of the same faculty that the actor must have a pliancy of mien, a flexibility of countenance, and a variety of tones, which the poet may be easily supposed to want; or that the attention of the poet and the player have been differently employed; the one has been considering thought, and the other action; one has watched the heart, and the other contemplated the face.

Pope’s account of Otway’s death was first related by Dr. Warton in the notes to his “Essay on Pope,” and in the. following words: “Otway had an intimate friend who was murdered (not robbed) in the street. One may guess at his sorrow, who has so feelingly described true affection in his * Venice Preserved.' He pursued the murderer on foot, who fled to France, as far as Dover, where he was seized with a fever, occasioned by the fatigue, which afterwards carried him to his grave in London.” The robber, we find, is by this account a murderer, and as Dr. Warton was alt ways more correct as to minor facts than Dr. Johnson, it is probable that he relates the story as he heard it, but it is to be traced to Spence, who was informed by Dennis, the critic, that “Otway had a friend, one Blakiston, who was shot; the murderer fled towards Dover, and Otway pursued him. In his return he drank water, when violently heated, and so got the fever which was the death of him.” And Dennis in the Preface to his “Observations on Pope’s translation of Homer,” 1717, 8vo, says, “Otway died in an alehouse,” which is not inconsistent with the preceding account, as he generally lived in one; but whether the story of the guinea and the loaf can be introduced with any probability to heighten the poet’s distress, we do not pretend to determine. It would not perhaps be very wrong to conjecture that both accounts might be true, but his contemporaries have left us no precise documents. Dr. Johnson has remarked that Otway appears by some of his verses to have been a zealous loyalist, and had what was in those times the common reward of loyalty, he lived and died neglected.

After this course of study, he sought to enlarge his knowledge by a visit to England, and passed some time in the libraries of London and the universities, and in forming an acquaintance with the learned men of the time, and thence travelled through Germany to Dantzic. Not finding an agreeable prospect of a settlement in his native place, he determined to go to Holland, and, although his studies had hitherto been chiefly connected with theology, to study medicine, for which there were many precedents among his learned countrymen. He accordingly qualified himself for a degree in medicine, which he obtained at Franeker, and on this occasion maintained a very able thesis on the leprosy of the Hebrews. He re-assumed, however, his theological character, in consequence of the death of John Moller, minister of the German church at Leyden, in 1711, and executed the duties of that office with such reputation, that in 1717 the university of Francfort invited him to the professorship of divinity. This university, and particularly the body of the clergy, had been so much reduced by the disturbances arising out of the thirty years’ war, and the ravages of the plague, that it was at this time without any eminent teacher in that faculty. It was not supposed that the university of Leyden would have easily parted with him, but this they at last consented to, and as a mark of esteem conferred on him the degree of doctor in divinity. About two years after, he married a lady with whom he expected a long life of domestic happiness, but these hopes were disappointed by a complication of disorders, and particularly an asthma, which proved fatal to him, April 12, 1724, in the fifty-third year of his age. His constant preaching, from which he could not be persuaded to desist by any considerations of health, is supposed to have hastened his end. Even on his death-bed, while his colleague M. Claussen was repeating some passages, suitable to such an occasion, from the Latin or German Bible, Ousel could not help playing the critic, and making his remarks on the versions his friend used, and pointing out their agreement or disagreement with the original Hebrew or Greek, as calmty as if he had been seated in the professor’s chair.

Sir Thomas Overbury obtained considerable reputation as an author, both in prose and verse; but it is probable that his unhappy end, which long interested the compassion of the public, procured for his works some share of that popularity which they have not retained. They consist of “The Wife,” along poem, of which an elegant' modern critic gives the following character: “The sentiments, maxims, and observations, with which it abounds, are such as a considerable experience and a correct judgment on mankind alone could furnish. The topics of jealousy, and of the credit and behaviour of women, are treated with great truth, delicacy, and perspicuity. The nice distinctions of moral character, and the pattern of female excellence here drawn, contrasted as they were with the heinous and flagrant enormities of the countess of Essex, rendered this poem extremely popular, when its ingenious author was no more.” Nearly the same opinion may be given of the other principal part of his works, entitled “ Characters or witty Descriptions of the Properties of sundry Persons.” These are favourable specimens of his prose style, quaint and witty, somewhat in the mariner of Theophrastus, or rather of the sketches given in Butler’s posthumous works. He must have been a very attentive observer of character and manners, and had evidently a quick sense of the ridiculous. An edition of his works was published in 1632, 12mo, which is called the fifteenth, yet the last, printed in 1753, is called only the tenth probably by the editor’s not being acquainted with all the impressions it had undergone. There are a few articles in the prose" part of the volume which have been attributed to other authors.

, a famous Cordelier, and one of the ablest critics of his time, was born at Rognes, a small town in Provence, March 31, 1624. He took the monk’s habit in the convent of the Cordeliers at Aries, and professed himself there in 1641. After he had finished the usual course of studies in philosophy and divinity, he preached some time, and was at length made four times provincial of his order. These occupations did not hinder him from applying to chronology and ecclesiastical history, in which he excelled. He printed in the Journal des Savans, Nov. 11, 1686, a learned “Dissertation upon the Consular Office,” in which he pretends to have discovered the rules, according to which the Roman emperors took the dignity of consul at some certain times more than others, but in this he is not thought to have been successful. His most considerable work is “A Critique upon the Annals of Baronius;” in which he has rectified an infinite number of mistakes, both in chronology and in facts. He published the first volume of this work, containing the first four centuries, at Paris, in 1689; with a dedication to the clergy of France, who allowed him a pension. The whole work was printed after his death, in four volumes, folio, at Geneva, in 1705, by the care of his nephew, father Francis Pagi, of the same order. It is carried to the year 1198, where Baronius ends. Pagi was greatly assisted in it by the abbe* Longuerue, who also wrote the eloge of our author, which is prefixed to the Geneva edition. Another edition was published at Geneva in 1727. It is a work of great utility, but the author’s chronology of the popes of the first three centuries is not approved by the learned. He has also prefixed a piece concerning a new chronological period, which he calls “Graeco-Romana,” and uses for adjusting all the different epochas, which is not without its inconveniences. Our author wrote some other works of inferior note before his death, at Aix, in Provence, June 7, 1699. His character is that of 'a very able historian, and a learned and candid critic. His style has all the simplicity and plainness which suits a chronological narration. He held a correspondence with several learned men, as Stillingfleet, Spanheim, Cuper, Dodwell, the cardinal Noris, &c.

, a learned Fleming, was the son of Adolphus, counsellor of state to the emperor Charles V. and born at Bruges in 1536. He was educated at Louvain and Paris, and became afterwards a learned divine and critic. Obtaining a canonry in the church of Bruges, he collected a library, and formed a design of giving good editions of the fathers; but the civil wars obliged him to retire to St. Omer’s, of which place the bishop made him archdeacon. Some time after, Philip II. king of Spain named him to the provostship of St. Saviour at Utrecht, and after that to the bishopric of St. Omer’s: but, as he went to Brussels to take possession of it, he died at Mons in Huinault, in 1587. He is chiefly known for his critical labours upon “Tertullian and Cyprian;” of both which writers he published editions, and prefixed lives. “The commentaries of this author upon Tertullian,” says Dupin, “are both learned and useful but he digresses too much from his subject, and brings in things of no use to the understanding of his author:” and he passes much the same judgment of his labours upon Cyprian. All the later editors, however, of these two fathers have spoken well of Pamelius, and have transcribed his best notes into their editions.

, a learned canon of la Chapelle-au Riche, at Dijon, in which city he was born, May 1, 1666, was the son of Philip Papillon, advocate to the parliament. He was a man of literature, and an able critic, and furnished Le Long of the Oratory, Desmolets, Niceron, and several others among the learned, with a number of important memoirs and anecdotes. He died February 23, 1738, at Dijon, aged seventy-two. His principal work is, “La Bibliotheqtie des Auteurs de Bourgogne,” Dijon, 1742, 2 vols. folio, printed under the inspection of his friend M. Joly, canon of la Chapelle-auRiche.

Not long after this, Mr. Pearce was appointed chaplain to his majesty; and in 1723 was presented by the chancellor to the vicarage of St. Martin’s in the Fields, on which he resigned St. Bartholomew’s. The parish, of which he was now vicar, being large, and honoured with the residence of the royal family in it, the chancellor represented to Mr. Pearce the propriety of taking the degree of doctor in divinity and as he was not of sufficient standing in the university, that honour was obtained for him by application to the archbishop of Canterbury. In 1724 he increased his reputation, as a critic, both at home and abroad, by his edition of Longinus “De Sublimitate,” with a new Latin version and learned notes. This appeared first in an elegant 4to, but has since been reprinted in 8vo, and remained the best edition, until the publication of that of Toup.

Pellican was a man of extensive learning, and particularly an able biblical critic. His skill in the languages, and his critical talents, made his services of great importance in the publication of various works. Amerbach, the printer, employed him on the works of St. Augustine published in 1506, in 9 vols. folio; and he executed many translations, particularly of the Bible, or parts of it, the Chaldee paraphrases, &c. His works are said to have been published together in 7 volumes, folio; but, although they may amount, including his commentaries, to that number, there is no such collective edition.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

Since that edition of 1596, there have been several others, with notes by the most eminent critics. That of 16 1 J8, in 8vo, which Burman produced, contains, besides the notes of Gudius never before published, the entire commentaries of Rittershusius, Rigaltius, Nic. Heinsius, ScheflFerus, and of Praschius, with extracts from other commentators. An edition since this, at Amsterdam, 1701, in 4to, by the care, and with the notes, of Hoogstraten, is the most beautiful of all that have yet been printed, with regard to the letter and the plates. These fables were subjoined to the edition of Terence by Bentley, in 1746, 4to, with the corrections and emendations of that great critic. The more recent editions are those of Brotier, Paris, 1783, and of Schwabe, Brunswick, 1806, which are both much esteemed.

These poems, says the same critic, which have the merit of excellent Latinity, and easy and spirited numbers, must have had a poignant relish in his own age, from the very circumstances which render them little interesting in ours. Lord Hailes once intended to have redeemed them from oblivion by a commentary, a specimen of which he gave in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for February 1774; but, as he had no congeniality of opinion with Pitcairne, either as to religion or politics, there would have been a perpetual war betwixt the author and his commentator. With respect to his religion, although Dr. Webster tells us he “died a worthy and religious man,” there is reason to think he had not always lived with much religious impression on his mind. He wrote a comedy, called “The Assembly,” printed at London in 1722, which Mr. George Chalmers says is “personal and political, sarcastic and prophane, and never could have been acted on any stage.” He was also the author of an attack on revealed religion, entitled “Epistola Archimedis ad regem Gelonem Albre Graccae reperta, anno aeree Christianas 1685.” This was made the subject of the inaugural oration of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton, professor of divinity in the uniTersity of St. Andrew’s in 1710, and published at Edinburgh in 1714, 4to. The kte Dr. William and Dr. David Pitcairne were related to our author, but not his immediate descendants.

The circumstances of Plutarch’s life are not known, and therefore cannot be related with any exactness. He was married, and his wife’s name was Timoxena, as Rualdus conjectures with probability. He had several children, and among them two sons, one called Plutarch after himself, the other Lamprias, in memory of his grandfather. Lamprias was he, of all his children, who seems to have inherited his father’s philosophy; and to him we owe the table, or catalogue of Plutarch’s writings, and perhaps also his “Apophthegms.” He had a nephew, Sextus Chseroneus, who taught the emperor Marcus Aurelius the Greek language, and was much honoured by him. Some think that the critic Longinus was of his family; and Apuleius, in the first book of his Metamorphoses, affirms himself to be descended from him.

Some idea of Pope’s character may be derived from the preceding particulars, and more may be learned from his biographers Ruffhead, Johnson, Warton, and Bowles. Many circumstances, however, still want explanation, although upon the whole we cannot be said to be ignorant of the temper and character of a man whose publications and Quarrels form a great part of the literary history of the first half of the eighteenth century, and of which some notice has been taken by every journalist, every critic, and every biographer, from his own to the present times. A large volume might be filled with even a moderate account of Pope’s contests, and less than such a volume perhaps woulcfy not be satisfactory.

We have already copied an expression of Dr. Warton’s, that Pope was invariably and solely a poet from the beginning of his life to the end and we may add from the same elegant critic, that his whole life, and every hour of it, in sickness and in health, was devoted with unremitting diligence, to cultivate that one art in which he had determined to excel, and in which he did excel. It is not our intention, however, to expatiate on his merits as a poet. What has been advanced by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Warton must supersede all other efforts; but we may be permitted to regret that he added so little to the dignity of the literary character, and that his passions were vulgar and vulgarly expressed. Never had the genus irritabile a more faithful representative. With abundant professions of philosophy, benevolence, and friendship, he thought no display of petty revenge, and no discharge of acrimony, beneath him and was continually endeavouring to promote his interest by quackish stratagems and idle artifices, often so poorly disguised as to expose him to immediate contempt; and all this at a time when he was confessedly at the head of the poetical list, and when his wealth was so great that he was mean enough to upbraid his adversaries for their want of it. “It would be hard,” says Johnson, “to find a man so well entitled to notice by his wit, that ever delighted so much in talking of his money. In his letters and in his poems, his gardens and his grotto, his quincunx and his vines, or some hints of his opulence, are always to be found. The great topic of his ridicule is poverty; the crimes with which he reproaches his antagonists are their debts, their habitation in the Mint, and their want of a dinner.”

, a late eminent Greek scholar and most accomplished critic, was born at East Ruston, in Norfolk, Dec. 25, 1759, and was first initiated in knowledge by his father, Mr. Huggin Person, the parish-clerk of East Ruston, who, though in humble life, and without the advantages himself of early education, 'laid the basis of his son’s unparalleled acquirements. From the earliest dawn of intellect, Mr. Person began the task of fixing the attention of his children, three sons and a daughter; and he had taught Richard, his eldest son, all the common rules of arithmetic, without the use of a book or slate, pen or pencil, up to the cube root, before he was nine years of age. The memory was thus incessantly exercised; and by this early habit of solving a question in arithmetic, he acquired such a talent of close and intense thinking, and such a power of arranging every operation that occupied his thought, as in process of time to render the most difficult problems, which to other men required the assistance of written figures, easy to the retentive faculties of his memory. He was initiated in letters by a process equally efficacious, and which somewhat resembled Dr. Bell’s admirable plan. His father taught him to read and write at one and the same time. He drew the form of the letter either with chalk on a board, or with the finger in sand; and Richard was made at once to understand and imitate the impression. As soon as he could speak he could trace the letters; and this exercise delighting his fancy, an ardour of imitating whatever was put before him was excited to such a degree that the walls of the house were covered with characters delineated with great neatness and fidelity. At nine years of age, he and his youngest brother, Thomas, were sent to the village school, kept by a Mr. Summers, a plain but intelligent man, who having had the misfortune in infancy to cripple his left hand, was educated for the purpose of teaching, and he discharged his duties with the most exemplary attention. He professed nothing beyond English, writing, and arithmetic but he was a good accountant, and an excellent writing-master. He perfected Mr. Richard Porson in that delightful talent of writing, in which he so peculiarly excelled but which we are doubtful whether to consider as an advantage, or a detriment to him, in his progress through life. It certainly had a considerable influence on his habits, and made him devote many precious moments in copying, which might have been better employed in composition. It has been the means, however, of enriching his library with annotations, in a text the most beautiful, and with such perfect imitation of the original manuscript or printing, as to embellish every work which his erudition enabled him to elucidate. He continued under Mr. Summers for three years; and every evening during that time he had to repeat by heart to his father the lessons and the tasks of the day; and this not in a loose or desultory manner, but in the rigorous order in which they hadbeen taught; and thus again the process of recollection was cherished and strengthened, so as to become a quality of his mind. It was impossible that such a youth should remain unnoticed, even in a place so thinly peopled, and so obscure, as the parish of East Ruston. The reverend Mr. Hewitt, vicar of the parish, heard of his extraordinary propensities to study, his gift of attention to whatever was taught him, and the wonderful fidelity with which he retained whatever he had acquired. He took him and his brother Thomas under his care, and instructed them in the classics. The progress of both was great, but that of Richard was most extraordinary, and when he had reached his fourteenth year, had engaged the notice of all the gentlemen in the vicinity. Among others, he was mentioned as a prodigy to an opulent and liberal man, the late Mr- Norris, or‘ Grosvenorplace, who, after having put him under an examination of the severest kind, from which an ordinary boy would have shrunk dismayed, sent him to Eton in August 1774, when he was in his 15th year. In that great seminary, he almost, from the commencement of his career, displayed such a superiority of intellect, such facility of acquirement, such quickness of perception, and sucli a talent of bringing forward to his purpose all that he had ever read, that the upper boys took him into their society, and promoted the cultivation of his mind by their lessons, as well, probably, as by imposing upon him the performance of their own exercises . He was courted’ by them as the never-failing resource in every difficulty and in all the playful excursions of the imagination, in their frolics, as well as in their serious tasks, Person was the constant adviser and support. He used to dwell on this lively part of his youth with peculiar complacency, and used to repeat a drama which he wrote for exhibition in their long chamber, and other compositions, both of seriousness and drollery, with a zest that the recollection of his enjoyment at the time never failed to revive in him. A very learned scholar, to whom the public was indebted for “A short account of Mr. Person,” published soon after his death, has the following remarks on his progress at Eton “By his own confession he learnt nothing, or added little to his stock, at school and perhaps for a good reason, since he had every thing that was given him to read, where he was first placed, by heart; that is, he could repeat all the Horace, and all the Virgil, commonly read at Eton, and the Iliad, and extracts from the Odyssey, Cicero, and Livy, with the Ambubaiarum of Horace, the Eclogues and Georgics, and the Culex, Ciris, and Catalecta, which they do not read. But still, though he would not own it, he was much obliged to the collision of a public school for the rapidity with which he increased his knowledge, and the correction of himself by the mistakes of others.”

“The principal qualities,” says one of his biographers, * c in this great man’s mind, were his extraordinary acuteness of discernment, and solidity of judgment; and these, added to his intense application and stupendous memory, made him what the world, perhaps, never saw before, a complete critic, in the most honourable and extended sense of that appellation. His reading was immense: he was an excellent French scholar; but in his native language, in the Latin, and in the Greek, he was most familiarly and profoundly versed. He had, indeed, applied the knowledge which he had gained of the origin and structure of language in general, to all these dialects, if we may so express ourselves, of the universal language; and had not his eminence in classical literature, by its uncommon lustre, obscured other attainments, he would doubtless have been considered as one of the first English scholars. In Greek, however, we have no hesitation in pronouncing him the very first, not merely of his own age, but of every other. In him were conspicuous boundless extent of reading, a most exact and well-ordered memory unwearied patience in unravelling the sense of an author, and exploring the perplexities of a manuscript; perspicacity in discovering the corruptions of a text, and acuteness almost intuitive, in restoring the true reading. All this was tempered with a judgment which preserved him invariably from the rocks against which even the greatest of his critical predecessors have at some time or other split we mean precipitation in determining that to be unsound, which after all had no defect and rashness in applying remedies which only served to increase the disease." On the failings of this eminent man we have but gently touched: there is reason to think they have been exaggerated by vulgar report. Whatever they were, it is to his credit, that they who knew him most intimately, were most disposed to forget them in the splendour of his uncommon talents.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1551, and like his father became an accomplished Greek scholar and critic. He taught Greek at Lausanne, and, as some say, in the university of Heidelberg. He died in 1610. Among his useful labours we may enumerate, 1. An edition of “Euripides,” printed at Geneva in 1602, 4to, with his own notes and those of Canter, Brodaeus, and Stibilinus. This is a rare edition. 2. “Aristophanes,” Geneva, 1607, fol. Gr. & Lat. 3. “Procli Diadochi commentaria in Platonis theologiam,” Gr. & Lat. Hamburgh,

, the younger, a Greek physician, mathematical writer, critic, and commentator of the writings of the classic ages, flourished about 1105. He is, for his various and extensive learning, ranked among the first scholiasts of his time. He commented and explained no less than twenty-four plays of Menander, which, though now lost, were extant in his time. The emperor Constantine Ducas made him preceptor to his son Michael, who succeeded to the crown in 1071. His principal works are, 1. “De Quatuor Mathematicis Scientiis,” Bas. 1556, 8vo. 2. “De Lapidum Virtutibus,” Tol. 1615, 8vo. 3. “De Victus ratione,” in 2 books, Bale, 1529, 8vo. 4. “Synopsis Legum, versibus Grsecis edita,” Paris, 1632. Leo Allatius has written a treatise de Psellis, Rome, 1634, 8vo, which contains an account of all the authors of the name of Psellus. One of them, “Michael Psellus the Elder, who flourished in the ninth century, was author of” De Operatione Daemonum," Gr. & Lat. Paris, 1623, which has been improperly given to the preceding author.

, properly Poelman, a Dutch commentator on the classics, was born at Cranenbourg, in the Dutchy of Cleves, about 1510. He was bred a fuller, but by diligent application became an able scholar, critic, and grammarian. He principally applied himself to the correction of the Latin poets from ancient manuscripts, and superintended some good editions of them at the press of Plantin. He published in 1551 Arator’s History of the Acts of the Apostles in Latin hexameters, with his own corrections of the text. Virgil, Lucan, Juvenal, Horace, Ausonius, Claudian, Terence, Suetonius, and Esop’s Fables, were also edited by him, and the works of St. Paulinus. He is supposed to have died about 1580, at Salamanca, but the cause which led him so far from home we cannot assign.

, an English poet and poetical critic, flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Very little is known of his life, and for that little- we are indebted to Mr. Haslewood, whose researches, equally accurate and judicious, have so frequently contributed to illustrate the history of old English poetry. By Ames, Puttenham was called Webster, but his late editor has brought sufficient proof that his name was George. He appears to have been born some time between 1529 and 1535. As his education was liberal, it may be presumed that his parents were not of the lowest class. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college, how long he resided, or whether he took a degree, remain unascertained. Wood had made none of these discoveries when he wrote his “Athense.” His career at court might commence at the age of eighteen, when he sought to gain the attention of the youthful king Edward VI. by an P^clogue, entitled “Elpine.” He made one or two tours on the continent, and proved himself neither an idle nor inattentive observer. He visited successively the courts of France, Spain, and Italy, and was at the Spa nearly about the year 1570. It is not improbable that he had a diplomatic appointment under Henry earl of Arundel, an old courtier, who, with the queen’s licence, visited Italy as he describes himself a beholder of the feast given by the duchess of Parma, to this nobleman, at the court of Brussels. His return was probably early after the above period, but nothing can be stated with certainty. It may however be inferred from his numerous adulatory verses addressed to queen Elizabeth, before the time of publishing his “Art of Poesie,” that he must have been a courtier of long standing, and was then one of her gentlemen pensioners.

Of all his numerous pieces, the “Art of Poesie,” and the n Partheniades,“are the only ones known to exist, and it seems unaccountable that not a single poem by this author found a place in those miscellaneous and fashionable repositories, the” Paradise of Dainty Devices,“or” England’s Helicon.“His own volume however proves the neglect of the age, for of many poems noticed as the avowed productions of some of our best writers, we have no other knowledge than the scraps there incidentally preserved. His” Partheniades,“lately reprinted, were presented to queen Elizabeth, as a new year’s gift? probably on Jan. 1, 1579 his” Art of English Poesie“was published in 1589. From this last work it appears that he was a candid but sententious critic. What his observations want in argument is compensated by the soundness of his judgment; and his conclusions, notwithstanding their brevity, are just and pertinent. He did not hastily scan his author to indulge in an untimely sneer and his opinions were adopted by contemporary writers, and have not been dissented from by moderns. Mr. Gilchrist, in the” Censura Lit.“has drawn an able and comprehensive character of this work, as” on many accounts one of the most curious and entertaining, and intrinsically one of the most valuable books of the age of Elizabeth." In 1811, Mr. Haslewood reprinted this valuable work with his usual accuracy, and in a very elegant form, prefixing some account of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in the present sketch.

Wood, in mentioning a publication of Dr. Burgess, which was abused by an anonymous author, and defended by Quarles, styles the latter “an old puritanical poet, the sometimes darling of our plebeian judgments;” and Phillips says of his works, that “they have been ever, and still are, in wonderful veneration among the vulgar.” And this certainly has been the case until within the last thirty years several critics of acknowledged taste studied Quarles’s various works with - attention, and have advanced proofs that some of them deserve a better fate. Of these, Mr. Head ley, and Mr. Jackson of Exeter, appear to have pleaded the cause of this neglected poet with best effect and although they do not convince us that reprinting the whole of any of his pieces would be an acceptable labour, there can be no doubt that a judicious selection would prove Quarles a man of real genius and true poetical spirit. Quarles (says Mr. Headley) has been branded with more than common abuse, and seems often to have been censured merely from the want of being read. “If his poetry,” adds this amiable critic, “failed to gain him friends and readers, his piety should at least have secured him peace and good-will. He too often, no doubt, mistook the enthusiasm of devotion for the inspiration of fancy. To mix the waters of Jordan and Helicon in the same case was reserved for the hand of Milton; and for him, and him only, to find the bays of Mount Olivet equally verdant with those of Parnassus. Yet, as the effusions of a real poetical mind, however thwarted by untowardness of subject, will be seldom rendered totally abortive, we find in Quarles original imagery, striking sentiment, fertility of expression, and happy combinations together with a compression of style, that merits the observation of the writers of verse. Gross deficiencies of judgment, and the infelicities of his subjects, concurred in ruining him.”

The singular plan of the “Callipgedia,” the division pf the subject, the variety of its episodes, and the sprightliness of style, have procured it many readers; but the language is not always pure and correct, and the subject is certainly treated in a manner too licentious. De la Monnoye very justly thinks the great reception it has met with, owing principally to the subject; which, he says, is often treated in a very frivolous way, especially in the second book, where there are many lines concerning the different influences of the constellations; nor will this critic allow the versification to resemble either that of Lucretius or Virgil. A third edition of the “Callipaedia” was neatly printed at London in 1708, 8vo to which, besides the two little Latin poems above-mentioned, was subjoined “Scaevolse Sammarthani Paedotrophiae, sive de puerorum educatione, libri tres.” It was translated by Rowe.

, an illustrious rhetorician and critic of antiquity, and a most excellent author, was born in the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, about the year of Christ 42: Ausonius calls him Hispanum and Calagurritanum whence it has usually been supposed that he was a native of Calagurra, or Calahorra, in Spain. It is, however, certain that he was sent to Rome, even in his childhood, where he was educated, applying himself particularly to the cultivation of the art of oratory. In the year 61 Galba was sent by the emperor Nero into Spain, as governor of one of the provinces there; and Quintilian, being then nineteen years old, is supposed to have attended him, and to have taught rhetoric in the city of Calagurra while Galba continued in Spain. Hence it is, according to some, that he was called Calagurritanus, and not from his being born in that city; and they insist that he was born in Rome, all his kindred and connections belonging to that city, and his whole life from his infancy being spent there, except the seven years of Galba’s government in Spain but we are not of opinion that the memorable line of Martial, addressing him “Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togse,” greatly favours such a supposition.

As a dramatic writer, his turn was entirely to comedy; and Baker pronounces his language elegant, and his sentiments just and forcible; his characters for the most part, strongly drawn, and his satire well chosen and poignant; and this critic also recommended the altering his pieces, so as to render them fit for the present stage, or at the least giving the world a correct and critical edition of them.

The dramatic pieces he has left behind him, five in number, were published in 1638, by his brother, Mr. Thomas Randolph, of Christ-church college, Oxford, along with his poems, some of which have considerable merit. Of his dramatic pieces, the “Muses’ Looking-glass” is the most generally admired; in it there is great variety of characters of the passions and vices, drawn with much truth, and interspersed with many strokes of natural humour. A late critic thinks he has discovered in it the ground-work of the “Rehearsal,” and similar satires. “The Looking-Glass” was about fifty years ago revived at Covent-garden theatre, and is reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection of Old Plays. Had Randolph lived, it is thought he would have produced many more valuable pieces; hut, as Antony Wood says, being somewhat addicted to libertine indulgences, in consequence of keeping too much company, and running into fashionable excesses with greater freedom than his constitution could bear, he assisted in shortening his own days, and died March 17, 1634, before he had completed the age of twenty-nine years, at the house of William Stafford, esq. of Blatherwyke in Northamptonshire. He was buried, with the ancestors of the family of Stafford, in an aile adjoining to the church of that place, soon after which a monument of white marble was erected over his grave, at the charge of sir Christopher (afterwards lord) Hatton, of Kirby, with an inscription upon it, in Latin and English verse, written by our author’s intimate friend Peter Hausted.

Notwithstanding a due attention to business, Mr. Reed found leisure to amuse himself and the world with many miscellanies in prose and verse of very considerable merit. The late Mr. Ritson, who had for Mr. Reed, what he extended to very few, a high respect, intended to have edited some of these miscellanies, in a volume or volumes, of which the following were to have been the contents: 1. “Madrigal and Trulletta, a mock tragedy,” 1758. 2. “The Register Office,” 1761, a farce, or rather a dramatic satire. 3. The same; the second edition. 4. “Tom Jones,” a comic opera, 1769. 5. “Dido,” a tragedy, 1767, printed for the first time by Messrs. Nichols in 1808, but the whole impression having been destroyed by the fire which consumed their premises in February of that year, it has not been reprinted. 6. The “Retort Courteous,” to the manager of the theatre. 7. An “Epitaph on the Earl of Chatham.” 8. “St. Peter’s Lodge,” a serio-comic legendary tale. 9. “A Rope’s end for Hempen monopolists.” Besides the above articles, Mr, Reed was the author of, 10. “A Poem, in imitation of the Scottish dialect, on the death of Mr. Pope,” printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1744. 11. “The Superannuated Gallant,” a farce, Newcastle, 1745, 12mo. 12. “A British Philippic, inscribed to the right hon. the earl of Granville,” London, 1756, 4to. 13. “A Sop in the Pan for a physical critic, in a letter to Dr. Smollett, occasioned by a criticism (in the Critical Review) on Madrigal and Trulletta/' 1759. 14.” A humorous account of his own Life,“printed in the Universal Museum for 1764. 15.” The Tradesman’s Companion, or Tables of Averdupois weight, &c.“London, 1762, 12mo. 16.” The Impostors, or a Cure for Credulity,“a farce, acted for the benefit of Mr. Woodward, March 19, 1776, with an excellent prologue, not printed. To these may be added, several tragedies, comedies, and farces, never acted or printed; a few unpublished poems; and some numbers of the” Monitor,“a political paper published in the administration of the earl of Bute, and” Letters“under the signature Benedict, in defence of Mr. Garrick, on the publication of Kenrick’s” Love in the Suds," printed originally in the Morning Chronicle, and afterwards added to the fifth edition of that poem.

All that is valuable in this sketch has been taken from Mr. Dugald Stewart’s life of Dr. Reid, the most elaborate part of which is the view of the spirit and scope of Dr. Reid’s philosophy. We have long regretted, says another able critic, that the writings of this philosopher, the first who in the science of Mind deserves the title of interpreter of nature, should be so little known, especially in the southern part of this kingdom; and we fondly hope that the illustration afforded by Mr. Stewart of their high merits, and the exposure of the prejudices which have been raised against them by bold censurers, who never took the pains to understand them, will pave the way to a more general diffusion among our countrymen of the advantages which a careful study of them cannot fail to produce.

Speaking of his own discourses, our great artist says, “Whatever merit they have, must be imputed, in a great measure, to the education which I may be said to have had under Dr. Johnson. I do not mean to say, though it certainly would be to the credit of these discourses if I could say it with truth, that he contributed even a single sentiment to them but he qualified my mind to think justly. No man had, like him, the faculty of teaching inferior minds the art of thinking. Perhaps other men might havg equal knowledge, but few were so communicative. His great pleasure was to talk to those who looked up to him. It was here he exhibited his wonderful powers. In mixed company, and frequently in company that ought to have looked up to him, many, thinking they had a character for learning to support, considered it as beneath them to enlist in the train of his auditors and to such persons he certainly did not appear to advantage, being often i tuous and overbearing. The desire of shining in conversation was in him indeed a predominant passion; and if it must be attributed to vanity, let it at the same time be recollected, that it produced that loquaciousness from which his more intimate friends derived considerable advantage. The observations which he made on poetry, on life, and on every thing about us, I applied to our art, with what success others must judge.” This short extract is not unconnected with a conjecture which many entertained, that sir Joshua did not compose his lectures himself. In addition to his own declaration here, as far as respects Dr. Johnson, who was chiefly suspected as having a hand in these lectures, Mr. Northcote, who lived some years in his house, says, in his memoirs, “At the period when it was expected he should have composed them, I have heard him walking at intervals in his room till one or two o'clock in the mjorning, and I have on the following day, at an early hour, seen the papers on the subject of his art which had been written the preceding night. I have had the rude manuscript from himself, in his own hand-writing, in order to make a fair copy from it for him to read in public: I have seen the manuscript also after it had been revised by Dr. Johnson, who has’ sometimes altered it to a wrong meaning, from his total ignorance of the subject and of art; but never, to my knowledge, saw the marks of Burke’s pen in any of the manuscripts. The bishop of Rochester, also, who examined the writings of Mr. Burke since his death, and lately edited a part of them, informed a friend that he could discover no reason to think that Mr. Burke had the least hand in the discourses of Reynolds.” And Burke himself, in a letter to Mr. Malone, after the publication of sir Joshua’s life and works, Says, “I have read over some part of the discourses with an unusual sort of pleasure, partly because being faded a little in my memory, they have a sort of appearance of novelty; partly by reviving recollections mixed with melancholy and satisfaction. The Flemish journal I had never seen before. You trace in that, every where, the spirit of the discourses, supported by new examples. He is always the same man; the same philosophical, the same artist-like critic, the same sagacious observer, with the same minuteness, without the smallest degree of trifling.” We may safely say, this is dot the language of one who had himself contributed much to those discourses. And if neither Johnson nor Burke wrote for Reynolds, to whom else among his contemporaries shall the praise due to those invaluable compositions be given, if Reynolds is to be deprived of it!

He was the author of other productions^ besides those already mentioned. He wrote a continuation of Knolles’s “History of the Turks,” from 1623 to 1677, 1680, in folio; and again from 1679 to 1699, 1700, in folio, making, together with Knolles’s, three volumes. He was, from his great knowledge of Turkish affairs, better qualified than any other person for this work, but he is inferior to Knolles in historical merit. He continued Platina’s “Lives of the Popes,” from 1471 to his own time, and translated from the Spanish of Garcilasso de la Vega, into English, “The Royal Commentaries of Peru, in two parts,” folio and “The Spanish Critic,” 1681, 8vo, from Gratian.

, a very ingenious and learned man, was the son of a physician, and born at Paris in 1577. He was brought up among the Jesuits, and afterwards admitted advocate; but, not being able to conquer the disgust he had conceived to the profession of the law, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of polite literature The public received the first fruits of his labours in his “Funus Parasiticum,” printed in 1596; the ingenuity and learning of which so charmed Thuanus, thathe immediately took him into his friendship, and made him the companion of his studies. This excellent person conceived a particular esteem for him; as appeared, when he died in 1617, from naming him in his will, to superintend the education of his children. He was chosen, with Isaac Casaubon, to put the king’s library into order; and in 1610, when that learned man went over to spend some time in England with James [. succeeded him in the office of librarian to the king. His majesty conferred on him other marks of distinction made him procurator- general of the supreme court of Nancy, counsellor of the parliament of Metz, and then intendant of that province. He died in 1654, after having given numerous proofs of uncommon erudition in editions of “Minutius Foelix,” “Phaedrus,” “Martial,” “Rei accipitrarii scriptores,” “Rei agrarige scriptores,” the works of “Cyprian” and “Tertullian,” &c. His notes upon these last two are learned and critical; but the matter of some of them shews him to have been not a rigid catholic. He takes occasion to observe, from a passage in Tertullian’s “Exhortation to Chastity,” that Jaymen have a right and power to consecrate the eucharist, when there is no opportunity of recurring to the regular ministers; and this, with other opinions of a similar kind, not only gave offence to those of his own communion, but even to some- of“ours.” Rigaltius,“says Mr. Dodwell,” though an ingenious and learned critic, is by no means exact upon the subjects he treats of: for, though of the Roman communion, he is often fou/)d on the side of the Calvinists; and, when he meets with anything in the authors he publishes that appears contrary to the customs, not oflly of his own, but of the universal church, he remarks it with great care; perhaps to render his notes more agreeable to the reader, by presenting him with something new and unexpected." It is probable, that many persons may not think the worse of Rigakius, as an editor, for the censure here passed on him by Mr. Dodtvell. Rigaltius was also concerned in the edition of Thuanus, published at Geneva in 1620.

, a poetical critic and editor, was born Oct. 2, 1752, at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, and was bred to the profession of the law, which he practised chiefly in the conveyancing branch. In 1785 he purchased the office of high bailiff of the liberties of the Savoy, and retained it until his death. These seem the only particulars of Mr. Ritson’s progress in his profession, which have been recorded by his friends. He became, however, far better known for his researches into the antiquities of English literature, particularly poetry; and these he was enabled to carry on for many years, by dint of memory and extraordinary industry. In recovering dates, assigning anonymous fragments to their authors, and those other minute particulars which are important to poetical antiquaries, Mr. Ritson had perhaps few superiors; but all he performed was disgraced by a harsh, rugged, and barren style, and an affectation of a new orthography, and yet more by the contempt, approaching to malignity, with which hfe treated Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone, and his other contemporaries who had acquired any name in the world. Although not absolutely incapable of civility, his conversation partook much of the harshness of his writings; and giving the lie was not uncommon with him, even when the subject in dispute had nothing in it to excite passion. His wretched temper seems also to have been exasperated by the state of public affairs, his hatred of the reigning family, and his attachment to republicanism. Many instances might be given of his unhappy prejudices, but it appeared at last that the whole might be traced to a diseased mind, which was completely overthrown by insanity. When this became too visible to be neglected, he was removed to a receptacle for insane persons at Hoxton, where he died a few days after, Sept. 3, 1803, leaving many works which will prove useful and interesting to poetical antiquaries long after the peculiarities of his temper are forgotten. His first publication was an anonymous quarto pamphlet of “Observations on the three volumes of Warton’s History of English Poetry;” one of the most illiberal productions that had then appeared. He wrote, also anonymously, three sets of. remarks on the editors of Shakspeare: I. On Mr. Sieevens’s edition, 1773, entitled “Remarks, critical and illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the last edition of Shakspeare,” 8vo; 2. “The Quip modest,” &c. on Mr. Reed’s republication of that edition, particularly illiberal 3. “Cursory Criticisms,” &c. on Mr. Malone’s edition. He published also a select collection of English Songs, in 3 vols. 8vo. Ancient Songs, from the time of Henry III. to the Revolution, 8vo. A volume of pieces of ancient popular poetry, 8vo. “The English Anthology,” a selection of poetry, in 3 small octavo volumes. “Robin Hood; a collection of all the ancient Poems, Songs, affd Ballads, now extant, relative to that celebrated Outlaw. To which are added, Historical Anecdotes of his Life,” 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. A collection of Scotch Songs, with the genuine Music, 2 vols. 12mo. “Biographia Poetica a Catalogue of English Poets of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; with a short Account of their Works.” 1801, 12mo. He put his name to “Ancient English Metrical Romances; selected and published by Joseph Ritson,” 1802, 3 vols. 12mo. This last publication is perhaps the least interesting of the list.

He was a man of extensive learning, and perfectly skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues. He is said to have had Homer and Hesiod so well by heart, as once, in a conversation with a learned young gentleman, to have expressed all he had occasion to say in the verses of Homer. He was also a judicious critic, and wrote notes upon many ancient Greek and Latin authors, Petronius, Phacdrus, Oppian, &c. which have been inserted in the best editions of those authors. Thus Burinan, in his edition of “Phsedrus,” 1698, 8vo, has carefully inserted the entire notes of Rittershusius, whom he calls in his preface “Germanise suae quondam ornamentum, & noil minoris Gallice-decus.” He published a great number of works, sixty-six of which are enumerated by Niceron, many on civil law, but most on the belles lettres and criticism. His edition. of “Oppian,” Greek and Latin, appeared in 1657, 8vo. His son Nicholas, born at Altdorf in 1597, was also a man of learning and a jurist, and particularly applied to historical and genealogical inquiries. He studied at Helmstadt, and afterwards travelled into various countries of Europe. On his return he took a doctor’s degree in 1634, and was appointed professor of feudal law at Altdorff. He died in 167O. Nicholas edited several of his father’s works, and in 163S published an oration on “Hanno’s Periplws.” v ' He was the author of a large work, entitled “Genealggia? Jmperatorum, Regum, Ducum, Comitum, &c. ab anno 1400 ad annum 1664,” 7 vols. in 4, folio, a work of rare occurrence. Several of his letters are printed in the “Epistolse celebrium Virorum,” 1705.

, an eminent botanist and physician, was the son of a learned physician and critic, Andrew Bachmann, whose name in Latin became Rivinus. He was born at Leipsic in 1652. After a successful course of study he became professor of physiology and botany in his native university. He was also a member of various learned societies, and died in 1723 r aged seventyone.

The literary character of Mr. Robertson would rank high among those of his contemporaries in the same line, if he had concentrated his ideas in one large and compact work. Taken, however, as it is, it will unquestionably exhibit a learned critic and philologer, and one of the most accurate writers of his age. Although he was endowed with a vigorous understanding, and enriched with an uncommonly extensive knowledge, his predominant power was memory; and his favourite study, civil and literary history. In the last-mentioned branch he had, perhaps, no superior; and perhaps too, not many among the very professed bibliographers could rival him in the science of books, authors, and literary anecdotes.

With this publication his historical labours closed labours which, for extent and variety, have not been equalled by any writer in our times. All the essential merits of a historian were his; fidelity, the skill of narrative, the combination of philosophy with detail, so seldom attempted, and generally so unsuccessfully executed, and the power of giving an uncommon interest to his personages and events in the mind of the reader. His style has been iSo justly characterized by his biographer, that we may, without hesitation, recommend it as a decision from which it will not be easy to appeal. “The general strain of his composition,” says professor Stewart, “is flowing, equal, and majestic; harmonious beyond that of most English writers, yet seldom deviating, in quest of harmony, into inversion, redundancy, or affectation. If, in some passages, it may be thought that the effect might have been heightened by somewhat more of variety in the structure and cadence of his periods, it must be recollected, that this criticism involves an encomium on the beauty of his style; for it is only when the ear is habitually gratified, that the rhythm of composition becomes an object of the reader’s attention. The same judicious critic has re* marked, that,” perhaps, on the whole, it will be found that of all his performances Charles V. is that which unites the various requisites of good writing in the greatest degree. The style is more natural and flowing than that of the History of Scotland: while, at the same time, idiomatical phrases are introduced with so sparing and timid a hand, that it is easy to perceive the author’s attention to correctness was not sensibly diminished. In the History of America, although it contains many passages equal, if not superior, to anything else in his writings, the composition does not seem to me to be so uniformly polished as that of his former works; nor does it always possess, in the same degree, the recommendations of conciseness and simplicity."

, a celebrated critic in the sixteenth century, was born at Udina in 1516. After being educated at Bologna, he taught rhetoric and moral philosophy with reputation at Lucca, Pisa, Venice, Bologna, and Padua, in which last city he died, March 18, 1567, aged fifty-one. He has left a treatise “On History,” 1543, 8vo, which is of little value; commentaries on several Greek and Latin poets; “De Vita et victu populi Romani sub Imperatoribus,” 1551', folio, and other works on Roman antiquities, in which he frequently discovers a degree of asperity unworthy of a liberal mind. His contentious disposition had at one time nearly proved fatal, as he received a wound from the sword of Baptist Egnacius, and for some time his life was thought to be in danger. He had also some fierce literary contests with Alciatus and Sigonius.

Of Romney, as an artist, it is by no means easy to appreciate the just character. That he possessed genius and talents in an eminent degree, no one can deny. Fuseli, in his edition of Pilkington’s Dictionary, has said, “that he was made for the times, and the times for him.” It had perhaps, says the critic in the Cyclopædia, been more just to have observed that Homney was made for better times than those in which he lived. His perception of art was far purer than most of his contemporaries, at least in this country, were capable of enjoying; and it must be remembered, that no one ever set forth in the career of an artist under greater disadvantages than he did. The taste he imbibed for simplicity and grandeur, on seeing, at an advanced period of his life, the works of the ancient artists, prove what might have been fairly expected of him, had he been sooner initiated in the mysteries of his art. Without this aid, Romney had to separate for himself the partial, from the general effects of nature; and the inequality with which he, in this point, met the rivalry of more fortunate artists, is too evident in most of his productions. Frequently, his chiaroscuro is ill conducted, and his harmony of forms and colours imperfect, even in pictures produced when enjoying the height of his intellectual power, and at the happiest period of his executive skill: at the same time they exhibit great fertility of invention, with sweetness and delicacy of sentiment.

He was in general fortunate in the choice of his historical subjects; and certainly, in this respect, had far the advantage of his great rival, sir Joshua Reynolds; and no less so in the power of expression, which he scarcely ever failed to obtain; whilst the latter, in his historical pictures, has rarely been so happy. Reynolds gave beauty and grace to his figures: Romney imparted soul. The former delights the eye with the harmony and richness of colour, and beauty of effect; the latter thrills and gratifies the heart with truth and force of expression, in action and countenance; wrought with more simplicity, but with less art. His picture of Ophelia seated upon a branch of a tree, the breaking of which threatens her destruction in the stream below, whilst the melancholy distraction visible in her lovely face accounts for her apparent insensibility to danger, is a sufficient proof of this assertion. His composition also of “Titania and her Indian Votaress,” in the possession of Mr. Beckford; “Titania, Puck, and the Changeling,” at sir John Leicester’s, and others of his works of the like playful and interesting kind, might be brought forward to support it. In portraiture, however, the justly exalted president of the royal academy stood alone, and Romney was not able to cope with him. In the composition of his figures, our artist exhibited the taste he had acquired by the study of the antique; and he admirably varied the characters of his heads. The arrangement of drapery which he adopted, partook largely of the same style; and being well understood, was painted with great dexterity; though it must be confessed, that in form, it was not unfrequently better adapted to sculpture than to painting. His style of colouring was simple and broad. In that of his flesh he was very successful; exhibiting a great variety of complexion, with much warmth and richness. It was not always, however, that his pictures were complete in the general tone; but crude discordant colours were sometimes introduced in the back-grounds, which not being blended or broken into unison with the hue of the principal figures, interrupted the harmony of the whole. The executive part of his works was free, learned, and precise, without being trifling or minute, possessing great simplicity, and exhibiting a purity of feeling consonant with the style of his compositions. He aimed at the best of all principles in the imitation of nature, viz. to generalize its effects; he even carried it so far as to subject himself to the charge of negligence in the completion of his forms: but the truth of his imitation is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the minds of those who regard nature systematically, and hot individually, or too minutely. In a word, adds the critic whom we have principally followed in this character, every lover of art who knows how to appreciate truly what is most valuable in painting, will hold the name of llomney in increasing estimation, the more frequently and impartially he examines his productions.

His executor, conformably to his intentions, gave a complete and beautiful edition of his works at Paris, 1743, in 3 vols. 4to, and also in 4 vols. 12mo, They contain odes, epistles, epigrams, and comedies, in verse; and a collection of letters, in prose; and have procured him the Character of the best lyric poet of France. Voltaire, who is not supposed to have done justice to Rousseau, owns, however, that “his odes are beautiful, diversified, and abound with images; that, in his hymns, he equals the harmony and devotion observable in the spiritual songs of Racine; and that his epigrams are finished with greater care than those of Marot. He was not,” continues the critic, “so successful in operas, which require sensibility; nor in comedies, which cannot succeed without gaiety. la both these qualities he was deficient; and therefore failed in operas and comedies, as being foreign to his genius.”

It becomes necessary now to recur to some particulars of Rousseau’s more public and literary life, which was in many respects as censurable as his private. The commencement of his literary career was in 1750. The academy of Dijon had proposed the question, “Whether the revival of the arts and sciences has contributed to the refinement of manners.” Rousseau, it is said, at first inclined to the affirmative side of the question; but Diderot told him it was a kind of pons asinorum, and advised him to support the negative, and he would answer for his success. Nor was he disappointed, for this paradoxical discourse was allowed to be admirably written, and replete with the deepest reasoning, and was publicly crowned with the approbation of the academicians. Several answers appeared Against it, one of which was written by Stanislaus, king of Poland, who was, however, so much an admirer of Rousseau, that when the latter was ridiculed on the stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “Comedie des Philosophes,” the king, then duke of Lorraine, deprived Palissot of his place at the academy of Nancy. On this occasion Rousseau, with far more sense, interceded for him, and obtained his restoration. In 1752 Rousseau wrote a comedy entitled “Narcisse, ou PAmant de lui-meme.” He also composed a musical entertainment of “Le Devin du Village,” which was represented with the greatest success at Paris. His next piece was “Lettre sur la Musique Franchise,” which was to prove that the French had no such thing as vocal music, and that, from the defects in their language, they could not have it. This able work so excited the resentment of the French, that he is said to have been burnt in effigy. In 1754- he returned to Geneva, where he abjured the catholic faith, and was restored to the rights of citizenship. He now wrote his e< Discours sur les Causes de l'inegalite parmi les Hommes, et sur TOrigine des Societes.“This endeavour to prove that all mankind are equal has (in the opinion of a modern critic, by no means partial to Rousseau’s character) been much misunderstood by critics, and misrepresented by wits. Even by the author’s confession, it is rather ajeu d'esprit than a philosophical inquiry; for he owns that the natural state, such as he represents it, did probably never take place, and probably never will; and if it had taken place, he seems to think it impossible that mankind should ever have emerged from it without some very extraordinary alteration in the course of nature. He also says that this natural state is not the most advantageous for man; for that the most delightful sentiments of the human mind could not exert themselves till man had relinquished his brutal and solitary nature, and become a domestic animal. At this period, and previous to the establishment of property, he places the age most favourable to human happiness; which is precisely what the poets have done before him, in their descriptions of the golden age. After publishing this rhapsody, Rousseau did not remain long at Geneva, but returned to France, and lived some time at Paris, after which he retired to Montuiorency, and published, in 1758, his” Lettre“to M. D‘Alembert on the design of establishing a theatre at Geneva, which he proved could not be necessary in a place circumstanced as Geneva was. D’Alembert and Marmontel, however, replied, and Voltaire appears from this time to have begun his hatred for Rousseau, with whom he and the rest of the philosophers had hitherto cordially co-operated against the Christian religion. Rousseau wanted that uniform hatred to revealed religion which the others called consistency, and his fancy was apt to ramble bevond the limits they had set. In 1760 he published his 'celebrated novel entitled” Lettres de clt ux A mans,“c. bui generally known by the title of” Julie, ou la Nnuvelie Heloise.“This epistolary romance, of which the plofc is ill-managed, and the arrangement bad, like all other works of genius, has its beauties as well as its defects. Some of the letters are, indeed, admirable, both for style and sentiment, but none of the personages are reaily interesting. The character of St. Preux is weak, and often forced. Julia is an assemblage of tenderness and pity, of elevation af soul, and of coquetry, of natural parts and pedancry. Wolmar is a violent man, and almost beyond the limits of nature. In fine, when he wishes to change his style, and adopt that of the speaker, he does not long support it, and every attempt embarrasses the author and cools the reader. In this novel, however, Rousseau’s talent of rendering every thing problematical, appears very conspicuous, as, in his arguments in favour of, and against, duelling, which afford an apology for suicide, and a just condemnation of it; of his facility in palliating the crime of adultery, aud his strong reasons to make it abhorred; on the one hand, in declamations against social happiness, on the other in transports in favour of humanity; here in violent rhapsodies against philosophers; there by a rage for adopting their opinions; the existence of God is attacked by sophistry, and atheists confuted by the most irrefragable arguments; the Christian religion combated by the most specious objections, and celebrated by the most sublime eulogies. Yet in the preface to this work the author attempts to justify his consistency; he says public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and romances for a corrupted people.” I have,“he adds,” viewed the manners of my age, and have published these letters. Why did I not live at a time when I ought to have thrown them into the fire?“He affects also to say that they were not intended for an extensive circulation, and that they will suit but few readers. With regard to their effects on the female sex, he pretends to satisfy his conscience with saying” No chaste young woman ever reads romance^; and I have given this book a decisive title, that on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone; but let her not impute her ruin to me the mischief was done before.“Such is the impudence of this man, who had made his work as seductive as possible, and would have been greatly mortified if it had not produced its effect. Whoever, indeed, reads his” Confessions“will see that sensuality was, first and last, his predominant vice, and that moral corruption became early familiar to him. The only wonder is, that he should ever have been considered as a moral teacher, because, in order to introduce his depraved sophistry with more effect, he mixed with it some moral lessons. Yet there was a time when this was a favourite work even in our country, and it is to be feared, has been the pattern of many others, which, although written with less ability, have been encouraged in the same circles which once gave a fashion to Rousseau. His next attempt was to recommend republicanism in a work entitled” Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politiqtie,“in which he bore his part, along with the Encyclopaedists, in exciting those awful delusions which produced the French revolution and all its disastrous consequences. It was, however, less cautious than some of his former productions, and was immediately prohibited in France and Switzerland; and hence his lasting enmity to all existing establishments, civil and religious, which brought on what he and his friends were pleased to consider as persecution. This appeared particularly in his” Emilie, ou de l'Education,“which was published in 1762. In this work, with many remarks that may be useful, there are others so mischievous and impious, that whenever it produces an effect, it must be of the worst kind. It was not, however, his dogmas on education only, which excited the public hostility to this work, so much as his insolent declamation against all which the world had agreed to hold sacred, mixed, as in his former novel, with an affected admiration of the morals of the gospel, and the character of its founder; and it is remarkable that, in this last condescension, he so much displeased his former colleagues, Voltaire, D'Alembert, &c. that they joined the public voice, although from different and concealed motives. In truth, they thought, like others, that there was too much of an insane inconsistency about Rousseau, and that no party could rank him among its supporters. In the mean time, as soon as published, the French parliament condemned this book, and entered into a criminal prosecution against the author, which forced him to a precipitate retreat. He directed his steps to his native country, but Geneva shut her gates against him, and both at Paris and Geneva, the” Emile“was burnt by the common hangman. At length he was for a time allowed to take shelter in Switzerland, where he published a letter to the archbishop of Paris, in answer to his tnandement for the burning of the” Emile;“and also his” JLettres de la Montagne,“in which occurs the following almost blasphemous paragraph:” How,“says he,” can I enter into a justification of this work? I, who think that I have effaced by it the faults of my whole life; I, who place the evils it has drawn upon me as a balance to those which I have committed; I who, filled with confidence, hope one day to say to the supreme Arbiter, ‘ Deign in thy clemency to judge a weak mortal:’ I have, it is true, done much ill upon earth, but I have published this writing.“In these letters too, he continued his hostility to revealed religion, in a manner that excited against him great indignation among the clergy of Neufchatel; and in September 1765, the populace attacked his house and his person, and with much difficulty he reached Strasburg in a very destitute condition, where he waited till the weather permitted, and then set out for Paris, and appeared in the habit of an Armenian. The celebrated Hume at this time resided in Paris, and being applied to in favour of Rousseau, undertook to find him an asylum in England, to which he accordingly conducted him in the beginning of the year 1766, and provided him with an agreeable situation. But Rousseau, whose vanity and perverse temper were ungovernable, and who thought he was not received in this country with the respect due to the first personage in Europe, which he conceived himself to be, took it in his head that Hume was in league with the French philosophers to injure his lame, and after abusing his benefactor in a letter, in the most gross manner, and even refusing a pension from the crown, left England in 1767, and went to France. At this period he published his” Dictionnaire de Musique.“Of this work Dr. Burney, after pointing out some defects, says, that” more good taste, intelligence, and extensive views are to be found in his original articles, not only than in any former musical dictionary, but in all the books on the subject of music which the literature of France can boast. And his ` Lettre sur la Musique Frangois,' may be safely pronounced the best piece of musical criticism that has ever been produced in any modern language. It must, however, be confessed, that his treatment of French music is very sarcastic, not to say contemptuous; but the music, the national character avantageux, and exclusive admiration of their own music, required strong Ian* guage. It had been proved long since, that they were not to be laughed out of their bad taste in any one of the fine arts: the national architecture, painting, and sculpture, were, in general, bad, and not what a traveller returning from Italy could bear to look at: though there have been now and then individual French artists of every kind, who have travelled and studied antiquity as well as the great masters of the Italian school; and it is now said, that at the Institute they are trying seriously to correct their errors, and to establish a classical taste throughout the empire."

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

, a very eminent grammarian and critic, was born in October 1674, at Raggel, in the parish of Boyndie and county of Banff, Scotland. His father, James Ruddiman, was a farmer, and so strongly attached to the house of Stuart, as to shed tears on the death of Charles If. His son was educated in Latin grammar at the parish-school of Boyndie, and quickly surpassed his class-fellows in vigour of application. At the age of sixteen he was desirous of going to the university, and when his father opposed this inclination, because he thought him too young, he set out, without his knowledge, to King’s college, Aberdeen, and obtained by his skill in Latin, the first exhibition, or bursary, as it is there called, of that year. After studying at this college for four years, he obtained the degree of master of arts. Though he was only twenty years of age when he left Aberdeen, it appears from a book entitled, “Rhetoricorum Libri tres,” composed before this period, but never published, that he had then read the Roman classics with uncommon attention and advantage.

About this time he gave his assistance to Mr. Ames, in his typographical researches. In October 1751, at the age of 77, he was obliged to ask the aid of physicians for preserving his eye-sight, which, however, they did not effect. Yet this misfortune, that to a scholar cannot easily be supplied, did not prevent him from doing kind acts to his relations, and continuing his correspondence with his friends, nor from pursuing his studies, and producing his edition of Livy, in four volumes 12mo, which Harwood declares to be one of the most accurate that ever was published. Glasgow had to boast of the spotless perfection of her Horace, in 1744; Edinburgh had reason, said that critic, to triumph in the immaculate purity of Ruddiman’s Livy, in 1751. Ruddiman resigned his place of keeper to the advocates’ library in a very handsome English letter; and the celebrated David Hume was appointed to succeed him. Mr. Ruddiman soon gave a fine specimen of his knowledge of the Latin language, in a letter on the subject to Mr. John Garden, of Brechin, 1712, still in ms.; but, with his usual judgment, he concluded his elaborate dissertation by remarking, that, if the Latin tongue be written with Roman accuracy, Roman pronunciation may be left, without much inconvenience, to find its own fashion in the learned world. He had scarcely closed this friendly correspondence when he was called from his favourite studies into an acrimonious contest, by James Man, master of the poor-hospital in Aberdeen, concerning his edition of Buchanan’s Works, which had been published 38 years before. Of this we have already taken notice in our account of Mr. Man. Mr. Ruddiman died at Edinburgh, Jan. 19, 1757, when he had advanced into the eighty-third year of his age, and was buried in the cemetery of the Grey Friers. His brother and partner, Walter, died in 1770, aged 83.

, an able critic and negociator, was born of an ancient family at Dordrecht or Dort, Aug. 28, 1589. He received a part of his early education at home, and was afterwards placed under the instructions of Gerard Vossius. In 1605 he was sent to Leyden, where he studied under Baud-ins, with whom he also resided, Scaliger, and Heinsius. After remaining here six years, he travelled in 1611 into France, resided two years at Paris, and took the degree of licentiate in law at Orleans; less from inclination than to please his parents. He returned to Dort, September 13, 1613, the day after his mother died, and soon after went to the Hague, where he was admitted to the bar; but remaining averse to this profession, and uncertain what to adopt in its place, the Swedish ambassador, who had been desired by his royal master to send him a person from Holland qualified for the post of counsellor, proposed it to Rutgers, and he having accepted the offer, they departed for Stockholm in May 1614. Finding, on their arrival, that the king was in Livonia, on account of the war with Muscovy, they took that route, and when they arrived at Nerva, the king received Rutgers with so great kindness, that the latter, although he had taken this journey without any determined purpose, or the hopes of a fixed settlement, now resolved ta attach himself to his majesty’s service. He was after this employed three times as envoy from that prince to Holland upon very important affairs, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of his majesty, who ennobled him in 1619. He visited Bohemia, Denmark, and several German courts, in the same quality; and lastly he resided at the Hague, as minister from Gustavus to that republic, where he died Oct. 26, 1625, at the early age of thirty-six. His works are, 1. “Notae in Horatium,” added to an edition of that poet by Robert Stephens, in 1613, and reprinted in 1699 and 1713. 2. “Variarum lectionum libri tres, quibus utriusque linguae scriptores, qua emendantur, qua illustrantur,” Leyden, 1618. This is justly esteemed as a very learned work, and, what was not so common then, a very judicious Specimen of criticism. 3. “Notse in Martialem,” added to Scriverius’s excellent and scarce edition of 1619, 12mo. 4. “Spicilegium in Apuleiurrt,” printed in Elmenhorst’s edition of 1621, 8vo. 5. “Emendationes in Q. Curtium,” given in the Leyden edition of 1625, 12mo. 6. “Poemata,” printed with Nicolas Heinsius’ s poems, Leyden, 1653, and Amst. 1669, 8vo. This Heinsius, the son of Daniel Heinsius, was Rutgers’s nephew. 7. “Lectiones Venusinae,” added to Peter Bui-man’s Horace, 1699, 12mo. 8. “VitaJani Rutgersii,” &c. written by himself, and published by another nephew, William Goes, Leyden, 1646, 4to, of 14 pages, but republished with his poems, and elsewhere. Rutgers bequeathed his library to Daniel Heinsius, his brother-in-law, who printed a catalogue of it in 1630.

, a learned critic, of the seventeenth century, was professor of history at Leyden. He was born in 1640, and after studying, probably at that university, he visited England, France, and Italy, and was every Tvhere esteemed for his talents and address. On his return to Holland he followed the profession of the law for some time at the Hague, but having little inclination for either the study or practice of it, he accepted the professorship of history at Leyden, and became an honour to the university. His lectures were much crowded, and he added to the reputation they procured him by his publications, particularly his edition of Tacitus, which Dr. Harwood pronounces “a very correct and excellent one.” It consists of 2 vols. 12mo, printed at Leyden in 1687, the first containing the text of Tacitus, the second Rycke’s notes, which are very valuable, and illustrate many passages that had escaped the notice or sagacity of his predecessors. He published also a curious dissertation “De primis Italian coionis, et de adventu JEneze in Italiam,” the subject of which was to refute the opinion of Bochart, who maintained that/neas had never seen Italy. He wrote another dissertation on giants, in which he collected all that had been written on those remarkable beings; an “Oratio de Palingenesia literarum in terris nostris,” published by Krieghius, at Jena in 1703; and published some other critical works. He died in 1690. Many of his letters are in the posthumous works of Francius.

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

, whose proper name was Marcus Antonius Coccius, or vernacularly Marcantonio Coccio, an Italian historian and critic, was born in 1436, in the campagna of Rome, on the confines of the ancient country of the Sabines, from which circumstance he took the name of Sabellicus. He was a scholar of Pomponius Letus’s, and in 1475, was appointed professor of eloquence at Udino, to which office he was likewise appointed at Venice, in 1484-. Some time after, when the plague obliged him to retire to Verona, he composed, within the space of fifteen months, his Latin history of Venice, in thirty- three books, whiqh were published in 1487, entitled “Rerum Venetiarum ab urbe condita,” folio, a most beautiful specimen of early printing, of which there was a copy on vellum, in the Pinelli library. The republic of Venice was so pleased with this work as to decree the author a pension of 200 sequins; and Sabellicus, out of gratitude, added four books to his history, which, however, remain in manuscript. He published also “A Description of Venice,” in three books a “Dialogue on the Venetian Magistrates” and two poems in honour of the republic. The most considerable of his other works is his rhapsody of histories: “Rhapsodiae Historiarum Enneades,” in ten Euneads, each containing nine books, and comprizing a general history from the creation to the year 1503. The first edition published at Venice in 1498, folio, contained only seven Enneads; but the second, in Io04, had the addition of three more, bringing the history down to the above date. Although there is little, either in matter or manner, to recommend tins work, or many others of its kind, to a modern reader, it brought the author both reward and reputation. His other works are discourses, moral, philosophical, and historical, with many Latin poems; the whole printed in four volumes, folio, at Basil in 1560. There is a scarce edition of his “Epistolæ familiares, necnon Orationes et Poemata,” Venice, 1502, folio. Sabellicus likewise wrote commentaries on Pimy the naturalist, Valerius Maximus, Livy, Horace, Justin, Florus, and some other classics, whi< h are to be found in Gruter’s “Thesaurus.” He died at Venice in 1506. Whatever reputation he might gain by his history of Venice, he allows himself that he too often made use of authors on whom not much reliance was to be placed; and it is certain that he did not at all consult, or seem to know the existence of, the annals of the doge Andrew Dandolo, which furnish the most authentic, as well as ancient, account of the early times of the republic.

, a classical scholar and critic, was probably the descendant of a French family, but we find no mention of him in any French biographical work, and are unable to say much of his early history. In 1705, he was a student at Lincoln college, Oxford, but made no long stay there. His passion for Greek literature, but particularly for acquiring materials towards a new edition of Theocritus, led him to Italy, where, though young, for he was scarce twenty, he obtained a distinguished reputation for learning, and became acquainted with men of the first erudition, among whom were Gravina, Fontanini, and others. By their acquaintance he was easily introduced into the best libraries; and at Florence in particular, he was favoured with the friendship of the learned professor Salvini, who furnished him with several materials relating to Theocritus from the Laurentian library and St. Mary’s monastery of Benedictines. The patronage and friendship of Mr. Newton too, the English ambassador at the grand duke’s court, were of signal service to him. After spending some time with these and other learned men, in a mutual exchange of literary treasures and observations, he returned to England by way of Geneva and Paris, and died, not about 1750, as Mr. Warton says, but Sept. 5, 1754, at his house in Red-lion-square, leaving the valuable collection of books and Mss. he had made abroad to the Bodleian library, and the duplicates of his books to Lincoln college. Of the Mss. Mr. Warton availed himself in his edition of Theocritus. Mr. St. Amand left also 8000l. to Christ’s hospital, and other legacies, which shew that he was a man of considerable opulence.

In the discussion of philological subjects, Dr. Salter proved himself a very accurate Greek scholar; his reading was universal, and extended through the whole circle of ancient literature; he was acquainted with the poets, historians, orators, philosophers, and critics, of Greece and Rome; his memory was naturally tenacious, and it had acquired great artificial powers, it such an expression be allowable, by using no notes when he delivered his sermons. To extempore preaching he had accustomed himself for a long course of years. So retentive indeed were his faculties, that, till a few years before his death, he could quote long passages from almost every author whose works he had perused, even with a -critical exactness. Nor were his studies confined to the writers of antiquity; he was equally conversant with English literature, and with the languages and productions of the learned and ingenious in various parts of Europe. In his earlier life he had been acquainted with Bentley, and cherished his memory with profound fespect. He preserved many anecdotes of this great critic, which were published from his papers by our learned English printer, Bowyer.

, of Spanish extraction, but to be classed among English divines, was a native of Artois, where he was born in 1531. Of his early years we have no account. In 1582 he was invited to Leyden to be professor of divinity, and was preacher in the French church there. Having studied the controversy respecting church government, he inclined to that of episcopacy, and in 1587 came to England where he was well received hy some of thie prelates and divines of that day, particularly Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. He first settled at Jersey, where he taught a school, and preached to his countrymen, who were exiles there. He was appointed master of the tree grammar-school at Southampton, where Nicholas Fuller, the most renowned critic of his age, received his education principally under him, and he also educated sir Thomas Lake, secretary of state to James I. He was successively promoted to a prebend in the churches of Gloucester, Canterbury, and Westminster. He displayed great learning in defence of episcopacy against Beza, when that divine recommended the abolition of it in Scotland. He died in 1613, at the age of eighty-two, and was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where there is a monument to his memory. All his works were published in 1611, one v.oL folio. He must have acquired a very considerable knowledge of the English language, as we find his name in the first class of those whom king James I. employed in the new translation of the Bible. He lived in great intimacy with his fellow labourer in the cause of episcopacy, the celebrated Hooker. “These two persons,” says Walton, “began a holy friendship, increasing daily to so high and mutual affections, that their two wills seemed to be but one and the same.”

, a very learned philologer and literary historian, was born at Eppendorff, a village between Chemnitz and Freyberg, in Saxony, where his father was a clergyman, Jan. 13, 1714. His proper name was Christopher Gottlob Sach, which, when he commenced author, he Latinized into Sachsius, and afterwards into Saxius, dropping the Gottlob altogether. His father first gave him some, instructions in the teamed languages, which he afterwards improved at the school of Chemnitz, but more effectually at the electoral school of Misnia, where he also studied classical antiquities, history, and rhetoric, and in 1735 went to Leipsic with the strongest recommendations for industry and proficiency. Here he studied philosophy under the celebrated Wolff, but as he had already perused the writings both of the ancient and modern philosophers with profound attention, he is said to have had the courage to differ from the current opinions. Philosophy, however, as then taught, was less to his taste than the study of antiquities, classical knowledge, and literary history, to which he determined to devote his days; and the instructions of professor Christ, and his living in the house with Menkenius, who had an excellent library, were circumstances which very powerfully confirmed this resolution. He had not been here above a year, when two young noblemen were confided to his care, and this induced him to cultivate the modern languages most in use. His first disputation had for its subject, “Vindiciae secundum libertatem pro Maronis jEneide, cui manum Jo. Harduinus nuper assertor injecerat,” Leipsic, 1737. Among other learned men who highly applauded this dissertation was the second Peter Burmann, in the preface to his Virgil, but who afterwards, in his character as a critic, committed some singular mistakes in condemning Saxius, while he applauded Sachsius, not knowing that they were one and the same. In 1738 Saxius took his master’s degree, and commenced his literary career by writing a number of critical articles in the “Nova acta eruditorum,” and other literary journals, from this year to 1747. Tiiis employment involved him sometimes in controversies with his learned brethren, particularly with Peter Burmann, or with foreign authors with whose works he had taken liberties. In 1745 he visited the most considerable parts of Germany, and was at Franckfort on the Maine during the coronation of the Emperor. In 1752 he was appointed professor of history, antiquities, and rhetoric at Utrecht, and on entering on his office pronounced an oration on the science of antiquity, which was printed in 1753, 4to. After this his life seems to have been devoted entirely to the duties of his professorship, and the composition of a great many works on subjects of philology and criticism, some in German, but principally in Latin. The most considerable of these, the only one much known in this country, is his “Onomasticon Literarium,” or Literary Dictionary, consisting of a series of biographical and critical notices or references respecting the most eminent writers of every age or nation, and in every branch of literature, in chronological order. The first volume of this appeared in 1775, 8vo, and it continued to be published until seven volumes were completed, with a general Index, in 1790. To this, in 1793, he added an eighth or supplementary volume, from which we have extracted some particulars of his life, as given by himself. This is a work almost indispensable to biographers, and as the work of one man, must have been the production of many years* labour and attention. Some names, however, are omitted, which we might have expected to find in it; and the English series, as in every foreign undertaking of the kind, is very imperfect. We have seen no account of his latter days. He lived to a very advanced age, dying at Utrecht. May 3, 1806, in his ninety-second year.

In the preface to his works, we are told that Mr. Say te was a tender husband, an indulgent father, and of a most benevolent, communicative disposition, ever ready to do good, and to distribute. He was well versed in astronomy and natural philosophy; had a taste for music and poetry, was a good critic, and a master of the classics. Yet so great was his modesty, that he was known only to a few select friends, and never published above two or three sermons, which were in a manner extorted from him.“Among the modern Latin poets Broukhusius was his favourite; among the English, Milton, whose head, etched by Mr. Richardson, is prefixed to his second essay, A letter. from Mr. Say to Mr. Hughes, and two from Mr. Say to Mr. Duncombe, with a Latin translation of the beginning of” Pa* radise Lost,“are printed among the” Letters of Eminent Persons deceased,“vol. J. and vol. II. His characters of Mrs. Bridget Bendysh, grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell, in the appendix to vol. II. first appeared (without a name) jn Gent. Mag. 1765, p. 357. In the same volume, p. 423,” The Resurrection illustrated by the Changes of the Silkworm“is by the same hand. And some of his poetical pieces are in Nichols’s” Select Collection, vol. VI.

, a very learned and eminent critic, was born, according to his son’s account, April 23, 1484, at Ripa, a castle in the territory of Verona, and was the son of Benedict Scaliger, who, for seventeen years, commanded the troops of Matthias, king of Hungary, to whom he was related. His mother was Berenice Lodronia, daughter of count Paris. From the same authority we learn, that Scaliger was a descendant from the ancient princes of Verona; but while other particulars of the birth and family ol Scaliger are called in question, this seems to be refuted by the patent of naturalization which Francis I. granted him in 1528, in which such an honourable descent would unquestionably have been noticed, whereas in this instrument he is called only “Julius Caesar della Scala de Bordons, doctor of physic, a native of Verona.” When therefore, his critical asperities had raised him enemies, they did not fail to strip him of his royal origin, and instead of it, asserted that he was the son of a school-master (some say an illuminator) of Verona, one Benedict Borden, who, removing to Venice, took the name of Scaliger, either because he had a scale for his sign, or lived in a street called from that instrument; and although Thuanus seems inclined to consider this story as the fabrication of Augustine Niphus, out of pique to Scaliger, it is certain that the royal origin of the Scaligers has always appeared doubtful, and we have now no means to remove the uncertainty.

, a learned German, was born at Strasburg in 1621, and probably educated there. He applied himself principally to the study of Greek and Latin antiquities, and of history; and made himself a tolerable verbal critic upon Latin and Greek authors. He was driven out of his own country by the wars; and, as Christina of Sweden was at that time the general patroness of all men of letters, he withdrew into her kingdom in 1648. He was made, the same year, professor of eloquence and politics at Upsal afterwards, honorary professor, royal of the law of nature -and nations, andassessor of the royal college of antiquities; and, at length, librarian of the university of Upsal. He died in 1679, after havingpublished a great number of works. Many of his pieces relate to Qreek and Roman antiquities, and are to be found in. the collection of Qrseyius and Gronovius. He wrote notes uppn many ancient authors upon Ælian, Phaedrus, “Arrianl Tactica,” of which last he made also a Latin version Petronius, Hyginus, Julius Obsequens, Justin, &c. He was one of those who stoutly defended the authenticity of that fragment of Petronius, pretended to have been fou.nd at Trau which, however, is generally judged to be a forgery, and accordingly rejected by Burman and other critics.

As a teacher, professor Schultens had the happy talent of rendering the driest subjects plain and interesting to his pupils. This was particularly the case with the principles of the Hebrew grammar, an intimate and accurate knowledge of which he recommended as indispensably necessary to all who wished to understand the Old Testament in the original language. In translating and explaining the Bible, he preserved a judicious medium between those who^ thought the Hebrew text too sacred to be the subject of criticism; and those who, like Houbigant, without a sufficient acquaintance with the genius of the language, ventured on needless alterations. Hence he was. much displeased with a work by professor Kocherus of Berne, entitled “Vindiciue sacri textus Hebraei Esaiae vatis, adversus 11. Lowthi criticam;” concerning which he said, in a letter to Dr. Findlay, of Glasgow, “It violates the bounds of moderation and decency by the assertion that the text of Isaiah could not gain any thing by Dr. Lowth’s conjectures. I am of a very different opinion. When at Oxford and London, I was intimately acquainted with bishop Lowth, had an opportunity of knowing his excellent disposition, and am therefore much vexed that Kocherus, from his fiery zeal against innovation, should have been induced to treat him with seventy, as if the bishop had been a rash and petulant critic.” Schultens’s sentiments on this subject are more fully expressed in some articles which he wrote for the “Bihliotheca Critica,” published by Wyttenbach, particularly in the review of Kennicoi’s Bible. These judicious sentiments, together with his extensive abilities and knowledge of the subject, his eulogist observes, rendered him admirably qualified to have given a new version of the Old Testament. This at one time he designed, and nearly finished a translation of the book of Job, which was published after his death by Herman Muntinge, 1794, 8vo, but his sentiments of this portion of sacred writ are so much at variance with those of the most able and popular commentators, that we question if it will meet with general approbation.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of sir John Sedley, of Aylesford in Kent, by a daughter of sir Henry Savile, and was born about 1639. At seventeen, he became a fellowcommoner of Wadham college in Oxford; but, taking no degree, retired to his own country, without either traveling, or going to the inns of court. At the restoration he came to London, and commenced wit, courtier, poet, and man of gallantry. As a critic, he was so much admired, tfiat he became a kind of oracle among the poets; and no performance was approved or condemned, till sir Charles Sedley had given judgment. This made king Charles jestingly say to him, that Nature had given him a patent to be Apollo’s viceroy; and lord Rochester placed him in the first rank of poetical critics. With these accomplishments, he impaired his estate by profligate pleasures, and was one of that party of debauchees whom we have already mentioned in our account of Sackville lord Buckhurst, who having insulted public decency, were indicted for a riot, and all severely fined; sir Charles in 500l. The day for payment being appointed, sir Charles desired Mr. Henry Killigrew and another gentleman, both his friends, to apply to the king to get it remitted; which they undertook to do; but at the same time varied the application so far as to beg it for themselves, and they made Sedley pay the full sum.

In 1643, he was appointed one of the lay-members to. sk in the assembly of divines at Westminster, in which, his admirers tell us, he frequently perplexed those divines with his vast learning; and, as Whitelocke relates, *‘ sometimes when they had cited a text of scripture to prove their assertion, he would tell them, ’ perhaps in your little pocket-bibles with gilt leaves,' which they would often pull out and read, < the translation may be thus’ but the Greel^ and the Hebrew signify thus and thus and so would totally silence them." This anecdote, which has often been repeated to Selden’s praise, may afford a proof of his wit, such as it was; but as a reflection on the divines of that assembly, it can do him no credit, many of them certainly understanding the original languages of the Bible as well as himself. It was in truth, as an able critic has observed, a piece of wanton insolence.

, a celebrated grammarian and critic of antiquity, flourished in the fifth century. He is known now chiefly by his commentaries upon Virgil, which Barthius and others have supposed to be nothing more than a collection of ancient criticisms and remarks upon that poet, made by Servius. They were first published by Valdarfer in 1471, and reprinted several times in that century, afterwards in an edition of Virgil, at Paris, by Robert Stephens, 1532, in folio, and by Fulvius Ursinus, in 1569, 8vo. A better edition was given by Peter Daniel at Paris, in 1600; but the best is that printed with the edition of Virgil, by Masvicius, in 1717, 4to. Burman, in his edition of 1746, has so blended these notes with those of Heinsius, as to render it difficult to determine how he reconciles their opposite authorities. There is also extant, and printed in several editions of the ancient grammarians, a piece of Servius upon the feet of verses and the quantity of syllables, called “Centiaietrum.” This was first printed in 1476. Macrobius has spoken highly of Servius, and makes him one of the speakers in his “Saturnalia.”

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre , which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it occurs in his will. His connexion with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said, that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal; but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favourable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candour he was repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare’s incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and as he was a remarkably slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, of seldom altering or blotting out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, that “not long after the year 1600, a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, which, however he may talk of his almost idolatrous affection, produced on his part, from that time to the death of our author, and for many years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm, and many malevolent reflections.” But from these, which are the commonly received opinions on this subject, Dr. Farmer is inclined to depart, and to think Jonson’s hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless; so uncertain is every circumstance we attempt to recover of our great poet’s life . Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might in certain situations be of some importance, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education, and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects .

When public opinion had begun to assign to Shakspeare the very high rank he was destined to hold, he became the promising object of fraud and imposture. This, we have already observed, he did not wholly escape in his own time, and he had the spirit or policy to despise it. It was reserved for modern impostors, however, to avail themselves of the obscurity in which his history is involved. In 1751 a book was published, entitled “A Compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary Complaints of diuers of our Countrymen in those our days; which, although they are in some parte unjust and frivolous, yet are they all by way of dialogue, throughly debated and discussed by William Shakspeare, gentleman.” This had been originally published in 1581, but Dr. Farmer has clearly proved that W. S. gent, the only authority for attributing it to Shakspeare in the reprinted edition, meant William Stafford, gent. Theobald, the same accurate critic informs us, was desirous of palming upon the world a play called “Double Falsehood,” for a posthumous one of Shakspeare. In 1770 was reprinted at Feversham, an old play, called “The Tragedy of Arden of Feversham and Black Will,” with a preface attributing it to Shakspeare, without the smallest foundation. But these were trifles compared to the -atrocious attempt made in 1795-6, when, besides a vast mass of prose and verse, letters, &c. pretendedly in the hand-writing of Shakspeare and his correspondents, an entire play, entitled “Vortigern,” was not only brought forward for the astonishment of the admirers of Shakspeare, but actually performed on Drurylane stage. It would be unnecessary to expatiate on the merits of this play, which Mr. Steevens has very happily characterized as “the performance of a madman without a lucid interval,” or to enter more at large into the nature of a fraud so recent, and so soon acknowledged by the authors of it. It produced, however, an interesting controversy between Mr. Malone and Mr. George Chalmers, which, although mixed with some unpleasant asperities, was extended to inquiries into the history and antiquities of the stage, from which future critics and historians may derive considerable information.

To these scanty notices, may be added his acquaintance with Dr. Bent ley, which was occasioned by that learned critic’s announcing an intention of publishing a new edition of Manilius. Sir Edward, who had formerly translated the first book of that poet into English verse, took this opportunity of sending to Bentley his collection of editions and papers belonging to Caspar Gevanius, who had also intended an edition of Manilius, but was prevented by death.

In Sherburne’s poems considerable genius may be discovered, but impeded by the prevailing taste of his age for strained metaphors and allusions. Poetical lovers then thought no compliments too extravagant, and ransacked the remotest, and apparently most barren sources for what were considered as striking thoughts, but which appear to us unnatural, if not ridiculous. He appears to have derived most of his reputation from his translations. He was a man of classical learning and a critic, and frequently conveys the sense of his author with considerable spirit, although his versification is in general flat and inharmonious. In his sacred poerns he seems to rise to a fervency and elegance which indicate a superior inspiration.

, a French critic and divine of great learning, was born at Dieppe, May 13, 1638, and commenced his studies among the priests of the oratory, whom he quitted for some time, and went to Paris, where he applied himself to divinity, and made a great progress in Oriental learning, for which he had always a particular turn. About the end of 1662, he returned to the oratory and became a priest of it. On the death of father Bourgouin, general of this congregation, some cause of displeasure inclined him to leave them, and join the society of the Jesuits; but from this he was diverted by the persuasions of father Bertad, the superior of the oratory. He was then sent to the college of Juilly, in the diocese of Meaux, to teach philosophy; but other business occurring, he was ordered to go to Paris. In the library of the oratory there was a valuable collection of Oriental books, of which Simon was employed to make a catalogue, which he executed with great skill, and perused at the same time those treasures with great avidity. M. de Lamoignon, first president of the parliament of Paris, meeting with him one day in the library, was so pleased with his conversation, that he requested of Senault, the new general of the oratory, that he might be permitted to remain in Paris; but this being unaccompanied by any advantages, Simon, who had much of an independent spirit, petitioned to go back to Juilly, to teach philosophy, as before. He accordingly arrived there in 1668, and, in 1670, his first publication appeared, a defence of the Jews against the accusation of having murdered a Christian child, “Factum pour les Juifs de Metz,” &c. In the following year, with a view to shew that the opinion of the Greek church is not materially different from that of the church of Rome, with respect to the sacrament, he published “Fides Ecclesiae Orientalis, seu Gabrielis Metropolitae Philadelphiensis opuscula, cum interpretatione Latina et notis,” Paris, 1671, quarto, reprinted 16S6. When the first volume of the “Perpetuity of the faith respecting the Eucharist” appeared, our author, who from his youth was an original, if not always a just thinker, expressed some opinions on that work, and on the subject, which involved him in a controversy with the gentlemen of Port-Royal; and this seems to have laid the foundation of the opposition he afterwards met with from the learned of his own communion. His next publication came out under the name of Recared Simeon (for he often used fictitious names), and was a translation from Leo of Modena, entitled “Ceremonies et Coutumes qui s’observent aujourdui parmi les Juifs,” &c. 1674, 12mo. This was republished in 1681, under the name of the Sieur de Semonville; with the addition of a “Comparison between the ceremonies of the Jews and the discipline of the church.” In this edition, and perhaps in the subsequent ones of 1682 and 1684, the reader will find a great number of parentheses and crotchets, which Bayle thus accounts for: The work having been submitted in ms. to M. Perot, a doctor of the Sorbonne, for examination, he added some passages, which the author being obliged to retain, and yet unwilling that they should pass for his own, inclosed in crotchets; but had afterwards to complain, that the printers, who were not in the secret, had omitted some of these. In 1675, Simon published a “Voyage duMontLiban,” from the Italian of Dandini, with notes; and, about the same time, a “Factum du Prince de Neubourg, abbe de Feschamps, centre les religieux de cette abbay” and, as was usual with him, took an opportunity to attack the Benedictines.

His “Chronicon, &c.” was published at Oxford in 1652, with a Latin life prefixed, and was reprinted by the eminent critic Peter Wesseling. Dr. Reynolds, afterwards bishop of Norwich, in his license for the press, speaks of it as “egregtum et absolutissimum opus, summa industria, omniuenaerui ditione, magno judicio, et multorum annoru'n vigiliis productum.” His other works were, 1 “Positive divinity in three parts, containing an exposition of the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, an. 1 decalogue, &c.” 2. “The knowledge of Christ, in two Treatises.” 3. “A Treatise concerning God’s Providence in regard of Evil or Sin.” 4. “The Doctrine of Regeneration, delivered in a Sermon on John iii. 6,” and defended in a “Declaration.” 5. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” 6. “Notce selectiores in Horatium.” 7. “Prselectiones in Ptrsii Satyras.” 8. “Anglicanae linguae vocabuiarium Etymologicum.” 9. “Sanctas linguce soboles.” 10. “Dii gentium, sive nominurn, quibus deos suos Ethnic! appellabant explicatio.”

Although it is impossible to lessen the censure which Skelton incurred among his contemporaries, and immediate successors, it is but fair to say that his indelicacies are of no very seductive kind, that they are obscured by cant words and phrases no longer intelligible, or intelligible but to few, and that the removal of them is a matter of less trouble and less injury to an edition of his works than his biographers, who have copied one another, would insinuate. As to his poetry, Mr. Warton’s character may in general be followed with safety, and ought to be preserved with the respect due to so excellent a critic.

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

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

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

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

He then proceeds to assure those who may think proper to assist him, that their contributions shall appear with or without their names, as they shall direct; and that he will gladly pay those whose situation in life will not admit of their making presents of their labours, in such proportion as Mr. Tonson (his bookseller) shall think to be adequate to their merits. What follows is the language of a man who knew not himself, or who concealed his real character and intent, and who was at no very distant period to prove himself, unquestionably a most acute, yet at the same time a most arrogant, supercilious, and malignant critic on his fellow-labourers.

“The characters of living or dead commentators,” says Mr. Steevens in his present real or assumed humility, “shall not be wantonly traduced, and no greater freedom of language be made use of, than is necessary to convince, without any attempts to render those ridiculous, whose assertions may seem to demand a confutation. An error in a quotation, or accidental misrepresentation of a fact, shall not be treated with the severity due to a moral crime, nor as the breach of any other laws than those of literature, lest the reputation of the critic should be obtained at the expence of humanity, justice, and good manners; and by multiplying notes on notes we should be reduced at last, * to fight for a spot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.' The ostentation of bringing in the commentaries of others, merely to declare their futility, shall be avoided; and none be introduced here, but such as tend to the illustration of the author.” He concludes with signing his name, and requesting that letters may be addressed to him at Mr. Tonson’s. About the same time he opened a kind of correspondence in the St. James’s Chronicle, then the principal literary newspaper, the object of which was to obtain hints and remarks on any passages of Shakspeare which individuals might think themselves able to illustrate. What returns were made to these applications, we know not, but it appears that he became acquainted about this time with Dr. Johnson, and in 1770 they were both employed in that edition of the whole of Shakspeare’s plays which was first called “Johnson and Steevens’s edition,” and which was published in 1773, 10 vols. 8vo. In 1778 it was again reprinted, with the same names, but entirely under the care and with the improvements of Mr. Steevens; and again in 1785, when he availed himself of the assistance of Mr. Isaac Reed, although merely as superintendant of the press. It was a work of which Mr. Steevens would never surrender the entire care to any one, and his jealousy, as an editor of Shakspeare, was the cause of those many splenetic effusions for which he has been so justly blamed, and his character disgraced. This kind of hostility, in which Mr. Steevens unfortunately delighted, was not confined to the commentators on Shakspeare. He had from the earliest period that can be remembered a disposition to display his talents for ridicule at the expence of those who were, or whom he thought, inferior to himself. He was never more gratified than when he could irritate their feelings by anonymous attacks in the public journals, which he would, in their presence, affect to lament with all the ardour of friendship. Nor was he content to amuse himself with the sufferings of those who were candidates for literary fame, a species of inhumanity in which he had some contemporaries, and has had many successors, but would even intrude into the privacies of domestic life, and has been often, we fear too justly, accused of disturbing the happiness of families, by secret written insinuations, the consequences of which he could not always know, and must therefore have enjoyed only in imagination. But as such artifices long practised could not escape detection, his character for mischievous duplicity became known, and not long after the publication of the second edition of his Shakspeare, in conjunction with Dr. Johnson, he lived, in the language of that great man, “the life of an outlaw.” He was scarcely respected even by those who tasted his bounty (for he could at times be bountiful), and was dreaded as a man of great talents and great powers both of pen and tongue, with whom nevertheless it was more dangerous to live in friendship than in hostility.

In 1800, he was again induced to enter the fields of controversy, in defence of the opinions partly of his relation bishop Home, and partly of his friend Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones, in his life of bishop Home, had adverted to that prelate’s acquaintance with the writings of Htitchinson; but before a second edition was wanted, some writers had attacked the character of Dr. Home, as an Hutthinsonian and Mr. Jones therefore, in the new edition of the life, published in 1799, introduced a long preface^ vindicating the bishop, and shewing that the Hutchinsonian plan was consistent with the Holy Scriptures. This preface being reviewed in the British Critic in a manner by no means satisfactory to the supporters of Hutchinsonian opinions, or the friends of Mr. Jones (who died about this time), Mr. Stevens, with all the ardour of friendship, and with all the ability and spirit which had distinguished him in his earlier years, published under the name of Ain, the Hebrew word for Nobody, “A Review of the Review of a new Preface to the second edition of Mr. Jones’s Life of bishop Home.”

A second attack was soon after this made on the sun’s distance, by Mr. Landen; but by no means with the same good temper which has been remarked in the former. He fancied to himself errors in Dr. Stewart’s investigation, which have no existence; he exaggerated those that were real, and seemed to triumph in the discovery of them with unbecoming exultation. The error into which Dr. Stewart had fallen, though first taken notice of by Mr. Dawson, whose pamphlet was sent by Dr. Hutton to Mr. Landen as soon as it was printed (for Dr. Hutton had the care of the edition of it) yet this gentleman extended his remarks upon it to greater exactness. But Mr. Landen, in the zeal of correction, brings many other charges against Dr. Stewart, the greater part of which seem to have no good foundation. Such are his objections to the second part of the investigation, where Dr. Stewart finds the relation between the disturbing force of the sun, and the motion of the apses of the lunar orbit. For tiiis part, instead of being liable to objection, is deserving of the greatest praise, since it resolves, by geometry alone, a problem which had eluded the efforts of some of the ablest mathematicians, even when they availed themselves of the utmost resources of the integral calculus. Sir Isaac Newton, though he assumed the disturbing force very near the truth, computec the motion of the apses from thence only at one half of what it really amounts to; so that, had he been required, like Dr. Stewart, to invert the problem, he would have committed an error, not merely of a few thousandth parts, as the latter is alleged to have done, but would have brought out a result double of the truth. (Princip. Math. lib. 3, prop. 3.) Machin and Callendrini, when commenting on this part of the “Principia,” found a like inconsistency between their theory and observation. Three other celebrated mathematicians, Clairaut, D'Alembert, and Euler, severally experienced the same difficulties, and were led into an error of the same magnitude. It is true, that, on resuming their computations, they found that they had not carried their approximations to a sufficient length, which when they had at last accomplished, their results agreed exactly with observation. Mr. Walmsley and Dr. Stewart were the first mathematicians who, employing in the solution of this difficult problem, the one the algebraic calculus, and the other the geometrical method, were led immediately to the truth; a circumstance so much for the honour of both, that it ought not to be forgotten. It was the business of an impartial critic, while he examined our author’s reasonings, to have remarked and to have weighed these considerations.

To this account, as given in the last edition of this work, we may add that when Stone had obtained the duke of Argyle’s patronage, he probably was enabled to come to London, as we find he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1725, a year before the publication of his “Mathematical Dictionary,” and his subsequent works were all published in London: but in what capacity he lived or how supported, we know not. Io 1742 or 1743 his name was withdrawn from the list of the Royal Society. In 1758 he published “The Construction and Principal Uses of Mathematical Instruments, translated from the French of M. Bion, chief instrument -maker to the French king. To which are added, the construction and uses of such instruments as are omitted by M. Bion, particularly of those invented or improved by the English. By Edmund Stone,” folio. Here he omits the title of F. R S. which appeared to his former publications. From the introductory part of an account of this work in the Critical Review, it would appear that he was known to the writer of that article, and that he was now old and neglected. “Since the commencement of our periodical labours,” says the critic, “none of Mr. Stone’s works have passed through our hands. It is with pleasure we now behold this ingenious gentleman breaking a silence, for the service of the publick, which we were ready to attribute to his sense of its ingratitude. There is hardly a person the least tinctured with letters in the British dominions, who is unacquainted with the extraordinary merit of our author. Untutored, and self-taught, he ascended from the grossest ignorance, by mere dint of genius, to the sublimest paths of geometry. His abilities are universally acknowledged, his reputation unblemished, his services to the public uncontested, and yet he lives to an advanced age unrewarded, except by a mean employment that reflects dishonour on the donors.” What this employment was, we know not, but the work itself is said to be a second edition, and that the first had a rapid sale. In 1767, was published a pamphlet entitled “Some reflections on the the uncertainty of many astronomical and geographical positions, with regard to the figure and magnitude of the earth, &c. &c. By Edmund Stone,” 8vo. We have not seen this production, but from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, it must have been written either by a Mr. Edmund Stone of far inferior abilities and good sense to our author, or by our author in his dotage.

Dr. Sykes was a divine of the school of Clarke and Hoadly 3 who, while they made it the business of their lives to oppose the distinguishing doctrines of the established church, were content to enjoy both its dignities and emoluments. Such men have been well represented by an ingenious critic , as holding a grand debate between conviction and interest, and endeavouring to accommodate matters with as much ease as possible between both; a sort of half-way reformers, who endeavour to find out the secret band which will unite the two opposite extremes, and coalesce, in one mass, the most heterogeneous qualities of inward persuasion and outward profession. They subscribe articles which they do not believe, and reconcile it to their conscience by calling them articles of peace and not of faith; and by this principle of accommodation they endeavour to secure the character of the “children of light,” without wholly relinquishing the good things which fall to the share of the “children of the world.”

, an eminent German critic, was born at Wonscisch in Franconia, about 1565. His father, who was a tradesman of the lower order, died while Taubman was a child, and his mother married a taylor, who, however, had sense enough to discern the boy’s capacity, and resolved to bring him up to letters. For that purpose he sent him to Culmbach, a town of Franconia, to school, where he remained until he was sixteen years of age, and made an uncommon progress in literature. The circumstances of his parents, however, were so very indifferent, *hat they were unable to furnish him with much, and it is said that he was frequently constrained to beg his bread from door to door. While he was at this school his mother died, and his father-in-law married another wife, who proved very kind to one now become an orphan in every way.

His works are, 1. “Commentarius in Plautum, Francof. 1605;” and in 1612, not only enlarged, but more correct. A third edition, with additions, by Janus Gruterus, was published after his death in 1622. In these editions, which are all in quarto, Taubman has greatly contributed towards the restoration of the true text of Plautus. Joseph Scaliger complimented Taubman upon his Commentary on Plautus; and tells him, that it has all the marks of penetration, judgment, and industry. The learned have since ever considered it in this light; and many consider the second and third editions, notwithstanding the labours of any later critic, as the best we still have of Plautus. After his death was published, by his son, his 2. “Commentarius in Virgiliurn;” which Tanaquil Faber scruples not, in one of his letters, to call the best commentary we have upon Virgil; but this is not the general opinion. 3. “De lingua Latina dissertatio,” published by himself at Wittemburg in 1602. He also published other small pieces, and some Latin poetry. Taubmanniana came out at Leipsic in 1703: Taubman had a great turn for raillery, but whether any of his genuine witticisms can be found in this collection may reasonably admit of a doubt.

, a learned critic and philologist, was born at Shrewsbury, and baptised at St; Alkmund’s church June 22, 1704. His father followed the humble occupation of a barber, and his son wasdesigned for the same business but a strong passion for letters, which early displayed itself, being providentially fostered by the generous patronage of a neighbouring gentleman, enabled young Taylor to fill a far higher station in society than that to which he was entitled by his birth. The steps which led to this happy change in his situation are worthy of notice. Taylor, the father, being accustomed to attend Edward Owen, of Condover, esq. in his capacity of a barber, that gentleman used to inquire occasionally into the state of his family, for what trade he designed his son, &c. These inquiries never failed to produce a lamentation from the old man, of the untoward disposition of his son Jack, “whom,” said he, “I cannot get to dress a wig or shave a beard, so perpetually is he poring over books.” Such complaints, often repeated, at length awakened the attention of Mr. Owen, who determined to send him to the university, chiefly at his own expence. St. John’s in Cambridge, which has an intimate connection with the free-school of Shrewsbury, naturally presented itself as the place of his academical education; and Mr. Taylor was doubtless assisted by one of the exhibitions founded in the college for the youth of that school. Under this patronage he pursued his studies in the university, and regularly took his degrees, that of B. A. in 1727, and of M. A. in 1731, and in the preceding year was chosen fellow. Thus employed in his favourite occupations, the periods of his return into his native country were the only times which threw a transient clouJ over the happy tenor of his life. On such occasions he was expected to visit his patron, and to partake of the noisy scenes of riotous jollity exhibited in the hospitable mansion of a country gentleman of those days. The gratitude of young Taylor taught him the propriety of making these sacrifices of his own comfort; but it could not prevent him from sometimes whispering his complaints into the ears of his intimate friends. A difference of political opinion afforded a more serious ground of difference. A great majority of the gentry of Shropshire was at that period strenuous in their good wishes for the abdicated family. Though educated at Cambridge, Taylor retained his attachment to toryism, but did not adopt all its excesses; and he at length forfeited the favour of his patron, without the hopes of reconciliation, hy refusing to drink a Jacobite toast on his bare knees, as was then the custom. This refusal effectually precluded him from all hopes of sharing in the great ecclesiastical patronage at that time enjoyed by the Condover family, and inclined him, perhaps, to abandon the clerical profession for the practice of a civilian. But however painful to his feelings this quarrel with his benefactor might prove, he had the consolation to reflect that it could not now deprive him of the prospect of an easy competence. His character as a scholar was established in the university; he was become a fellow and tutor of his conege; and on the 30th of Jan. 1730, he was appointed to deliver the Latin oration then annually pronounced in St. Mary’s before the university on that solemn anniversary; and at the following commencement he was selected to speak the music speech, both of which were printed. This last performance, of which but two instances occur in the last century, viz. 1714 and 1730, was supposed to require an equal share of learning and genius: for, besides a short compliment in Latin to the heads of the university, the orator was expected to produce a humourous copy of English verses on the fashionable topics of the day, for the entertainment of the female part of his audience: and in the execution of this office (derived like the Terras filius of Oxford, from the coarse festivities of a grosser age) sometimes indulged a licentiousness which surprises one on perusal. The music speech of Mr. Taylor is sufficiently free; and, though it does some credit to his poetical talents, is not very civil to his contemporaries of Oxford, (whom he openly taxes with retaining their fellowships and wives at the expence of their oaths) or to the members of Trinity college, in his own university, whom he ironically represents as the only members of Cambridge who could wipe off the stigma of impoliteness imputed to them by the sister university. This speech was printed by his young friend and fellow collegian Mr. Bowyer, and the publication concludes with an ode designed to have been set to music. These were not the only effusions of Mr. Taylor’s muse, for in the Gent. Mag. 1779, p. 365, are some verses by him on the marriage of Lady Margaret Harley to the duke of Portland, and others reprinted by Mr. Nichols.

Of the moderns, Malebranche says, “Tertullian was a man of profound learning; but he had more memory than judgment, greater penetration and extent of imagination than of understanding. There is no doubt that he was a visionary, and had all the qualities I have attributed to visionaries. The respect he had for the visions of Montamis, and for his prophetesses, is an incontestable proof of the weakness of his judgment. His fire, his transports, his enthusiasms upon the most trifling subjects, plainly indicate a distempered imagination. What irregular motions are there in his hyperboles and figures! How many pompous and magnificent arguments, that owe all their force to their sensible lustre, and persuade many merely by g'ddying and dazzling the mind.” He then gives examples out of his book “De Paliio;” and concludes with saying, that “if justness of thought, with clearness and elegance of expression, should always appear in whatever a man writes, since the end of writing is to manifest the truth, it is impossible to excuse this author; who, by the testimony of even Salmasius, the greatest critic or our times, has laid out all his endeavours to become obscure; and has succeeded so well in what he aimed at, that this commentator was almost ready to swear, no man ever understood him perfectly.”

, a miscellaneous writer and critic, was born at Sittingbourn in Kent, in which place his father was an eminent attorney. His grammatical learning he received at Isleworth in Middlesex, and afterwards applied himself to the law; but, finding that pursuit tedious and irksome, he quitted it for the profession of poetry. According to the editors of the “Biog. Dramatica,” his first appearance in this profession was not much to his credit. One Henry Mestayer, a watchmaker, had written a play, which he submitted to the correction of Theobald, who formed it into a tragedy, and procured it to be acted and printed as his own. This compelled the watchmaker to publish his own performance in 1716, with a dedication to Theobald. The editors of the Biog. Dram, who appear to have examined both pieces, observe that Theobald, although unmercifully ridiculed by Pope, never appeared so despicable as throughout this transaction. “We had seen him before only in the light of a puny critic:” But here the fell attorney prowls for prey.“Theobald engaged in a paper called” The Censor,“published in Mist’s” Weekly Journal;“and, by delivering his opinion with too little reserve concerning some eminent wits, exposed himself to their resentment. Upon the publication of Pope’s Homer, he praised it in the most extravagant terms; but afterwards thought proper to retract his opinion, and abused the very performance he had before affected to admire. Pope at first made \ lie*, a.d tin* Jhto of his” Dunciad;“but afterwards thought proper to disrobe him of that dignity, and bestow it upon another. In 1726, Theobald published apiece in 8vo, called” Shakespear Restored:“of this, it is said, he was so vain as to aver, in one of Mist’s” Journals,“ct that to expose any errors in it was impracticable;” and, in another, *; that whatever care might for the future be taken, either by Mr. Pope, or any other assistants, he would give above five hundred emendations, that would escape them all.“During two whole years, while Pope was preparing his edition, he published advertisements, requesting assistance, and promising satisfaction to any who would contribute to its greater perfection. But this restorer, who was at that time soliciting favours of him by letters, wholly concealed that he had any such design till after its publication; which he owned in the” Daily Journal of Nov. 26, 1728.“Theobald was not only thus obnoxious to the resentment of Pope, but we find him waging war with Mr. Dennis, who treated him with more roughness, though with less satire. Theobald, in” The Censor,“N 33, calls Dennis by the name of Furius. Dennis, to resent this, in his remarks on Pope’s Homer, thus mentions him:” There is a notorious idiot, one Hight Whacum; who, from an under-spur-leather to the law, is become an understrapper to the playhouse, who has lately burlesqued the Metamorphoses of Ovid, by a vile translation, &c. This fellow is concerned in an impertinent paper called the Censor." Such was the language of Dennis, when inflamed by contradiction.

The compositions of this poet are distinguished among the ancients by the name of “I-iyllia,” in order to express the smallness and variety of their natures; they would novr be called “Miscellanies, or Poems on several Occasions.” The nine first and the eleventh are confessed to be true pastorals, and hence Theocritus has usually passed for nothing more than a pastoral poet: yet he is manifestly robbed of a great part of his fame, if his other poems have not their proper laurels. For though the greater part of his “Idyllia” cannot be called the songs of shepherds, yet they have certainly their respective merits. His pastorals doubtless ought to be considered as the foundation of his credit. He was the earliest known writer of pastorals, and will be acknowledged to have excelled all his imitators, as much as originals usually do their copies. There are, says Dr. Warton, “few images and sentiments in the Eclogues of Virgil, but what are drawn from the Idylliums of Theocritus: in whom there is a rural, romantic wildness of thought, heightened by the Doric dialect; with such, lively pictures of the passions, and of simple unadorned nature, as are infinitely pleasing to lovers and judges of true poetry. Theocritus is indeed the great store-house of pastoral description; and every succeeding painter of rural beauty (except Thomson in his Seasons) hath copied his images from him, without ever looking abroad upon the face of nature themselves.” The same elegant critic, in his dissertation on pastoral poetry, says, “If I might venture to speak of the merits of the several pastoral writers, I would say, that in Theocritus we are charmed with a certain sweetness, a romantic rusticity and wildness, heightened by the Doric dialect, that are almost inimitable. Several of his pieces indicate a genius of a higher class, far superior to pastoral, and equal to the sublimest species of poetry: such are particularly his Panegyric on Ptolemy, the fight between Amycus and Pollux, the Epithalamium of Helen, the young Hercules, the grief of Hercules for Hylas, the death of Pentheus, and the killing of the Neniean Lion.” At the same time it imi;t be allowed that Theocritus descends sometimes into gross and mean ideas, and makes his shepherds ahusive and immodest, which is never the case with Virgil.

Great encomiums have been bestowed upon this writer, particularly by Dupin, who asserts that “Of all the fathers who have composed works of different kinds, Theodoret is one of those who has succeeded the very best in every kind. Some have been excellent writers in matters of controversy, but bad interpreters of Scripture; others have been good historians, but bad divines; some have had good success in morality, who have had no skill in doctrinal points; those who have applied themselves to confute Paganism by their own principles and authors, have usually Lad little knowledge in the mysteries of our religion; and lastly, it is very rare for those. who have addicted themselves to works of piety to be good critics. Theodoret had all these qualities; and it may be said, that he has equally deserved the name of a good interpreter, divine, historian, writer in controversy, apologist for religion, and author of works of piety. But he hath principally excelled in his compositions on Holy Scripture, and has outdone almost all other commentators, according to the judgment of the learned Phqtius. His style, says that able critic, is veryproper for a commentary; for he explains, in just and significant terms, whatsoever is obscure and difficult in the text, and render* the mind more fit to read and understand it by the elegance of his style. He never wearies his reader with long digressions, but on the contrary labours to instruct him clearly, neatly, and methodically, in every thing that seems hard. He never departs from the purity and elegance of the Attic dialect, unless when he is obliged to speak of abstruse matters, to which the ears are not accustomed: for it is certain that he passes over nothing that needs explication; and it is almost impossible to find any interpreter who unfolds all manner of difficulties better, and teaves fewer things obscure. We may find many others who write elegantly and explain clearly, but we shall find few who have forgotten nothing which needed illustration, without being too diffuse, and without running out into digressions, at least such as are not absolutely necessary to clear the matter in hand. Yet this is what Theodoret has observed throughout his commentaries, in. which he hath opened the text admirably well by his accurate inquiries.” Other writers, however, have not expressed so high an opinion of Theodoret. Beausobre, in his History of the Manichees, says that “Theodoret is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable of the fathers. He is learned; he reasons well, especially in his dialogues against the Greek heresies of his times: he is a good literal interpreter of the Scriptures. I cannot help admiring his prudence and moderation, when I consider that he ended his Ecclesiastical History at the time when the Nestorian quarrels, in which he was so deeply interested, began. But, I fear, his zeal against heretics imposed upon him almost as much, as his admiration for the heroes of the ascetic life, with whom he was charmed. Monasteries have undoubtedly sent forth great men into the world, but these disciples of the monks contracted there in their youth a superstitious disposition, which is hardly ever thrown off; and the weak side of this able man seems to have been an excessive credulity.” In truth, Theodoret surpasses all other writers in admiration of monastic institutions, and is credulous beyond measure in subjects of that nature. Yet he was undoubtedly one of the most learned and best men in the Eastern church. His pacific conduct displeased the bigots, during the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, and because he inclined to healing methods, he was condemned at one of the synods, and was not without difficulty reinstated. “His works,” says Milner, “are large, on a variety of subjects; but they speak not for him equally with his life; and it will be sufficient to say, that his theology, with a stronger mixture of superstitioiij was of the same kind as that of Chrysostom. But his spirit was humble, heavenly, charitable; and he seems to have walked in the iaith, hope, and love of the gospel, a shining ornament in a dark age and country.”

, LL. D. a very ingenious and learned English critic, was the son of Mr. Thirlby, vicar of St. Margaret’s in Leicester, and born about 1692. He received his education first at the free-school of Leicester, under the rev. Mr. Kiiby, then head usher, from which school he was sent in three years to Jesus college, Cambridge, and shewed early in life great promise of excellence. From his mental abilities no small degree of future eminence was presaged: but the fond hopes of his friends were unfortunately defeated by a temper which was naturally indolent and quarrelsome, and by an unhappy addiction to drinking. Among his early productions of ingenuity was a Greek copy of verses on the queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon. In 1710 he published “The university of Cambridge vindicated from the imputation of disloyalty it lies under on account of not addressing; as also from the malicious and foul aspersions of Dr. Bentley, late master of Trinity college, and of a certain officer and pretended reformer in. the said university,” Lond. 1710. This was followed in 1712 by “An answer to Mr. Whiston’s seventeen suspicions concerning Athanasius, in his Historical Preface ,” and by two other pamphlets on the same subject. He obtained a fellowship of his college by the express desire of Dr. Charles Ashton, who said“he had had the honour of studying with him when young;” though he afterwards spoke very contemptuously of him as the editor of “Justin Martyr,” which appeared in 1723, in folio; and the dedication to which has always been consid-‘M’ed as a masterly production, in style particularly. After Thirlby’s publication of Justin, Dr. Ashton, perhaps to shew him that he had not done all that might have been done, published, in one of the foreign journals, “Some emendations of faulty passages,” which when Thirlby he said, slightingly, that “any man who would, might have made them, and a hundred more.” Thus far MI. Thirlby went on in the study of divinity; hut his versatility led him to try the round of the other learned professions. His next pursuit was physic, and for a while he was called “Doctor.” While he was a nominal physician, he lived some time with the duke of Chandos, as librarian, and is reported to have affected a perverse and indolent independence, so as capriciously to refuse his company when) it was desired. It may be supposed they were soon weary of each other.

“You are much mistaken,” says Dr. Ashton, in an unprinted letter to Dr. Moss, “in thinking Thirlby wants some money from you (though in truth he wants): you are only taken in to adorn his triumph by a letter of applause, though I think you may spare that too; for he is set forth in his coach, with great ostentation, to visit his patron. J have not had the patience to read all his dedication, but have seen enough to observe that it is stuffed with self-conceit, and an insolent contempt of others, Bentley especially, whom he again points out in p. 18*. He sticks not to fling scorn upon Justin himself, as a triflingwriter, beneath his dignity to consider, and so absurd a reasoner as only pessima litura can mend. 1 have read about sixty pages of his performance, and am really ashamed to find so much self-sufficiency, and insufficiency. I am almost provoked to turn critic myself, and let me tempt you to a little laughter, by promising to shew you some conceits upon Justin; which are under no name in Thirlby’s edition.”

As to his character, Horace, with whom he was intimately acquainted, as well as with the other wits of the Augustan age, gives him that of a fine writer and good critic:

This author has usually been printed in the same volume with Catullus and Propertius; and one of the best editions of him in conjunction with them is that by Graevius, “cum notia variorum,” Leyden, 1589, in 2 vols. 8vo. But he was afterwards, in 1*708, published separately at Amsterdam, in 1 vol. 4to, by Janus Brouckhusius, a very polite and elegant critic, who corrected many places from the best manuscripts, and added his own to the notes variorum. This edition is very neat, and adorned with copper-plates. An excellent edition in quarto was published by Vulpius, a professor at Padua (who also published Catullus and Propertius), in 1749. This was long esteemed the best, and is so still if we take splendour into the account; but two editions in 8vo, have since been published by the celebrated professor Heyne, of which the second of 1777 is, for use, one of the best editions of a classic author that has ever appeared. Tibullus has been translated into English with most success by Grainger, but some have thought it easy to suppose a better transfusion of his spirit into our language.

, a very eminent critic, was descended from a family formerly settled in Dorsetshire. His grandfather, Onesiphorus Toup, had been a man of good property, and patron, as well as incumbent, of Bridport in that county; but he appears to have been embarrassed in his circumstances before his death, as he parted with the advowson, and left a numerous family very slenderly provided for. His second son, Jonathan, was bred to the church, and was curate and lecturer of St. Ives, Cornwall. He married Prudence, daughter of John Busvargus, esq. of Busvargus in Cornwall, and by her had issue Jonathan, the subject of this memoir, and one daughter.

Jonathan, our critic, was born at St. Ives, in December 1713. He received the first principles of his education in a grammar-school in that town, and was afterwards placed under the care of Mr. Gurney, master of a private school, in the parish of St. Merryn. He was removed from this school to Exeter college, Oxford, where he took his degree of batchelor of arts; but his master of arts degree was taken at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, in 1756. In 1750, he was appointed to the rectory of St. Martin’s, and, in 1774, was installed prebendary of Exeter. In 1776, he was instituted to the vicarage of St. Merryn’s. He owed these two last pieces of preferment to the patronage of Dr. Keppel, bishop of Exeter.

In 1760, Mr. Toup published the first work which made him known to the world as a critic. This was the first part of his “Emendationes in Suidam, in quibus plurima loca veterum Grsecorum, Sophoclis et Aristophanis imprimis, cum explicantur turn emenclantur,” 8vo. The second part appeared in 1764. This work procured him the notice of bishop Warburton, who, from the time of its publication, honoured him with his correspondence and patronage. The bishop, in one of his letters, laments his having a see without any preferment on it: “had it been otherwise, he should have been too selfish to invite any of his brethren to share with him in the honour of properly distinguishing such merit as Mr. Toup’s.” All, however, that the bishop could do, he did with the warmth and earnestness of sincere friendship. He repeatedly recommended Mr. Toup to archbishop Seeker, to the trustees for disposing of his options, to lord Shelburne, and to bishop Keppel; and the favours that prelate conferred on Mr. Toup were owing to the solicitations of bishop Warburton.

Mr. Toup’s next work was the “Appendiculum notarum in Suidam,” 177.5, which may be considered as a fourth volume of his “Emendationes.” He closed his labours in 1773 by his edition of “Longinus,” which places his fame as a critic, on an imperishable basis. Indeed as a writer of profound learning, and singular critical sagacity, Mr. Toup must be acknowledged to rank wirli the most eminent men, in those departments. Dr. Buruey, uhose right to judge cannot easily be disputed, place* him as one of the seven pre-eminent scholars who were the critical luminaries of the eighteenth century. As his life was passed in literary retirement, his personal character was known to few. Hrefailings seem principally confined to his works, in which we are often led to lament an excess of conceit, and a petulant manner of noticing his contemporaries. He censured too freely, and praised too sparingly. In private life he was a kind neighbour, an indulgent master, and an affectionate and tender relation. He was a man, too, of great humanity, which he delighted to extend to the brute creation. We may suppose he also carefully attended to his duties as a parish priest, for, of all things, he expressed the greatest aversion to non-residence, and rejected every proposal to quit his situation upon such terms. Mr. Toup died Jan. 19, 1785, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried under the communion table in his church of St. Martin. He bequeathed his property to a half-sister, a widow, and her daughters, who lived with him. It was one of his whims, in his latter writings to call himself Joannes, instead of Jonathan Toup. Many additional particulars respecting this excellent scholar may be found in our authority.

Dr. Trapp acquired fame in his day by a great variety of writings, theological, critical, controversial, political, and poetical. He seems to have valued himself as a translator, in which he was confessedly unsuccessful. When appointed poetry professor, he gave a regular course of lectures in very elegant Latin, which were published in 1718, in three vols, octavo, under the title of “Prelectiones Poeticae.” A translation appeared afterwards: but, although he acquitted himself in these lectures as a good critic, he was not able to exemplify his own rules, and his translation of Virgil bears no resemblance to the original, owing to an imprudent choice of words and figures, and a total want of harmony. He had most success in a Latin translation of “Anacreon,” for Latin poetry was his forte; but failed when he attempted to transfuse the spirit of Milton into that language.

, an eminent critic and translator, was born at Andeli, a small village near Rouen in Normandy, in 1512. Two nations have contended for the honour of his hirth; the trench, who say he was descended of a noble but decayed family in Normandy; and the Scotch, who have discovered (Dempster, and after him Mackenzie) that his French name Tourncbceuf is no other than Turnbully and that he was the son of a Scotch gentleman of that name who married in Normandy. Whatever may be in this, Turnebus, for that is the name he took in his writings and correspondence, came to Paris at the age of eleven, and soon made such progress in classical and polite literature as to surpass all his fellow-students, and even, we are told, his masters. He had every qualification indeed to form an accomplished scholar, great memory, indefatigable application, and both taste and judgment far beyond his years. Before these all difficulties vanished, and his avidity and knowledge knew no intermi-sion in his after-life. Even on the day of his marriage, it is said, he devoted some hours to study.

, a celebrated grammarian of Constantinople, died about the end of the twelfth century. Being put under proper masters at fifteen, he learnt not only the belles lettres, and the whole circle of sciences, but even the Hebrew and Syriac tongues. He had a prodigious memory, and, it is said, was able to repeat all the Scriptures by heart. He seems to have been a most accomplished person, who understood almost every thing; but was a severe critic on the performances of others, and not without a considerable share of vanity. He wrote “Commentaries upon Lycophron’s Alexandria,” which he published first under the name of his brother, Isaac Tzetzes: they are inserted by Potter in his edition of this poet at Oxford, 1697, in folio. He wrote also “Chiliades,” or miscellaneous histories, in verse, which Fabricius calls his most celebrated work, as abounding with political and civil knowledge; “Scholia upon Hesiod;” “Epigrams and other Poems;” “Pieces upon Grammar and Criticism.” He mentions also “Allegories upon Homer,” which he dedicated to the empress Irene, wife of Manuel Comnenus. This empress was married in 1143, and died in 1158, which nearly ascertains the age of Tzetzes. The “Allegories” of this author were published by Morel, Paris, 1616, 8vo, and the “Chiliades,” at Basil, 1546, fol.

He had two sons, one a captain of the navy, who died in the same year with his father; the other, John Upton, born in 1707, who, after receiving a classical education at his father’s school at Taunton, was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1728, and proceeded M. A. in 1732. In the same year the celebrated critic Toup became his pupil, and during the whole of his residence in the university had no other tutor. In 1736 he vacated his fellowship. Having been tutor to the sons of lord chancellor Talbot, that nobleman gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Rochester; besides which he had the rectory of Sevington cum Dinnington, in Somersetshire, by the gift of the earl Powlett; afterwards the rectory of Great Rissington, in Gloucestershire, conferred upon him by earl Talbot, who, as just mentioned, had been one of his pupils; and lastly, he was also rector of the sinecure of Llandrillo, in Denbighshire, in the diocese of St. Asaph, given to him by the bishop. He never married, and died at Taunton, Dec. 9, 1760, in the fifty-third year of his age.

, or Henry de Valois, a French critic of great abilities and learning, was born at Paris in 1603, of parents, whose circumstances supported them without any profession. He began his studies at Verdun in 1613, under the Jesuits, and the greatest hopes were formed of him from his childhood. He was recalled to Paris five years after, and continued there in the college of Clermont; where he learned rhetoric under Petavius, who, as well as father Sirmond, conceived a great esteem for him. After having maintained his theses in philosophy with much applause, he went to Bourges in 1622, to study the civil law; and at the end of two years returned to Paris, where he was received advocate. He frequented the bar for seven years, but more to oblige his father than out of any fondness for the law, which he at length quitted, and devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. Greek and Latin authors were all his study, and all his pleasure. Sunday he consecrated to devotion, Saturday afternoon he allotted to his friends; but all the rest of the week was spent in reading and labour. His own library not sufficing, he borrowed books of every body; and he used to say, that he learned more from other people’s books than his own, because, not having the same opportunity of reviewing them, he read them over with more care. He acquired a great reputation by his learning and publications, when a misfortune befel him, which interrupted the course of his studies. He had always a weak sight; but continual application had hurt him so, in this respect, that he lost his right eye, and saw very indifferently with the left. This put him under the necessity of having a reader; for, though his father was of too sparing a humour to make him an allowance for this purpose, yet the defect was supplied by the generosity of his friends. His father, however, died in 1650; and then his circumstances were better suited to his necessities. The same year he composed an oration in praise of Christina queen of Sweden, who had just ascended the throne; and her majesty, by way of acknowledging the favour, promised to send him a gold chain, and gave him at the same time an invitation to accompany the learned Bochart to Sweden. But the chain never came, and the invitation ended in nothing, for which Valesius himself is said to have been to blame, having been so imprudent, while he was meditating this journey, as to make use of some satirical expressions on the learned in those parts; which, being related to the queen, occasioned her majesty’s neglect of him.

In 1660, Valesius was honoured with the title of historicgrapber of France; and had also a pension settled on him by the king, in consideration of his edition of Eusebius, which had appeared the year before. In 1662 he lost his left eye, so that now he was blind; and, notwithstanding all the skill of oculists, the most that could be done for him was, to enable him to see a little with the left eye, a new cataract, almost as soon as it was removed, forming itself again in the right. In 1663 he had an addition to his pension from the crown. He had hitherto lived among his books, but now, at the age of sixty, he surprized his friends by marrying a handsome young woman, by whom he had seven children. He died the seventh of May, 1676, having spent the two last years of life in all the miseries of one oppressed with infirmities. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and an admirable critic; but his disposition was far from being amiable. He was sparing in his praise, but so tenacious of the respect he thought due to him, as to resent the smallest attempt to criticise or find fault with what he wrote, and this irritable temper increased with his years.

, an Italian historian, poet, and critic, was born at- Florence in 1502. His father, a lawyer, placed him with a master, who reported that he was not fit for literature, and advised him to breed the boy up to merchandise. He was accordingly sent to a counting-­house, and there his masters discovered that he never was without a book, and minded nothing but reading. His father then, after examining him, found that he had been deceived by the school-master, and determined to give his son a learned education, and for that purpose sent him to Padua and Pisa. Unfortunately, however, he prescribed the study of the law, which Varchi relished as little as commerce; and although, out of filial respect, he went through the usual courses, he immediately, on his father’s death, relinquished both the study and practice of the law, and determined to devote all his attention to polite literature. In this he acquired great reputation; but when Florence became distracted by civil commotions, he joined the party in opposition to the Medici family, and was banished. During his exile he resided at Venice, Padua, and Bologna, where his talents procured him many friends; and his works having diffused his reputation more widely, Cosmo de Medicis had the generosity to forgive the hostility he had shewn to his family, and, respecting him as a man of letters, recalled him home, and appointed him his historiographer. In this capacity he recommended him to write the history of the late revolutions in Florence. All this kindness, accompanied with a handsome pension, produced a great change in the mind of the republican Varchi, who became now the equally zealous advocate of monarchy. As soon as he had finished a part of it, he submitted it to the inspection of his patron, and some copies were taken of it. These being seen by soma persons who suspected that he would make free with their characters, or the characters of their friends, they conspired to assassinate the apostate author, as they thought him; and having one night attacked him, left him weltering in his blood, but his wounds were not mortal; and although it is said he knew who the assassins were, he declined appearing against them. He was, however, so much affected by the affair, that he embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and obtained some preferment. He died at Florence in 1565. His history, which extends from 1527 to 1538, was not published until 1721, at Cologne, and reprinted at Leydeu 1723; but both these places are wrong, as both editions were published in Italy. There is a recent edition, Milan, 1803, 5 vols. 8vo. The style, like that of all his works, is pure and elegant, though a little too much elaborated. The facts, of course, are strongly tinctured with an attachment to the house of Medici.

a Jesuit of France, eminently distinguished for his accomplishments in the belles-lettres, was born in 1605, at Paray, a small town in Charolois, in the diocese of Autun. He entered into the society of the Jesnits in 1621; and, after having finished the course of his studies, taught polite literature and rhetoric for seven years. Afterwards he was called to Paris, to explain the Holy Scriptures; which province he sustained for six and thirty years, all the while cultivating poetry and classical literature, in which he particularly excelled. He died at Paris in Dec. 1681. He understood the Latin tongue very exactly, and also spoke it with the greatest purity and elegance. He was a man of good talents, great acuteness, solid and accurate judgment, and profound learning; so that he had all the qualities necessary to make him, what he was generally allowed to be, a very good critic.

, a very useful biographer and bibliographer, was born at Montbrison en Forez, Nov. 11, 1544. He appears to have served the king both in a military and civil capacity, and was historiographer and gentleman in ordinary to his majesty. He died at Duerne, Sept. 25, 1600. In his youth he had cultivated poetry, but of his poetical efforts he published only some indifferent specimens in his great work. He had, according to Scaliger, a fine library of Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Latin authors, and was conversant in books of all kinds. The fruits of his labours were, 1. “La Prosopographie, ou Description des personnes insignes, &c. avec les effigies d‘aucuns d’iceux, et braves observations de leur temps, annees, fails, et dits,” Lyons, 1373, 4to. This he reprinted three times with improvements; and the last, left also by him for the press, was published by his son Claude, who made some, few additions at Paris in 1603, 3 vols. folio. This is a very miscellaneous compilation, in which, although there are a few particulars of the eminent men of his time, it requires some patience to find them. 2. “Les Diverses lemons d'Antoine Duverclier, suivant celJes de P. Messi-e,” Lyons, 1576, 8vo. Of this there have been several editions, the most complete of which is that ofTournon, 1605. These legons were part of Duverdier’s extracts, in the course of his reading, from various Greek, Latin, and Italian authors, 3. “Le Compseutique, ou Traits facetieux,” 12mo; but there are some doubts whether this, which did not appear until 1584-, was not the compilation of another author. 4. “La Bibliotheque d'Ant. Duverdier, contenant le catalogue de tons les auteurs qui ont ecrit ou traduit en Frangais, avec le supplement Latin, du meme Duverdier, a la biblioiheque de Gesner,” Lyons, 1585, folio. Croix Du Maine’s work of the same kind had appeared the year before, and was thought to be the best executed of the two; but they have both been republished with so many improvements, that, like Moreri’s, they retain very little of the original authors. This improved edition was the production of Rigoley and Juvigny, who added the notes of Lamonnoye, the president Bouhier and Falconet, and published the whole in six handsome volumes, 4to, under the title of Les Bibliotheques Franchises de Lacroix du Maine et de Duverdier,“1772. The work is undoubtedly still capable of improvement, but, as it is, it forms a very valuable addition to the bibliographical library. There is a copy in the king’s library at Paris, with a vast mass of ms additions and corrections by Mercier de Saint-Leger. Le Long and some others attribute to Du. Verdier” La Biographic et Prosopographie des rois de France jusqu'a Henri III.“Paris, 1583, and 1586, 8vo. But others have doubted this, because he makes no mention of it in a list of his works which he wrote in 1585, and in which he gave not only what he had published, but what remained in manuscript, such as a translation of Seneca, &c. His son, Claude Verdier, was born about 1566, and had the ambition to become an author, but turned out to be a bad poet and a worse critic; he also spent the property his father left him, and lived an obscure and miserable life till about 1649, which is said to have been its period. The worst feature of his character is the disrespectful manner in which he has treated his father’s talents and labours, in a work which he published in 1586, and 1609, 4to, entitled” In autores pene omnes anttquos potissimum censiones et correctiones." It is a sufficient character of this work, that he blames Virgil for his bad Latin.

, an elegant modern Latin poet and critic, was a native of Cremona, and was born, as is generally thought, about 1470, but with more probability about 1480. His parents were not wealthy, yet enabled to give him a good education. After having made considerable proficiency in philosophy, theology, an-d political science, he came to Rome in the latter part of the pontificate of Julius II. and appears to hate mixed in the literary societies of the place; and his poem on the game of chess, “Scacchiae Ludus,” introduced hi fcothe favour of Leo X. who received him with particular distinction and kindness, admitted him as an attendant at court, and rewarded him with honours and emoluments. But that upon which the poet appears chiefly to have congratulated himself was, that his works were read and approved by the pontiff himself. It was at the suggestion of Leo that he began his celebrated “Cbristiad,” which he afterwards completed in six books, but Leo did not live to see it finished. It was, however, published under the patronage of Clement VII. in 1535. In the mean time Clement had already raised Vida to the rank of apostolical secretary, and in 1532, conferred on him the bishopric of Alba. Soon after the death of that pontiff, Vida retired to his diocese, and was present at its defence against the attack of the French in 1542, where his exhortations and example animated the inhabitants successfully to oppose the enemy. After having attended in his episcopal character at the council of Trent, and taken an active part in the ecclesiastical and political transactions of the times, he died at his see at Alba, Sept. 27, 1566, more respected for his talents, integrity, and strict attention to his pastoral duties, than for the wealth which he had amassed from his preferments.

The poet’s bays and critic’s ivy grow."

The first specimen of the talents of Vida in Latin poetry appeared in a collectoin of pieces on the death of the poet Aquila, which happened in 1500, towards which he contributed two piees, which were published in that collection at Bologna, in 1504. His whole works were first printed at Romae in 1527 and 1535, in 2 vols. 4to, but he published a more complete edition at Cremona, 1550, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains, “Hymni de rebus divinis,” and “Christiados libri sex” the second “De Arte Poetica libri tres;” “De Bombyce libri duo;” Scacchiae Ludus“”Bucolica;“” Eclogæ, et Carmina diversi generis.“Besides the poems comprehended in these two volumes, others are ascribed to him, as” Italorum Pugilum cum totidem Gallis certamen;“” Carmen Pastorale in Obltum Juliill. Pontificis Maximi;“” Epicedion in Funera Oliverii Cardinalis Caraphæ;“but these he disavowed in a postscript to the above edition of his poems. He was also the author of some pieces in prose, as” Dialogi de Republics Dignitate“” Orationes tres Cremonensium adversus Papienses in Controversia Principatus“and” Constitutiones Synodales Civitati Albæ et Diœcesi prescriptæ.“Of such of these works, a-s his reputation as a Latin poet is at this day founded on, his three books” De Arte Poetica“were probably the first produced; and these were soon afterwards followed by the” Bombyx,“and by his” Scacchias Ludus,“which, as we noticed, introduced him to Leo X. The” Bombyx,“or silk-worm, is written with classical purity, and with a just mixture of the styles of Lucretius and Virgil. Dr. Warton says it was a happy choice to write a poem on” Chess;“nor is the execution less happy.” The various stratagems and manifold intricacies of this ingenious game, so difficult to be described in Latin, are here expressed with the greatest perspicuity and elegance; so that, perhaps, the game might be learned from this description.“Of the” Christiad,“the same excellent critic observes, that amidst many prosaic flatnesses, there are many fine strokes in this poem; particularly his angels, with respect to their persons and insignia, are drawn with that dignity which we so much admire in Milton, who seems to have had his eye on those passages. The” Poetics,“however, are perhaps the most perfect of his compositions; he had formed himself upon Virgil, who is therefore his hero, and he has too much depreciated Homer. He is, in truth, so much an imitator of Virgil as to be very defective in originality. Although his precepts principally regard epic poetry, yet many of them are applicable to every species of composition. This poem has the praise of being one of the first, if not the very first piece of criticism, that appeared in Italy since the revival of learning; for it was finished, as is evident from a short advertisement prefixed to it, in 1520. We have an excellent translation of this poem by Pitt, and one more recent, with notes, by Mr. Hampson. There are, if we mistake not, English translations also of the” Game of Chess,“a'.id the” Bombyx." Of his original works, the best recent editions are that of Oxford, by Tristram, 1722, 4 vols. 8vo, with elegant plates; that of the Vulpii (including the prose works) Padua, 1731, 2 vols. 4to.

But the fruits of his long studies were now about to appear in a manner more conspicuous, or at least more conducive to his credit as a scholar, A small tract, in quarto, which he published in 1793, marked him to the learned world as a diligent investigator of historical facts, and an acute, though modest, verbal critic. This publication, which tends to clear up an almost desperate passage in Livy, was, with very good judgment, written in Latin, that it might be submitted not only to domestic but to foreign critics. It is entitled, “De Legione Manlian&, Quicstio ex Livio desumta, et Rei militaris Romanae studiosis proposita.” Subjoined to it is what the author has termed * An Explanatory Translation' in English. Polybius, in his description of the construction of the Roman legian, has given an account of it, which seems entirely irreconcileable with what Livy has said, in the eighth book of his History, of a manoeuvre of the great general Manlius in the management of his own army against the Latins. As both authors must have been perfectly well acquainted with the subject, the difficulty was to reconcile the difference between them, without supposing a mistake on either side.

The principal works of Dean Vincent have now been distinctly enumerated; as forming an important part of his history, as a literary man; but he wrote occasionally in periodical works, in which he had no other interest, but such as arose from the general wish to promote the progress of sound literature, both sacred and profane; or to benefit the editors of works whose design was of that nature. His communications to the “Classical Journal” were not many, but va|uable, and regularly signed with his name. They were these 1. On Ancient Commerce No. v. p. 60. 2. On China, as known to Classic Authors No. xiii. p. 32. 3. On Theophilus, an African Bishop No. xiv. p. 382. 4. On the Geography of Susiana; Suppl. to No. xviii. p. 449. 5. Correction of an Error in the Periplus; No. xx. p. 322. The contributions of Dr. Vincent to the “British Critic” commenced at a very early period of that publication, and were never entirely discontinued till the close of the first series. The friendship with which he honoured the original editor of that work, together with his entire approbation of the design and principles, with which it was undertaken and conducted, made him at all times ready to give his aid to it, when his other occupations and studies would permit. As he was always completely a volunteer, so the choice of his subjects, as well as of his opportunities, was left entirely to himself. These communications were not marked with his name, because it was not suitable to the practice of the Review, but he had no particular wish to be concealed, and his biographer has accordingly given a list of his articles, with useful remarks, for which, on account of its length, we must refer to our authority.